Alexandra Bagasheva

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation1

1. Introduction2

As a complex, emergent, adaptive (sign) system (Frank 2015) language

offers resources for expressing almost anything (see Cruse 2000 on the
“infinite expressive capacity of language”). What is more, it offers a
number of alternatives for a single intended message. The plethora of
competing possibilities for mapping content with linguistic form chal-
lenges users to choose the best presentational design on the basis of
communicative needs and activated cognitive models. The choices occur
at all levels of patterning of linguistic elements, including the forma-
tion of complex words. All consecutive choices contribute towards the
expression of meaning, which interactants in communicative exchanges
co-construct.
Allowing for a certain degree of overgeneralisation, in the long
history of the study of meaning in language (more than 2,000 years,
according to Murphy 2010 and Geeraerts 2010), two main paradigms
can be recognised: realistic/objectivist semantics and cognitive/experi-
ential semantics. The two follow distinct research agendas, and ascribe
different ontologies to meaning but, most importantly, they study dif-
ferent kinds of meaningfulness in language. The realistic/objectivist
paradigm focuses on mapping names to objects in a possible world
and on the truthfulness of an expression. Within this logical, objectivist
framework parts of names cannot be matched onto anything in a pos-
sible world out there, consequently nothing below the word can mean.

1 Author’s email address: a.bagasheva@uni-sofia.bg; affiliation: Sofia University

St. Kliment Ohridski (Bulgaria).
2 The set of semantic comparative concepts was compiled with the unfailing help
and intellectual guidance of Pavol Štekauer, to whom I am greatly indebted.
34  Alexandra Bagasheva

This implies that the objectivist, truth-based approach to meaning is not

applicable to the study of word-formation semantics. Naturally, if we
are to look into the internal makeup of words and their semantics, we
need to look for a theory of meaning that recognizes the possibility of
meaningfulness of the constituents of composites. One such theory is
the cognitivist approach to meaning in language. Within the cognitivist
paradigm3 (Gärdenfors 1999) meaning is conceptualization in a cogni-
tive model. Cognitive models are mainly perceptually determined and
concepts are characterised by prototype effects. Gärdenfors (1999: 20)
maintains that cognitivist semantics is lexical in nature, i.e. “the empha-
sis is on lexical meaning rather than on the meaning of sentences.” As
concepts might be formed from atoms (Murphy 2002), it follows that
lexical meaning can also be constructed out of the meanings of the con-
stituents of complex lexemes. In what follows I try to specify the nature
of the meaning of complex words4 and how it can be accounted for in
the case of affixation, which is viewed as the prototypical instance of
derivation (the latter, understood as new complex lexeme formation),
and which leads to the enrichment of the lexicon.
The notion of a complex word itself presumes the properties of
constituency and combinability. The immediate question arises as to the
nature of the constituents that make up a complex word. Going back to
the units and levels of language patterning associated with the classical
structuralist tradition (e.g. Benveniste 1971) and to Hockett’s (1966)
design features, meaningfulness is a paramount characteristic of linguis-
tic elements other than phonemes, and it implies that the constituents
of complex lexemes are meaningful linguistic elements. In turn, this
suggests that morphemes, as the parsable parts of affixally derived com-
plex words, are meaningful elements and we should be able to account
for their semantics (see however various arguments against this point,
e.g. Aronoff 1976, even recognising morphomes as in Aronoff 1994).
What is more, the notion of combinability in language, especially in

3 I subscribe to the general cognitivist tenets, not to the formal cognitive seman-
tics model based on conceptual spaces (Gärdenfors 1999).
4 The terms lexeme and word are used interchangeably here despite controversies
in the definitions of both. Since the contentious issues relating to the (possi-
ble) demarcation between inflection and derivation are not touched upon in this
chapter, the use of both terms as coterminous will not cause any confusion.
Comparative semantic concepts in affixation 35

relation to meaning and complex forms is inextricably intertwined with

the notion of compositionality (Hoeksema 2000; Janssen 2012; etc.).
Compositionality, in its turn, presupposes the combination of mean-
ingful elements into a semantic whole. However cautiously defined as
a requirement for the meaning of a complex expression to be deter-
mined by the meanings of the parts and the operations performed on
those parts (Bach 1989: 46), “the requirement of compositionality is the
stumbling block of all extant semantic theories” (Jaszczolt 2010: 202).
Despite the unavoidable difficulties inherent in this field, includ-
ing, among others, the claims for the unattainability of a semantic
description of meaning in word-formation, this chapter is intended to
outline a set of cross-linguistically applicable semantic categories (con-
cepts) for the study of affixal derivation or affixation. To this end, the
chapter is organised as follows: section 2 discusses the specificity of
linguistic meaning in relation to word-formation. Section 3 focuses on
meaning in relation to affixation. Section 4 discusses possibilities for
cross-linguistic research on meaning in affixation. Section 5 presents a
set of semantic categories for cross-linguistic research. Finally, section
6 reviews the major claims of this chapter and presents the main con-
clusions.

2. Meaning and word-formation

2.1 Overview

Meaning, as Jackendoff (2002: 267) phrases it, is the “holy grail” of

linguistics. Linguistic meaning has generated an enviable amount of
literature from various fields of study, including linguistics, philoso-
phy, psychology and neuroscience. A single chapter cannot do justice
to the cornerstones in the history of its study in semantics. The mean-
ing of lexemes (words) is just one aspect of linguistic semantics, i.e.
lexical semantics, an area which remains an open issue in language
description (see, e.g. Geeraerts 2010; Murphy 2010). Zooming in
36  Alexandra Bagasheva

further, the immediate area of interest here is the meaning of derived,

complex words.
Lexical semantics as a branch of linguistic semantics is concerned
with the meaning of the elements of the lexicon, engaged specifically
with the nature of the relations between words and their meanings, the
syntagmatic and paradigmatic meaning relations among words, the
manner in which words are understood by language users, the mecha-
nisms by which the meanings of words change, etc. But an immediate
question arises: do simple and complex words acquire their meanings
(or simply mean) in the same way?
The answer is a resounding no. The difference may be read off
Booij & Masini’s (2015: 48) claim that the central task of morphology
is “to provide a proper account of how the meanings of complex words
are computed.” According to Saussure (1968: 296), the difference stems
from the opposition between arbitrariness and motivation. The meaning
of simple words results from conventional, arbitrary mappings between
form and content and speakers have to learn these by heart one piece at
a time. By contrast, the meaning of non-lexicalised complex words is at
least partially constructed, ergo motivated, and potentially computable.
It is based on the meanings associated with the parts and hypotheses
about the nature of the relationship that holds them together in a com-
posite whole,5 and partly on the various associative relations among
linguistic units of the same type. The first type of motivating factors
is associated with syntagmatic relations among constitutive linguistic
elements, while the second type derives from paradigmatic relations
among elements of equal status.
Even though the interest in the meaning of words dates as
far back as Aristotle’s time (for insightful overviews, see Geer-
aerts 2010; Paradis 2013; etc.), the semantics of complex words or
word-formation is a considerably novel area of rigorous research. In
2004 the complaint about the lack of a comprehensive semantic theory
to supplement morphological accounts of word-formation still both-
ered linguists (Lieber 2004). Even today, meaning computation and

5 The term composite whole is used for any derived, non-simplex word regard-
less of whether it has been formed by affixation, conversion, compounding
or any other among the generally recognised major non-extra-grammatical
word-formation patterns.
Comparative semantic concepts in affixation 37

analysis in word-formation are associated predominantly with open

questions rather than with unanimous consensus or with a recognisa-
ble semantic theory available for research (see, e.g. Rainer, Dressler,
Gardani & Luschützky 2014; Bauer, Körtvélyessy & Štekauer 2015).
Admittedly, in view of the different processes of word-formation and
of the various theoretical standpoints available to account for them,
a unified theory of the meaning of complex words is highly improb-
able. The correlation between the process of formation of a complex
lexeme and its meaning can easily be read off Ludlow’s (2014) claims
for a strong correlation between the underdetermination of lexical
concepts and the processes of linguistic entrenchment through which
interactants in communicative acts negotiate the association of shared
meanings with linguistic expressions. It is natural to assume that the
types of meanings and ways in which these are associated with lin-
guistic expressions will be different for complex words derived via
different processes.
The identification of a plausible set of semantic categories for
the description of affixal products requires clarification of two notions:
lexical concept (in section 2.2) and affixation (in section 2.3).

2.2 Semantic categories in derivation

Concepts6 are directly grounded in, and continuous with embodied

experience (Evans 2009). Human language is a system of perceptual
symbols, whereby it does not encode holistically the entirety of the
brain state that underlies a perception; it provides schematic aspects of
modally recorded perceptions via providing the simulator cues (Barsalou
1999; 2008). Language provides a means of structuring/assembling
re-activations of body-based experience to produce compositionally
complex simulations. In other words, language functions as a “scaffold”
whose main task is to fine-tune “the parameter settings of a simulator
in the conceptual system via specific linguistic cues” (Sickinger 2012:

6 The term concept is used in the chapter in two distinct senses. The sense in
which it is used here is the cognitivist understanding of concepts as mental
representations of categories speakers are familiar with (Murphy 2002). The
second sense is a theoretical construct whose essence is elaborated in section 4.
38  Alexandra Bagasheva

139, emphasis added). Among such linguistic cues, lexical concepts

occupy a central place. They provide access to large knowledge struc-
ture, streamlined by the specific linguistic encoding. In short, lexical
concepts are associated with lexical items and function as alternative
schematic evocative attentional cues for perceptual states encoded
in memory. Both Fillmore (2006) and Langacker (2008) insist that
word meaning is always relativised against larger knowledge struc-
tures. Frames are central among these knowledge structures since, as
Barsalou & Hale (1993: 131) contend, “[h]uman knowledge appears
to be frames all the way down.” Fillmore (2006: 378) defines the cor-
relation between frames, construal mechanisms and lexical items as a
mutually implicating one: “[frame is] the structured way in which the
scene is presented or remembered, we can say that the frame structures
the word-meanings, and that the word “evokes” the frame.” Besides
being central for the emancipation of lexical concepts, frames appear to
be of relevance within word-formation as well. Similar relevance can be
found in the following quotation by Koch (1999: 153, emphasis added):

[f]rames, which are relevant not only to metonymies but also to certain types
of word formation, can ‒ and in fact, should ‒ be defined onomasiologically, so
that even cross-over links within one and the same frame realized in different
languages, concepts which have not yet been expressed, senses of a given word
which do not yet exist, and new words which have not yet been fanned can all
be provided for.

Not only does Koch emphasize the necessity of contiguities provided by

frames for properly understanding conceptual (onomasiological) cate-
gories, but he also provides the semantic (onomasiological) grounds for
cross-linguistic research utilising frames to study meaning-form corre-
lations from a word-formational perspective.

2.3 The semantics of affixation

Further narrowing down the perspective of word-formation, a definition

of affixation is needed. Striving for a theory-neutral definition simpli-
fies the issue at least in part, but without a working definition trying
to capture the intuitions of native speakers and not the constructs of
Comparative semantic concepts in affixation 39

theorists, no actual account can be provided for the process of affixa-

tion. Siding with Lieber (2009: 2–3), who claims that morphology is
the study of the intuitive knowledge of native speakers of how to make
up new words and to make judgements about them, I assume that native
speakers perceive morphemes as “the minimal meaningful units that
are used to form words” (Lieber 2009: 32; see, however, word-based
approaches, e.g. Beard 1992).
Affixation is defined as the combination of a base and an affix,
where the latter is a bound morpheme with less “substantial mean-
ing” and higher productivity/combinability than a bound base (see,
among others, Lieber 2009: 32–34). The vexed question of the status
of affixes in the lexicon and the issue of their meaningfulness are far
from settled. Yet, according to Berg (2015: 152), a range of scholars
from various frameworks and persuasions, i.e. from cognitivists for
whom all units and elements are meaningful through scholars like Plag
(2003) and Baeskow (2010) to generativists such as Lehrer (1995) and
Aronoff & Cho (2001), “[…] have made a case for the meaningfulness
of affixes.” Despite the lack of a unanimous position, Berg (2015: 152)
concludes that we can “[…] take for granted the lexical nature of der-
ivational affixes.”
Even if we do not commit ourselves to a side in the debate, we
can still acknowledge the meaning contributing functions of affixes in
affixation on the basis of the maximization-of-opportunity premise,
according to which the lexical system is highly productive and “[…]
all representations that can be activated will be activated” (Gagné &
Spalding 2014: 154). In that sense, even if we are still not equipped with
the right tools, constructs or terminology to describe the meaning of
affixes, we can assume that the traces they have left in memory in asso-
ciative contexts will be activated and will contribute to the computation
of the meaning of the whole.
Skepticism about the possibility of studying the semantics of
affixation abounds to the point of denying its very possibility. It has
been claimed that “even the less restricted theory of the semantics of
derivation, which allows reference to syntactico-semantic dimensions,
must be untenable” (Aronoff 1984: 48).
40  Alexandra Bagasheva

However, thirty years after this pronouncement, it is clear that

there is something special about meaning in relation to word-formation,
which can be directly gleaned from Baeskow’s contention that “word-for-
mation involves aspects of meaning, which are neither predicted by the
syntax nor reducible to dictionary entries” (Baeskow 2015: 39). The
problem with negative definitions is that they provide very loose bound-
aries and project an underspecified, wide conceptual space within which
too many possibilities fit to be of any analytical value. So we know that
the meaning of affixation is not the lexical meaning of the base, nor the
lexicalised meaning of the output and that it cannot be reduced to the
meanings of the individual components in the process of naming, but
what it is remains elusive.
Admittedly, the problems of studying meaning are most demand-
ing in word formation for the following pertinent questions still remain
pretty much open:

• Are the categories employed in lexical semantics adequate and

sufficient to capture the specificity of word-formation semantics?
• What element in the process and/or product should be focused
on (sources –including bases and all other types of constituent
elements–, pattern, output, or the generalisable interaction
between the three at once)?
• Are “sets of types or rules of word-formation with the same
function” (Lehman 2015: 850) the most suitable and typologi-
cally relevant descriptive tools?
• Do “schemata, i.e. mental representations of the knowledge
which human beings share about objects and events in the world”
(Baeskow 2015: 83) provide a viable alternative? Can semantic
roles, based on schemata, prove the tools that provide formal and
theoretical neutrality with high methodological value (Ortner &
Ortner 2015: 910)?
• Are semantic categories analytically profitable in cross-linguistic
research counter Rijkhoff (2009: 96), who claims that “semantic
categories are so vague that it is not possible to say what is actu-
ally being compared or investigated”?, etc.
Comparative semantic concepts in affixation 41

The answer to the first question should be in the negative, since cate-
gories and terms in lexical semantics apply to both simplex and com-
plex words, as well as fully lexically specified constructions (idioms, set
phrases, cultural formulas, etc.). Consequently, they are too general and
capture features of meaning shared by all three types of lexemes and do
not specifically delineate features of derived lexemes. Accepting that
language is a complex adaptive system (Beckner et al. 2009) and mean-
ing in language is a synergetic, emergent phenomenon (Köhler 2011),
one is enticed to answer the second question in the following manner:
all enumerated contributing factors are involved in the generation of
meaning in derivational processes with particular meaning features not
attributable to any single specific factor or constituent in a recoverable
causal manner.
In Lehmann’s (2015: 702) words, “[c]ategories of word-forma-
tion, i.e. sets of types or rules of word-formation with the same func-
tion, are the oldest and to this day the most common function-oriented
descriptive tool used in word-formation.” Rules are probably meth-
odologically convenient since they capture all pertinent dimensions
(source, meaning of the input, nature of the meaning modification and
generalised lexical result). However, rules themselves suffer from a
certain indeterminacy and, paradoxically, overgeneralisation, and fre-
quently rules are downsized to a single affix shifting the emphasis from
the whole complex to one of the participant constituents.
Other approaches suggest that “morphemic word-formation pro-
cesses […] are to a large extent regular and predictable (in hindsight)
and therefore amenable to generalizations couched in the format of
rules or schemas” (Schmid 2015: 65). Schemas, too, have their short-
comings: they are bound up with specific theoretical models (cognitive
linguistics) and are generalisations of such high degree of abstractness
that they fail to make certain differentiations possible (for an inform-
ative description of different approaches to word-formation studies,
including schema and semantic role-based ones, see, e.g. Schmid 2015;
Ortner & Ortner 2015; etc.). As for semantic roles, as Ortner & Ortner
(2015) believe, they are most profitably applicable in the analysis of
compounds, the most syntactic of all processes of word-formation.
42  Alexandra Bagasheva

In avoidance of such problems, word-formationists have tried to

pin down the elusive something by dubbing it word-formation meaning,
which according to Rainer et al. (2014: 7) is defined as the “regularity
in the relation between derivatives’ meanings and the lexical meanings
of their respective base forms.” They acknowledge, quoting Pounder
(2000: 97) that “a strict separation of word-formation meaning from
lexical meaning is rarely observed in the literature.” In their view this
seriously undermines the significance of the concept of word-formation
meaning as such.
Among the persistent problems in relation to any account of the
semantics of affixation is the unsettled controversy over the demarca-
tion of inflectional and derivational affixation. A recent differentiation
between the two is formulated in the following manner:

[w]hile derivational morphology has a semiotic function and contributes to lex-

ical enrichment, inflectional morphology has the relational function of serv-
ing syntax or marking syntactic constructions with special word forms. While
inflectional morphology is obligatory in a syntactic construction, derivational
morphology is not. (Štekauer 2015: 516)

Attempts to establish clear criteria for differentiation between the two

include: function, range of categories (based on any meaning change the
affix triggers), position in the word (closer to base or in the periphery),
transparency, productivity and regularity, changing/preserving word
class of source, recursiveness, paradigms, distribution, headedness,
similarity/dissimilarity within the respective group, and nature of the
source (existing vs. non-existent bases). After assessing the numerous
adduced examples and arguments provided, the author concludes that
“it is not possible to draw a clear-cut borderline between inflection and
derivation and that the relation between these two areas of morphology
is best treated ‘as a cline rather than a dichotomy’ (Katamba 1993: 217),
with prototypical cases at both ends of the cline” (Štekauer 2015: 532).
The realisation that categorisation within linguistics is based on the
same principles as everyday cognition – clines instead of dichotomies,
prototypicality effects with degrees of category membership, fuzzy
boundaries, contextual coercion, etc. (Langacker 2008) – facilitates
naturalistic analyses, but is not a magic wand that resolves all problems.
Comparative semantic concepts in affixation 43

The problem of meaning in derivation is further aggravated by

considerable uncertainty regarding even the very basic identity of der-
ivation:

nobody has attempted to define derivation in terms of the categories involved –

even though we might agree that some types of derivation are more canonical
than others. This raises the question of whether there are any categories which
we can view as derivational in the same way that tense is seen as being inflec-
tional. (Bauer 2002: 37)

Insightful and laudable as Bauer’s approach is, the set of categories that
he isolates in his sample of languages (with occurrence per category >
10 out of 42) are a mixture of lexical and derivational meanings and are
word-class based. In restricting possibilities for derivational categories,
Bauer marks the negative extreme, claiming that “nobody has found a
language in which a derivational affix means ‘grasp NOUN in the left
hand and shake vigorously while standing on the right foot in a 2.5
gallon galvanized pail of corn-meal-mush’” (Bauer 2002: 37, capitali-
sation as in the original). Defining an impossible derivational category
does not help much in establishing actual derivational categories, let
alone purely semantic categories that can be applied cross-linguistically
in affixation research.
Admittedly, attempts have been made to define specific deriva-
tional semantic categories, where the individual pattern and requisite
affix are separated from the meaning, which, however, remains word
class bound, as can be seen from the differentiation between derivational
type and derivational category, i.e. “[t]he formal operations define what
is sometimes called a ‘derivational type’ (for instance, ‘deverbal nominal
in er’ vs. ‘deverbal nominal in -ant’) and the semantic relations define a
‘derivational category’ (for instance ‘agentive deverbal noun’ vs. ‘causa-
tive verb’)” (Spencer 2015: 679). Assuming that a derivational category
is slightly different from a semantic category, we still need to recognise
that the former has the pretence of encompassing the latter as agentive
presupposes a semantic category postulated in relation to the source and
the output of affixation, even though to this day “with regard to deriva-
tion, we do not have nearly as clear a notion as we do with inflection what
we are mapping onto what” (Lieber 2014: 53–54).
44  Alexandra Bagasheva

Yet another attempt to formulate semantic categories in affixa-

tion relates to measuring word-formation rules with predictable (i.e.
predefined) albeit potential meaning against the lexical meaning of
the resultant lexemes. Dressler & Ladányi (2002: 106) contend that
“[t]here are many factors involved in bridging the gap between potential
WF meaning and word meanings.” The researchers propose to utilise
word-formation rules in the contrastive study of the semantics of affix-
ation. In their view,

[t]he basic approach is to compare the WF meaning of a productive WFR

with the actual lexical meanings of the words derived by this WFR, because
the potential meaning of a WFR is semantically transparent (with the possi-
ble exception of parasitic morphology). However, the actual lexical meanings
(word meanings, not contextual meanings in performance) of its derivatives are
prototypically not completely compositional, because they are lexicalised (as
autonomous lexical entries), i.e. they are, at least minimally, morphosemanti-
cally opaque. (Dressler & Ladányi 2002: 106)

They go on in drawing the distinction between word-formation and lex-

ical meaning to describe lexical meanings as a subset of the legitimate
possible word-formation meanings. They suggest that it would be help-
ful to apply the potential word-formation meaning of a word-formation
rule to a certain lexical field or a semantically definable group of words,
since in this way through semantic and pragmatic inferences, disregard-
ing the actual lexical meanings of these words, we can arrive at the
specificity of word-formation semantics. The natural conclusion is that,
just as actual words are a subset of potential words, lexical meaning is a
subset of word-formation meaning.
The abovementioned approaches to modelling and defining the
semantics of affixation are just some of those that are available (for
reviews, see Lieber 2004 and Schmid 2015), but they sufficiently illus-
trate the basic tendencies. It is unavoidable to include numerous factors
contributing to word-formation meaning and it might prove fruitful to
discard word-formation rules and attempts to look for the specific cau-
sality of the different contributing factors and recognise word-formation
meaning as synergetic and emergent in the complex adaptive system of
language. As one of the proponents of this understanding of the ubiqui-
tous human communicative system insists, “there are general principles
Comparative semantic concepts in affixation 45

which characterize the emergence of patterns in complex systems what-

ever their content or scale” (Ellis 2011: 655). In this view, “language
knowledge consists of a continuum of linguistic constructions of differ-
ent levels of complexity and abstraction. Constructions can comprise
concrete and particular items (as in words and idioms) […] [and] may
be simultaneously represented and stored in multiple forms, at vari-
ous levels of abstraction” (Ellis 2011: 656). So, for the agents interact-
ing in and through language, affixation operates via generalisation (as
a domain general cognitive strategy of humans) over patterns of use
which create or entrench meaning-form correlations, where meaning
can be holistically labelled without the possibility for clear assignment
of specific semantic components to particular factors or constituents
within constructions. This implies that, with the power of hindsight for
research purposes, approximate categories can be postulated which can
capture the most salient and highly meaning differentiating properties
of constructions at various levels of abstraction and patterning. Any
proposed set of semantic categories valid in cross-linguistic research of
affixation will have to comprise notional categories of specific degrees
of granularity to accommodate both local constructions and significant
cross-linguistic patterns.

3. Categorisation for/in cross-linguistic affixation research

Cross-linguistic research and typology might be considered as closely

related, but not necessarily identical. The former is “the study of linguis-
tic patterns that are found cross-linguistically, in particular, patterns that
can be discovered solely by cross-linguistic comparison” (Croft 1990:
1). The latter is broader and frequently theory-oriented. In that sense the
specificity of cross-linguistic research predetermines the nature of the
categories one operates with.
Acknowledging prototypicality effects and clines as integral in
linguistic categorisation necessitates the clarification of the types of
46  Alexandra Bagasheva

categories most fruitfully employed in cross-linguistic research, more

specifically meaning-driven word-formation research.7
To the best of our knowledge, no focused attention has been paid
to the cross-linguistic study of the semantics of word-formation,8 which
makes the formulation of cross-linguistically relevant semantic catego-
ries in affixation difficult.
Evans’ (2010: 504) recent definition of semantic typology as “the
systematic cross-linguistic study of how languages express meaning
by way of signs” is definitely not suited for the task at hand since the
way is uniformly similar across any sample of languages, namely affix-
ation. Resorting to Lehrer’s (1992: 249) widely quoted definition which
claims that lexical typology is concerned with the “characteristic ways
in which language […] packages semantic material into words” seems
to have the same effect. In all fairness, both proposals are concerned
with lexical semantics from an onomasiological and a semasiological
perspective respectively, and do not take into consideration the specific-
ity of affixation semantics.
Focusing specifically on derivational semantics, Lehmann (2015:
701, emphasis added) recognises “categories such as agent noun, place
noun, or gender marking, [as] the oldest, most common and most widely
used semantic categories in word-formation, providing a suitable onoma-
siological basis for cross-linguistic comparison.” If we uncritically apply
this set of semantic categories in word-formation research, we run the risk
of committing the crime of which Rijkhoff (2009) accuses typologists,
namely mixing semantic and formal categories. One of the biggest prob-
lems in word-formation research is how to tease apart word-class mean-
ing from purely semantic dimensions. As Lehmann (2015: 858) surmises,
“word-formation” is not fully onomasiological. It is structured according
to the word class of the results of word-formation (V, A, N), and […]
according to the word class of the bases, e.g., deverbal nouns.”

7 On the specificity of prototype understanding of categorisation and its conse-

quences for linguistics see, e.g. van der Auwera & Gast (2011).
8 Exceptions are the areally bound research by Bauer (2002) and the contras-
tive research targeting opacity measures in adjectival derivation by Dressler &
Ladányi (2002).
Comparative semantic concepts in affixation 47

Severing the purely onomasiological from the structural (word-

class) should in theory be possible. This would allow us to devise a set
of semantic categories in cross-linguistic affixation research in the form
of comparative concepts (Haspelmath 2010), independent of the formal
criterion of word-class membership of the base or the output in the
word-formation process. Admittedly, onomasiological word-formation
(Štekauer 1998; 2001; 2005) dispenses with word classes and operates
with onomasiological types, but these are not exclusive to affixation and
accommodate all basic processes of word-formation.
Even if a set of purely semantic categories were available, their
utility might be questioned as has been done by Rijkhoff (2009), who
in principle objects to their use on the grounds that they are too com-
prehensive and can cover “too many structural variants” (Rijkhoff 2009:
95). In cross-linguistic research in affixation, the objection against struc-
tural variability can be easily dismissed, since the complex words under
study (affixed words) all arise from the same type of word-formation
and employ uniform constituents, i.e. bases and affixes, even if the
bases and the outputs can still be quite varied. Claiming that seman-
tic categories are frequently confused with formal categories, Rijkhoff
appeals for the use of semantic and formal similarity as reliable criteria
only after functional sameness has been established independently. As
all elements under study are derived complex lexemes and their main
function is to satisfy the naming needs of a community of speakers,
we assume that functional sameness is guaranteed by the teleology of
the output (naming), by the uniformity of the constituents (bases and
affixes) and by the identity of the applied word-formation process, i.e.
affixation.
Among the competing models of cross-linguistic research two
provide sufficient research space for postulating the set of categories
presented in the next section. The first model is Corbett’s canonical
typology. Corbett (2010: 141) contends that

[a]dopting a canonical approach means that we look for definitions which allow
us to distinguish between interesting sets of data, and we take such definitions
to their logical end point. This enables us to build theoretical spaces of possi-
bilities. Only when we have established our clear definitions, and the space they
define, do we investigate how this space is populated with real instances.
48  Alexandra Bagasheva

In his elaboration of the model, Corbett (2010: 141) admits that “from
the viewpoint of canonical typology, derivational morphology proves
particularly difficult and, eventually, quite exciting.” If nothing else,
the author recognises that at least the model allows for the constructed
nature of categories applied in typological, i.e. cross-linguistic research.
The strict determination of categories based on different definitional
criteria actually identifies a theoretical ideal against which actual lan-
guage data are classified. As Corbett (2010: 141) phrases it, “[t]he con-
vergence of criteria fixes a canonical point from which the phenomena
actually found can be calibrated.” Canonical points are postulated sema-
siologically, on the basis of extensive analysis of available data and their
aim is to delineate possible variations that will still share enough char-
acteristics with the canonical point as to be categorised as members of
the requisite category. Corbett even clarifies that “[c]anonical instances
need have no exemplar, they are not claimed to be part of speakers’
competence (they are theoretical constructs of linguists), and they are
ideally invariant” (Corbett 2010: 142).
The second model advocates the application of constructs
dubbed comparative concepts in cross-linguistic research, as formu-
lated by Haspelmath (2010). As in Corbett’s, in this model the cat-
egories with which linguists operate are also constructs that try to
avoid the distortion of real data or the imposition of a skewed point
of view favouring a particular subset of the data (or particular lan-
guage). Without going into the theoretical and historical justification
for the model, we subscribe fully to Haspelmath’s ideas that “typology
must be (and usually is) based on a special set of comparative con-
cepts that are specifically created by typologists for the purposes of
comparison. Descriptive formal categories cannot be equated across
languages because the criteria for category-assignment are different
from language to language” (Haspelmath 2010: 663). In clarifying
the nature of comparative concepts, Haspelmath emphasises that they
cannot be right or wrong, only more or less suited for the specific
task in cross-linguistic research. He elaborates on the need for such
categories to be based on other universally applicable concepts such
as conceptual-semantic concepts.
Comparative semantic concepts in affixation 49

What the two models have in common is the idea that the cat-
egories with which researchers operate are analytical constructs and
may but need not be necessarily instantiated in language-specific exem-
plars. In both models it is implied that the analytical categories are con-
structed as prototypes or canonical instances, while the actual language
instances they are intended to categorise may deviate slightly from the
core on the basis of family resemblances (actualised via lexicalisation,
emergent contextual ‒ within the resultant lexeme ‒ inferences, mean-
ing extension processes, etc.).
Comparative concepts are not divorced from language specific
descriptive categories. As Lander & Arkadiev (2016: 406) argue, “com-
parative concepts should be allowed to be based on descriptive catego-
ries and the latter should be allowed to be thought of as manifestations
of comparative concepts.” In practical terms, this leads to the coinci-
dence of some of the comparative concepts with descriptive categories
and their grounding in actual language data, without restricting the con-
struction of logical endpoints that clearly define the analytical space.

4. Comparative semantic concepts in affixation research

Concurring with Štekauer (2006: 34, emphasis added) that “[w]hile

[naming] processes (and their formal representations) differ from language
to language, the conceptual basis of the act of naming is language-inde-
pendent,” I propose a set of conceptually grounded, comparative semantic
concepts relevant for cross-linguistic investigation of affixation.9 The
language independence of the proposed categories is congruent with
Szymanek’s (1988) grounding condition for the derivational categories
in language where “[t]he basic set of lexical derivational categories is
rooted in the fundamental concepts of cognition” (Szymanek 1988: 93).
Even though they are formulated in English, the labels for the concepts
9 It should be noted that affixal compounds (be them synthetic or parasynthetic, on
which see Bagasheva 2015; see also Melloni & Bisetto 2010) have not been consid-
ered in the compilation of the semantic categories and probably the latter will not be
comprehensive enough to accommodate the complexity of meaning in the former.
50  Alexandra Bagasheva

are not English semantic categories. They are comparative concepts in

Haspelmath’s sense (2010) although, in order to avoid confusion with the
use of the term concept in cognitive linguistics, psychology and everyday
parlance, they have been referred to as semantic categories up to now. The
comparative semantic concepts are heterogeneous in terms of a number
of criteria:

• the degree of granularity of the notional categories (in the sense

that they combine different numbers of the ontological types dis-
cussed below);
• the number of cross-linguistic instantiations; and
• the typicality for a specific language.

The heterogeneity of the degree of granularity avoids the association

of the comparative concepts with any specified word-class in any lan-
guage. The proposed categories avoid also any distinctions between
types of affixes (infixes, superfixes, prefixes, suffixes, etc.) and the asso-
ciated problems of categorial headedness.10 In particular, the differences
in the contribution of infixes and prefixes which for the most part seem
to contribute semantic features exclusively and do not affect the cate-
gorial features of the source base, thus violating the percolation rule as
defined by Lieber (2004), are not reflected in the comparative concepts,
which are strictly semantic in nature. As Fábregas & Masini (2015: 76)
claim, “interpretability is guaranteed by the interplay of features within
complex constituents”, which is fully in-keeping with the notion of
emergent meaning, adopted for analytical purposes here.
On the basis of available non-decompositional models of seman-
tic analysis of word-formation phenomena (which automatically
excludes Lieber 2004, Jackendoff 2002, and specific cognitive linguis-
tic analyses restricted to conversion or compounding) and the literature
on affixal meanings in numerous European languages, a set of semantic
comparative concepts was compiled. The set has been extracted from
descriptive categories of individual languages. The language-specific
categories were used as the lower limit of granularity, while the upper limit

10 For a recent review of the issue of headedness in morphology see Fábregas &
Masini (2015).
Comparative semantic concepts in affixation 51

was determined by the ontological types defined by Cruse in dealing

with lexical semantics i.e. the “fundamental modes of conception that
the human mind is presumably innately predisposed to adopt” (Cruse
2000: 49). The most basic and hierarchically highest ones (in terms of
generality) Cruse (2009: 49) identifies as:

1. thing
2. quality
3. quantity
4. place
5. time
6. state
7. process
8. event
9. action
10. relation
11. manner

At lower levels of generality, we find sets of conceptual categories,

which the human mind construes, hierarchically branching off the onto-
logical types. Many of these need to be named at least for communica-
tive purposes. From an onomasiological point of view they are the con-
cepts associated with the products of word formation. Just as concepts
are arranged in complex networks at different levels of abstraction, so
are the means for producing names, which create paradigms that help
coiners to produce complex words.11 Štekauer (2014: 359) contends
that “‘fair’ argumentation […] requires us to put the relation between
the members of a minimal (i.e. two-member) derivational paradigm on
a truly semantic basis by saying that the paradigm rests on the cognitive
category of, for example, result of action.” It is obvious that result
of action is a subcategory of the basic ontological types, combining
features of action and state. It is at that immediately lower level of
generality that the comparative semantic concepts are construed.

11 The notion of paradigmaticity is indispensable and “the paradigmatic nature of

derivational semantics” (Booij & Lieber 2004) has been recognised.
52  Alexandra Bagasheva

Operating with such concepts alleviates the problems of poly-

semy in derivation, as each sense associated with a specific affix will be
separately recognised by the requisite semantic concept. When applied
in cross-linguistic research on derivation, this would clearly illustrate
Apresjan’s (1974) concept of “regular polysemy” (recurrent patterns of
radial networks across languages). This understanding of polysemy is
fully harmonious with Rainer’s (2014: 348) suggestion that polysemy
be treated “as a radial or family-resemblance constellation. In that case,
all patterns are concrete in the sense that they define a set of possi-
ble words.” If necessary, in the analysis, if “the semantic relationship
between two patterns is still perceived synchronically, it is explicitly
stated in the description as a relationship of motivation” (Rainer 2014:
349). This is easily described and indexed, if the research targets detect-
able polysemy of a recurrent constituent.
Within the parameters outlined above the following semantic
concepts are identified. Their applicability and profitability will be used
in the following chapters of this book and elsewhere (e.g. in research
targeting the scope of derivational networks in European languages,
Körtvélyessy & Stekauer p.c.). The categories are assigned on the basis
of the last cycle of derivation (i.e. the emergent meaning resulting from
the combination of the last two potentially parsable constituents of the
complex is taken into account).12

12 When the set of comparative semantic concepts is used for cross-linguistic

comparative analyses, the focus in the initial stage falls exclusively on non-lex-
icalised derivatives whose meaning features can be compared and captured by
the prototype-like comparative concept. When the set is used for intralinguistic
analyses various levels of opacity of the outputs of a productive pattern can be
taken into account, depending on the research task.
Comparative semantic concepts in affixation 53

Table 1.  Set of comparative semantic concepts in affixation. The table illustrates English
and, additionally, a different language (typically Bulgarian), if the concept does not apply in
English and/or for illustration in a language other than English. The language from which
the example has been extracted is in front of the word.
Comparative Emergent meaning Examples
semantic concept
ability Possibility to be processed in a Eng. readable readability
particular way Bul. četiven četivnost
‘readable’ ‘readability’
abstraction Name of an abstract idea Eng. justice
Bul. pravda
‘justice’
action Performing of an activity Eng. reading
Bul. strelba
‘shooting’
agentive Performer of an activity/ Name of Eng. killer
a profession, job, title or Bul. ubiec
permanent activity ‘killer’
pekar
‘baker’
anticausative Event affecting its subject without Bul. stâmva se
any syntactic or semantic ‘get darker’
indication of the cause of the
event
augmentative/ Above the default quantity / Eng. overpower
ameliorative/ Condoning attitude for being more Bul. mâžiše
intensive than a standard ‘a huge man’
raztiča se
 ‘start running energeti-
cally and forcefully’
causative Indication of the cause of an Eng. empower
activity/change of state Bul. zaliva
 ‘cover fully with
something’
collectivity Name of a collection of entities Eng. readership
conceptualised as a whole Bul. selyačestvo
‘the totality of all villagers’
comitative Co-participant Eng. co-worker
Bul. sâdružnik
‘partner’
composition Composition (made of) Bul. orehovka
‘walnut biscuit’
54  Alexandra Bagasheva

Comparative Emergent meaning Examples

semantic concept
cumulative Performing an action to achieve a Bul. ponapiše
considerable amount of something  ‘write staff I consider
enough’
desiderative Desire to do the act denoted by Saami jugastuvvat
the root ‘want to drink’
diminutive/ Below the default quantity Eng. piglet
attenuative (of substance, action, quality or Bul. pospya
circumstance) ‘sleep for a while, nap’
directional Relating to or providing a Slovak odkopnúť
specified spatial dimension ‘to kick away’
distributive Allotted among members of a set Bul. izponabie
‘beat everyone around’
durative Atelic, continuing Bul. lovuva
‘hunt’
dweller Occupant of a specified location Eng. villager
Bul. selyanin
‘villager’
entity Objectification; object that has Bul. kostilka
real existence, material expression ‘pit, stone’
experiencer Active participant in a perceptual/ Eng. admirer
affective/cognitive event Bul. obožatel
‘admirer’
female Female representative of a human Eng. actress
type/profession Bul. čistnica
 ‘woman fastidious about
cleanliness’
hyperonymy Superordination in hierarchical Eng. archbishop
relations Bul. nadreden
 ‘above a line/established
level’
hyponymy Subordination in hierarchical Eng. subtotal
relations Bul. podvid
‘subtype’
inceptive Initiation of an activity Bul. zapee
‘start singing’
instrument Object specifically used for a Eng. opener
specialised activity Bul. kopačka
‘hoe’
Comparative semantic concepts in affixation 55

Comparative Emergent meaning Examples

semantic concept
iterative Repetitive activity Eng. reread
Bul. prenapiše
‘rewrite’
location Specified position in space Eng. vicarage
Bul. pekarna
‘bakery’
manner/ In a particular way Eng. respectfully
viewpoint Bul. iznenadvašo
‘surprisingly’
ornative Addition of a feature or property Bul. ovkusi
‘addition of dressing’
patient Party to/for whom something Eng. amputee
is/has been done Bul. obučaem
Bearer of state/quality ‘trainee, student’
pejorative Negative attitude, disapproval or a Eng. mishandle; malpractice
slighting attitude to Bul. advokatin
(the possession of undesirable ‘an advocate of poor
characteristics) abilities’
perceptive Experience of one of the physical Bul. zabeleža
senses or reasoning faculties ‘notice’
pluriactionality Distribution of action among Bul. izponapivame se
several agents, at various places ‘to get drunk.for all
and/or times, aimed at various present’
objects, etc.
possessive Relationship of possession Bul. kučeški
(alienable or non-alienable) ‘belonging to a dog’
privative Negation or inversion of Eng. unnatural
properties / Activity of deprivation Eng. mispronounce
Bul. bezpolezen
‘useless’
process Natural, non-volitional unfolding Bul. protiča
of a change of state ‘to develop, to unfold’
purposive With a desired or intended Bul. naušnici
result/aim ‘what is for the ear’
quality Current or resultant quality Eng. beautiful
Bul. mârzeliv
‘lazy’
reciprocal Performed mutually Bul. obvinyavame se
‘accuse each other.pl’
56  Alexandra Bagasheva

Comparative Emergent meaning Examples

semantic concept
reflexive Verb with the same semantic Bul. obuvam se
agent and affected ‘put on one’s trousers or
shoes’
relational Undetermined relation (between Eng. medical
the base and the noun that the Bul. planinski
derived adjective potentially ‘related to a mountain’
modifies)
resultative Result of an action Eng. building
Bul. postroyka
‘building’
reversative Reversal of the result Eng. unzip
Bul. razvie
‘uncover’
saturative/ Perform an action up to a wholly Bul. napuši (se)
total satisfying or exhaustive degree or ‘smoke enough, up to
affecting all affected entities or the satisfaction’
totality of a single affected entity
semelfactive Momentary or punctiliar action Bul. skokne
‘jump once’
similative Showing resemblance, somewhat Eng. childlike
possessing a particular quality Bul. zatvorničeski
‘like that of a prisoner’
singulative Individual entity from a group or Breton geotenn
undifferentiated mass ‘a single blade of grass’
state Particular condition of being / Eng. sadness
Be in a state Bul. zelenee se
‘show one’s greenness’
subitive Action that occurs suddenly or Saami addilit
sharply  ‘to give (in a haste or
quickly)’
terminative Marking the end phase of an event Bul. dopie (si)
‘drink up‘
temporal Pertaining to temporal dimensions Slovak najnovšie
‘recently, lately’
undergoer Entity that undergoes an action Saami čuhppojuvvot
that changes its state ‘to be cut (of somebody)’
Comparative semantic concepts in affixation 57

5. Retrospectus and prospectus

One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree.
‘Which road do I take?’ she asked. ‘Where do you want to go?’ was his response.
‘I don’t know,’ Alice answered. ‘Then,’ said the cat, ‘it doesn’t matter.’
(Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland)

McWhorter (2003) claims that languages are extremely diverse and

differ in terms of complexity (which is difficult to measure by any reli-
able instrument). Isolated, exotic languages spoken by hunter-gatherer
communities are characterised by greater complexity and by peculiari-
ties preserved through time. Naturally, no claims are made that the set is
at this stage exhaustive and suited to capture the almost limitless diver-
sity of languages.
As is well known, the research question and the hypotheses for-
mulated in relation to it legitimise certain patterns of rationality. The
ultimate aim of this piece of research was the compilation of theory-
neutral, comparative semantic concepts (categories) against which var-
ious kinds of analyses of data of affixation patterns in languages can
be generated. Employing the model of defining something by what it
is not, we can say that what the proposed set of comparative semantic
concepts is less well equipped for is:

• a model of lexical semantic representation of the process of affix-

ation;
• a theoretical construct of modes of interaction between base and
affix; and
• an explication of the mapping between the complex conceptual con-
tent of a derived word and the sensory-motor side of the Saussurean
sign (see Lieber 2014, where such a model is proposed).

From the point of view of positive definitions, the set of categories is

suited for intra- and interlanguage analysis of affixation phenomena
in specific languages and cross-linguistically. This possibility of using
comparative concepts for both language-specific and cross-linguistic
research is defined and convincingly argued for by Lander & Arkadiev
58  Alexandra Bagasheva

(2016). As the authors contend, “[v]ariation is related to instability […]

which determine language-specific descriptive categories. Vague pro-
totype-based comparative concepts presumably can manage with this
language-specific nature” (Lander & Arkadiev 2016: 408). Its appli-
cability stems from the fact that the categories are exclusively mean-
ing-based and not part-of-speech bound. The level of granularity can be
successfully expanded or narrowed depending on the type of targeted
generalisation. In the process of narrowing down the granularity of
the prototype-based concepts (categories), problems of language-spe-
cific instances of lexicalisation and degree of opacity of productive
word-formation rules can be accounted for. Starting from semantic con-
cepts allows also for the analysis of affix competition, since any concept
can be used as tertium comparationis for the rivalry among affixes for
encoding specific semantics. Furthermore, the set can be used for trac-
ing the productive meaning profiles of specific affixes in a language.
The set has been compiled on the basis of both semasiological
(extensive reading of analyses of affixation phenomena on the basis of
existing, actual words in various European languages) and onomasio-
logical considerations (the onomasiological stance underlies the very
cogitation of these concepts designed to incorporate possible words;
see Kjellmer 2000 on potential and Rainer 2012 on virtual and potential
words), paradigmaticity of derivational semantics and the emergence of
synergetic meaning.
The set of comparative semantic concepts has been conceived of as
a potential instument in fieldwork on affixation in various languages and
for the purposes of cross-linguistic analyses. It is (at present) designed to
capture the diversity of European languages, exclusively. The latter arises
from the fact that, as comparative constructs, the semantic concepts are
based on available analyses of affixation phenomena in this group of
languages. As the list stands (with real possibility for further enlarge-
ment), it most probably lacks concepts that can capture peculiarities of
McWhorter’s “exotic” languages.
Hopefully, the suitability of the set of comparative concepts for
intralanguage affix rivalry and competition is tested (and corroborated)
by the papers in the current volume, while future projects will put to the
test its cross-linguistic profitability.
Comparative semantic concepts in affixation 59

Acknowledgements

I am greatly indebted to Lívia Körtvélyessy and Pavol Štekauer for the

very idea of the compilation of semantic categories for cross-linguistic
research on affixation and for insightful comments and suggestions in
the process of their compilation. All usual disclaimers stand.

References

Apresjan, Ju. D. 1974. Regular Polysemy. Linguistics. 142, 5–32.

Aronoff, Mark 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Aronoff, Mark 1984. Word Formation and Lexical Semantics. Quaderni
di Semantica. 5/1, 45–50.
Aronoff, Mark 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional
Classes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Aronoff, Mark / Cho, Sungeun 2001. The Semantics of -ship Suffixation.
Linguistic Inquiry. 32/1, 167–173.
Auwera, Johan van der / Gast, Volker 2011. Categories and Prototypes. In
Song, Jae Jung (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Language Typology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 166–189.
Bach, Emmon 1989. Informal Lectures on Formal Semantics. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Baeskow, Heike 2010. Derivation in Generative Grammar and Neo-
Construction Grammar: A Critical Evaluation and a New Proposal.
In Olsen, Susan (ed.) New Impulses in Word Formation, Sonderheft
Linguistische Berichte. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 21–59.
Baeskow, Heike 2015. Rules, patterns and schemata in word-formation.
In Müller, Peter O. / Ohnheiser, Ingeborg / Olsen, Susan / Rainer,
Franz (eds.) Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the
Languages of Europe. Vol. 2. iBooks. Berlin: de Gruyter, 32–184.
60  Alexandra Bagasheva

Bagasheva, Alexandra 2015 On Verbocentric Nominal Compounds

Denoting Humans in Bulgarian. SKASE Journal of Theoretical
Linguistics. 12/3, 74–104.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. Perceptual Symbol Systems. Behavioural
and Brain Sciences. 22, 577–660.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2008. Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of
Psychology. 59, 617–645.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. / Hale, Christopher R. 1993. Components of
Conceptual Representation: From Feature Lists to Recursive
Frames. In Mechelen, Iven Van / Hampton, James / Michalski,
Ryszard S. / Theuns, Peter (eds.) Categories and Concepts:
Theoretical Views and Inductive Data Analysis. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press, 97–114.
Bauer, Laurie 2002. What You Can Do with Derivational Morphology.
In Bendjaballah, Sabrina / Dressler, Wolfgang U. / Pfeiffer, Oskar
E. / Voeikova, Maria D. (eds.) Morphology 2000: Selected Papers
from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 24–28 February 2000.
Amsterdam: Benjamins, 37–48.
Bauer, Laurie / Körtvélyessy, Lívia / Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) 2015.
Semantics of Complex Words. Dordrecht: Springer.
Beard, Robert 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. A General
Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Beckner, Clay / Blythe, Richard / Bybee, Joan / Christiansen, Morten H. /
Croft, William / Ellis, Nick C. / Holland, John / Ke, Jinyun / Larsen-
Freeman, Diane / Schoenemann, Tom 2009. Language as a
Complex Adaptive System. In Ellis, Nick C. / Larsen-Freeman,
Diane (eds.) Language as a Complex Adaptive System. Language
Learning. 59 (Special Issue. Supplement 1), 1–26.
Benveniste, Émile 1971. The Levels of Linguistic Analysis. In Benven-
iste´, Émile (ed.) Problems in General Linguistics. Coral Gables,
FL: University of Miami Press, 101–113.
Berg, Thomas 2015. Locating Affixes on the Lexicon-Grammar Contin-
uum. Cognitive Linguistic Studies. 2/1, 150–180.
Booij, Geert / Lieber, Rochelle 2004. On the Paradigmatic Nature of Affixal
Semantics in English and Dutch. Linguistics. 42/2, 327–357.
Comparative semantic concepts in affixation 61

Booij, Geert / Masini, Francesca 2015. The Role of Second Order Sche-
mas in the Construction of Complex Words. In Bauer, Laurie /
Kőrtvélyessy, Lívia / Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) Semantics of Complex
Words. Dordrecht: Springer, 47–66.
Corbett, Greville G. 2010. Canonical Derivational Morphology. Word
Structure. 3/2, 141–155.
Croft, William 21990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cruse, Alan D. 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Seman-
tics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dressler, Wolfgang U. / Ladányi, Mária 2002. On Contrastive Word-
Formation Semantics. Degrees of Transparency/Opacity of German
and Hungarian Denominal Adjective Formation. In Bendjaballah,
Sabrina / Dressler, Wolfgang U. / Pfeiffer, Oskar E. / Voeikova,
Maria D. (eds.) Morphology 2000: Selected Papers from the 9th
Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 24–28 February 2000. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 105–115.
Ellis, Nick C. 2011. The Emergence of Language as a Complex Adaptive
System. In Simpson, James (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Applied
Linguistics. London: Routledge, 654–667.
Evans, Nicholas 2010. Semantic Typology. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.)
The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 504–533.
Evans, Vyvyan 2009. How Words Mean. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fábregas, Antonio / Masini, Francesca 2015. Prominence in Morphol-
ogy: The Notion of Head. Lingue e Linguaggio. 14/1, 79–96.
Fillmore, Charles 2006. Frame Semantics. In Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.) Cog-
nitive Linguistics. Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton, 373–400.
Frank, Roslyn M. 2015. A Complex Adaptive Systems Approach to
Language, Cultural Schemas and Serial Metonymy: Charting
the Cognitive Innovations of ‘fingers’ and ‘claws’ in Basque. In
Díaz-Vera, Javier E. (ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy across Time
and Cultures. Perspectives on the Sociohistorical Linguistics of
Figurative Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 65–95.
Gagné, Christina / Spalding, Thomas 2014. Relation Diversity and Ease
of Processing for Opaque and Transparent English Compounds.
In Rainer, Franz / Gardani, Francesco / Luschützky, Hans Christian /
62  Alexandra Bagasheva

Dressler, Wolfgang U. (eds.) Morphology and Meaning. Selected

Papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna,
February 2012. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 153–162.
Gärdenfors, Peter 1999. Some Tenets of Cognitive Semantics. In Allwood,
Jens / Gärdenfors, Peter (eds.) Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and
Cognition. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 19–36.
Geeraerts, Dirk 2010. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Haspelmath, Martin 2010. Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Cat-
egories in Cross-Linguistic Studies. Language. 86/3, 663–687.
Hockett, Charles F. 21966. The Problem of Universals in Language. In
Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.) Universals of Language. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press, 1–29.
Hoeksema, Jack 2000. Compositionality of Meaning. In Booij, Geert /
Lehmann, Christian / Mugdan, Joachim (eds.) An International
Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. I. Morphologie:
Ein Internationales Handbuch Zur Flexion und Wortbildung, Band
1. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 851–857.
Jackendoff, Ray S.  2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning,
Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Janssen, Theo M. V. 2012. Compositionality: Its Historic Context. In
Werning, Markus / Hinzen, Wolfram / Machery, Edouard (eds.)
The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 19–46.
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2010. Default semantics. In Heine, Berndt / Narrog,
Heiko (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 193–221.
Katamba, Francis 1993. Morphology. London: The Macmillan Press.
Kjellmer, Göran 2000. Potential Words. Word. 51/2, 205–228.
Koch, Peter 1999. Frame and Contiguity: On the Cognitive Bases of
Metonymy and Certain Types of Word Formation. In Panther,
Klaus-Uwe / Radden, Günter (eds.) Metonymy in Language and
Thought. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 139–168.
Köhler, Reinhard 2011. Laws of Language. In Hogan, Patrick C.
(ed.) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 424–426.
Comparative semantic concepts in affixation 63

Lander, Yury / Arkadiev, Peter 2016. On the Right of Being a Comparative

Concept. Linguistic Typology. 20/2, 403–416.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lehmann, Volkmar 2015. Categories of Word-Formation. In Müller,
Peter O. / Ohnheiser, Ingeborg / Olsen, Susan / Rainer, Franz (eds.)
Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages
of Europe. Vol. 2. iBooks. Berlin: de Gruyter, 848–908.
Lehrer, Adrienne 1992. A Theory of Vocabulary Structure: Retrospectives
and Prospectives. In Pütz, Martin (ed.) Thirty Years of Linguistic
Evolution. Studies in Honour of René Dirven on the Occasion of
his Sixtieth Birthday. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 243–256.
Lehrer, Adrienne 1995. Prefixes in English Word Formation. Folia Lin-
guistica. 29/1–2, 133–148.
Lieber, Rochelle 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lieber, Rochelle 2009. Introducing Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lieber, Rochelle 2014. Theoretical Approaches to Derivation. In Lieber,
Rochelle / Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Der-
ivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 50–67.
Ludlow, Peter 2014. Living Words: Meaning Underdetermination and
the Dynamic Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McWhorter, John 2003. The Power of Babel. A Natural History of
Language. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Melloni, Chiara / Bisetto, Antonietta 2010. Parasynthetic Compounds:
Data and Theory. In Scalise, Sergio / Vogel, Irene (eds.) Cross-
Disciplinary Issues in Compounding (pp.). Amsterdam: Benjamins,
199–217.
Murphy, Gregory 2002. The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Murphy, M. Lynne 2010. Lexical Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ortner, Hanspeter / Ortner, Lorelies 2015. Schemata and Semantic Roles in
Word-Formation. In Müller, Peter O. / Ohnheiser, Ingeborg / Olsen,
Susan / Rainer, Franz (eds.) Word-Formation. An International
64  Alexandra Bagasheva

Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Vol. 2. iBooks. Berlin: de

Gruyter, 908–985.
Paradis, Carita 2013. Lexical Semantics. In Chapelle, Carol A. (ed.) The
Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Plag, I. 2003. Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 3357–3356
Pounder, Amanda 2000. Processes and Paradigms in Word-Formation
Morphology. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Rainer, Franz 2012. Morphological Metaphysics: Virtual, Potential, and
Actual Words. Word Structure. 5/2, 165–182.
Rainer, Franz 2014. Polysemy in Derivation. In Lieber, Rochelle /
Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Derivational
Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 338–353.
Rainer, Franz, / Dressler, Wolfgang U. / Gardani, Francesco / Luschützky,
Hans Christian 2014. In Rainer, Franz / Gardani, Francesco /
Luschützky, Hans Christian / Dressler, Wolfgang U. (eds.)
Morphology and Meaning. Selected Papers from the 15th Interna-
tional Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 3–46.
Rainer, Franz / Gardani, Francesco / Luschützky, Hans Christian /
Dressler, Wolfgang U. (eds.) 2014. Morphology and Meaning.
Selected Papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting,
Vienna, February 2012. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Rijkhoff, Jan 2009. On the (Un)suitability of Semantic Categories. Lin-
guistic Typology. 13, 95–104.
Saussure, Ferdinand de 1968. Cours de Linguistique Générale (critical
edition by Rudolf Engler, Vol. I). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Schmid, Hans-Jörg 2015. The Scope of Word-Formation Research. In
Müller, Peter O. / Ohnheiser, Ingeborg / Olsen, Susan / Rainer,
Franz (eds.) Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the
Languages of Europe. Vol. 1. iBooks. Berlin: de Gruyter, 54–98.
Sickinger, Pawel 2012. Mental Models and Linguistic Cues: Investigat-
ing the Interface between Language and Mental Representation
across Cultures. In 35th International LAUD Symposium. Cognitive
Psycholinguistics: Bilingualism, Cognition and Communication.
Essen: Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg, 125–147.
Comparative semantic concepts in affixation 65

Spencer, Andrew 2015. Derivation. In Müller, Peter O. / Ohnheiser,

Ingeborg / Olsen, Susan / Rainer, Franz (eds.) Word-Formation.
An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Vol. 1.
iBooks. Berlin: de Gruyter, 677–718.
Štekauer, Pavol 1998. An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-
Formation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Štekauer, Pavol 2001. Fundamental Principles of an Onomasiological
Theory of English WF. Onomasiology Online. 2, 1–42. www.
onomasiology.de.
Štekauer, Pavol 2005. Onomasiological Approach to Word-Formation.
In Štekauer, Pavol / Lieber, Rochelle (eds.) Handbook of Word-
Formation. Dordrecht: Springer, 207–232.
Štekauer, P. 2006. Onomasiological Theory of Word-Formation. In
Brown, Keith (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics.
Vol. 9. Oxford: Elsevier, 34–37.
Štekauer, Pavol 2014. Derivational Paradigms. In Lieber, Rochelle /
Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Derivational
Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 354–369.
Štekauer, Pavol 2015. The Delimitation of Derivation and Inflection. In
Müller, Peter O. / Ohnheiser, Ingeborg / Olsen, Susan / Rainer,
Franz (eds.) Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the
Languages of Europe. Vol. 1. iBooks. Berlin: de Gruyter, 508–542.
Szymanek, Bogdan 1988. Categories and Categorization in Morphology.
Lublin: Catholic University Press.