Cognitive Perspectives On Word Formation Alexander Onysko Editor Sascha Michel Editor

Cognitive Perspectives On Word Formation
Alexander Onysko Editor Sascha Michel Editor
download
https://ebookbell.com/product/cognitive-perspectives-on-word-
formation-alexander-onysko-editor-sascha-michel-editor-50265610
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
A Transcivilizational Perspective On International Law Questioning
Prevalent Cognitive Frameworks In The Emerging Multipolar And
Multicivilizational World Of The Twentyfirst Century 1st Edition
Yasuaki Onuma
https://ebookbell.com/product/a-transcivilizational-perspective-on-
international-law-questioning-prevalent-cognitive-frameworks-in-the-
emerging-multipolar-and-multicivilizational-world-of-the-twentyfirst-
century-1st-edition-yasuaki-onuma-51249832
Cognitive Perspectives On Bilingualism Monika Reif Editor Justyna A
Robinson Editor
https://ebookbell.com/product/cognitive-perspectives-on-bilingualism-
monika-reif-editor-justyna-a-robinson-editor-51023856
Cognitive Perspectives On Israelite Identity Dermot Anthony Nestor
https://ebookbell.com/product/cognitive-perspectives-on-israelite-
identity-dermot-anthony-nestor-4953662
Cognitive Science Perspectives On Verb Representation And Processing
1st Edition Roberto G De Almeida
https://ebookbell.com/product/cognitive-science-perspectives-on-verb-
representation-and-processing-1st-edition-roberto-g-de-almeida-4972708

Different Psychological Perspectives On Cognitive Processes Current
Research Trends In Alpsadria Region 1st Edition Alessandra Galmonte
Rossana Actisgrosso Alessandra Galmonte Rossana Actisgrosso
https://ebookbell.com/product/different-psychological-perspectives-on-
cognitive-processes-current-research-trends-in-alpsadria-region-1st-
edition-alessandra-galmonte-rossana-actisgrosso-alessandra-galmonte-
rossana-actisgrosso-51374210
Perspectives On Cognitive Task Analysis Historical Origins And Modern
Communities Of Practice Expertise Research And Applications Series 1st
Edition Robert R Hoffman
https://ebookbell.com/product/perspectives-on-cognitive-task-analysis-
historical-origins-and-modern-communities-of-practice-expertise-
research-and-applications-series-1st-edition-robert-r-hoffman-2179120
Cognitive Fatigue Multidisciplinary Perspectives On Current Research
And Future Applications 1st Edition Phillip L Ackerman
https://ebookbell.com/product/cognitive-fatigue-multidisciplinary-
perspectives-on-current-research-and-future-applications-1st-edition-
phillip-l-ackerman-5095506
Beyond Cognitive Metaphor Theory Perspectives On Literary Metaphor 1st
Edition Monika Fludernik
https://ebookbell.com/product/beyond-cognitive-metaphor-theory-
perspectives-on-literary-metaphor-1st-edition-monika-
fludernik-50292234
Aspects Of Knowing Epistemological Essays Perspectives On Cognitive
Science 1st Edition Stephen Hetherington Ii
https://ebookbell.com/product/aspects-of-knowing-epistemological-
essays-perspectives-on-cognitive-science-1st-edition-stephen-
hetherington-ii-2536520

Cognitive Perspectives on Word Formation

Trends in Linguistics
Studies and Monographs 221
Editors
Walter Bisang
(main editor for this volume)
Hans Henrich Hock
Werner Winter
De Gruyter Mouton

Cognitive Perspectives
on Word Formation
Edited by
Alexander Onysko
Sascha Michel
De Gruyter Mouton

ISBN 978-3-11-022359-0
e-ISBN 978-3-11-022360-6
ISSN 1861-4302
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataCognitive perspectives on word formation / edited by Alexander
Onysko, Sascha Michel.
p. cm.(Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs ; 221)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-3-11-022359-0 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Grammar, Comparative and generalWord formation.
I. Onysko, Alexander. II. Michel, Sascha.
P245.C635 2010
4151.92dc22
2010002362
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
”2010 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York
Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com

Acknowledgments
Tlie making of C'ogtritive Pevspect~ven on CVord Forn~atiorz would not have
been possible without the suppol-t of a number of people. First of all, we
would like to thank all tlie contributors for their stimulating work and ex-
cellent cooperation tliroughout tlie publication process. In particular, their
readiness to participate in the iniernal review inspired a lively discussion
across topics and helped to consolidate some of the findings emerging from
tlie different concerns of word formation research.
We would like to thank the series editors of Trendr in Linguistic,, (Wal-
ter Bisang, Hans Henrich Hock, and Werner Winter) for expressing their
interest in this volume and for granting room for its publication in the se-
ries. We owe a substantial part of this decision to an anonymous reviewer
who commented in detail on t11c volume and its contributions. This feed-
back not only led to an eutension of individual ideas and inspired revisions
on various levels, but it also proved valuable for giving the contributors
and tlie editors a chance to take a clear stance on their work. Any remain-
ing inaccuracies of course remain in the hands of the authors and tlie edi-
tors. Then we would particularly like to thank Birgit Sievert and her dy-
namic team at the publishing house for guidance and support in all aspects
of publication. The personal way of conimunication offers a delightful
basis of cooperation.
Finally, Alexander Onysko would like to express his gratitude to
Roswitlia and Manfred Onysko for their iuianinious support in all projects
and ideas. He would particularly like to extend heartfelt thanks to Marta
Degani for sharing her keen thoughts on the introduction and on some of
the chapters in tlie volurne. Beyond that, it is her invaluable presence that
so profoundly accompanied the period of the making.
A Ie.xander 0~1y.sko
(Lienz, Austria)
SuLrchu Michel
(Koblen~, Germany)

Table of contents
Acknowledgments ............................................................................ v
Introduction: Unravelling the cognitive in word formation ................ 1
.4/exunu'er 011y.vko unu' Sc~schu Michel
Part I: Theory and interfaces in word formation
Word-forination or word forination? The forination of complex
words in Cognitive Linguistics .................................................... 29
kfartintr Lanpr~ u11d Giinther L~w~I)cT!
On the viability of cognitive morphology for explaining
language change ................................................................................ 75
Livio (3ac.i~
(Ke)defining component structures in morphological constructions:
A Cognitive Grammar perspective .................................................... 97
Cie~hal-d B vun Huji.\.siee~
Between phonology and morphology ............................................. 127
Nilke Elsen
'1 ion: The role of graininatical gender in noun-form, t'
A diachronic perspective froin Norwegian ...................................... 147
Philiyy., C'onze//
Acljective + Noun constructions between s~ ntax and
word formation in Dutch and German ............................................ 195
Mcri1hiu.s ITzining
Part II: Theory and processes of word f~rmation
Setting limits on creativity in the productioii and use of
metaphorical and metonymical compounds .................................... 2 19
KCko Be~~czes

Casting the conceptual spotlight: Hybrid compounding in German
................ as an example of head-frame internal specifier selection 243
A1cx~1ni~ic~~c.r 0ny.sko
Does love come from to love or to love from love'? Why lexical
motivation has to be regarded as bidirectional ................................ 30 1
Birgit (I~nhreit
Doz4hler-upper nouns: A challenge for usage-based
~nodels of language? ........................................................................ 335
Bert C'trppelle
The intluencc of morphological structure on the processing
of German prefixed verbs ................................................................ 375
.Judith Heicie, Antje Lorenz, And!+ Mc>inungor. ~rriu'
Frcrnk Bzdrchert
.......................... Harvesting and understanding on-line neologisms 399
Tony Veule trnd C'ristiwu Burnuriu
Sub-ject Index ................................................................................... 42 1
..................................................................................... Contributors 429

Introduction: Unravelling the cognitive in word
formation
Alexander Onysko and Sascha Michel
1. On word and formation
The notion of word, as fi~zzy as it is, appears as tlie central concept for
understanding and investigating language. In tlie early 20"' century, when
Ferdinand de Sai~ssure elaborated on the arbitrariness of signifier and sig-
nified, words and otlier linguistic i~nits were essentially characterized by
tlicir symbolic nature. Thc fact that words are merely abstract labels for
categorizing objects, qualities, and actions in tlie world has two immediate
consequences. On the one liand, abstract conceptual reference to the per-
ceived world creates associative space for cognitive processes sucli as
simulation, projection, and concept manipulation (e.g., recombining, blend-
ing, adjunction, and focal highlighting), which, on the surface of language,
can inspire the formation of words and expressions. On the otlier hand, the
symbolic quality of language creates a conceptual distance between an
utterance and what it stands for. Language operates on its own dimension
connected but at the same time removed from the real world. Iconic moti-
vation mainly exists internal to its system when established form-meaning
units are combined to express derivative concepts.' This happens, for ex-
ample, in compounding as conceptual units are created out of existing ones
(e.g., ~v.shir?g + machine 4 washing machine).
The referential remoteness between language and the perceivable world
lias been expressed in the ob-jectivist dilemma of using language as a tool
for scientific reasoning. Pal-titularly when it comes to tlie description of
language, the q~~estion arises of how the object of analysis can be described
by its own means. rIl~e only way out of this dilemma is to postulate a
higher level of abstraction, i.e., a referentially specific metalanguage in
order to avoid the inherent circularity in tlie description and analysis of
language. This ob-jectivist line of reasoning lias remained an undercurrent
in the modern study of language as structuralist, generativist, pragmatic,
and f~~nctionalist theories of language emerged. Since from an evolutionary
perspective language functions as a pragmatic tool of social interaction to

improve chances of survival, assuming an essentialist stance of reasoning
~n tlie description of language is, lio\vever, removed from the biological
reality and necessity of Iiuman interaction and language use. As sucli, the
dilemma of metalanguage and object language exists as an artefact of liu-
man reasoning, as an attempt to transcend the boundaries of expression by
creati~~g a fill-tlier level of reference. What appears as central to language,
however, is tlie fact that it is the product of human cognition. Thus, explo-
rations into the nature of language seem closer to a Iiutnan kind of reality if
cognitive processes are considered for language analysis.
11; along these lines, we disclaim a rigid objectivist approach to tlie defi-
nition of word as a basic segment of language with its many facets of cliar-
acterization,hthe cognitive aspect of a word as representing a conceptual
unit emerges as a pivotal criterion. In cognitive ternis, a word can be de-
scribed as a symbolic label of mental categories referring to (in)anirnate
ob-jects, to states, actions, conditions and qualities as they are perceived by
and conventionally construed in the Ii~~man mind in interaction with the
social and natural environment. According to this definition, words can
also label compleu mental categories. For example, the word lover ex-
presses an agentive role (encapsulated semantically in tlie suffix -er) that is
tied to the state of love. Tliis simple example indicates the general creative
capability of tlie human mind to construct and label new concepts, also by
combining existing mental categories. In tlie history of linguistic research,
sucli creative processes have come to be referred to as processes of word
formation.'
In tlie structuralist tradition, Marcliand (1969) provided a coniprelien-
sivc description of mord formation processes such as compounding, affixa-
tion (derivation), conversion, abbreviation, and blending. The structi~ralist
classifications continued to be used as a terminological spine in the field
up to the present day even though word formation researcli has become
modulated concomitant with the general strands of linguistic theory. In-
spired by Coseriu's tlieot-4 of str~ictural semantics, Lipka (cf. 2002 for a
recent comprehensive treatment) developed a lexicological approach to
word formation. Tliis path was also partly followed by Kastovsky (cf.
1992). Under the influence of generative grammar, research on word for-
matton has focused on principles and rules (cf. the lexicalist approach
sulntnarized by Scalise and Guevara 2005). This path was first explored by
Halle (1973) and later eupanded in the foundational work of Aronoff
(1976). Ever since, generative approaches have dominated research on
word formation and morphology as a variety of landmark publications in

IJnrczvelling the cognitive in word /orn?(~tion 3
the tield demonstrate (cf., among others, Katamba 1993, Kiparsky 1983,
Lieber 1992, Scalise 1984, Spencer 199 1, Stump 200 1).
In co~ijnnction with structural types of word formation, basic generative
principles (such as affixal strata, cyclic rules, the Right-Hand Head Rule,
the Elsewhere Principle) have also shaped tlie contents of major handbooks
and introductions to word formation and morphology (cf. Bauer 1983, Plag
2003, Booij 2005, Spencer and Zwicky 2001). The basic tenet unifying
these works is tliat word formation is rule-governed. Thus, Plag states in
his fairly recent introduction to English word formation that answers to the
questions of how words are related to each other and how languages allow
speakers to coin new words can be found "i~nder the assunlption that lan-
guage is a rule-governed system" (Plag 2003: 1). Booij highlights tlie no-
tion of L'rule-governed creativio" tliat accounts for tlie formation of new
words (2005: 6), and, at tlie end of his book, Bauer summarizes that "it has
been assumed throughout tliis book tliat word-formation is rule-governed,
but that rules are complex and far from obvious" (1983: 293). tle goes on
to argue in favour of word formation rules by observing that
The best evidence tliat rules rather than analogies are at work seems to me to
lie in the fact of lexicalization of word-formation processes and in the exis-
tence of unacceptable forms for which there is an obvious analogy. If it is
true that bluen, analogous to redden, is impossible, this suggests that rules
are applying. Unfortunately, it is not absolutely clear that such a form is to-
tally impossible. (1983: 295)
The closing remark in this quote actually unmasks tlie potential fallacies of
a categorical rille-based approach. Can tlic assumption about tlie rule-
governed obstruction of the word hlurri be supported by the mere fact that
it has not yet been registered as an English word even though it coheres to
a generally productive pattern of formation (i.e., deadjectival verbal suf-
fixation)? For bluen, one could argue tliat the rare combination of vowels
at the syllable boundaries between stem and suffix might cause a dis-
preferred phonological sequence for a speaker of English; however, the
semantic function could overlay this formally uncommon sequelice and in
an adequate context lead to tile creation and i~nderstanding of hluen.
Of course, this example is not to be taken as a denial for any tjpe of
regirlarities or patterned structi~res in language and word formation. Rather,
it is a token of tlie tendency in generativist, structuralist, and opti~nality
theoretic terminology to depict language as a very rigid and inflexible sys-
tem consisting of discrete elements that can be combined according to cer-
tain mechanisms. The notion of rule is central to tliis mechanistic view of

4 Ale,~under Onysko nnd Sa~chn Michel
language. The term rule, however, can evoke a series of associations tliat
reinforce a dichotomous view on how language functions. Thus, a rule
implies an imposing authority, a rille clearly divides between what is right
and wliat is wrong (i.e., wliat is good and what is bad), and in the Iii~man
view of tlie world transcending rules licenses punishment of tlie tran-
scendee (be it agents or words). While this is an extreme depiction of pos-
sible associations to the notion rule, and it is true tliat descriptively minded
stri~cti~ral and generative linguists acknowledge tlie basic dynamic and
fluctuating nature of language and apply rule in a non-prescriptivist but
schematic sense, the metaphorical images created in scholarly discourse
bear a trace of a mechanistic view of language. The attempt of trying to tie
language in a corset of rules could thus be viewed as an expression of tlie
human need and struggle for exercising control over their most precious
gift.
As an illustration of structi~ralist imagery in the description of word for-
mation, in his lucid book The Grunimur of Words, Booij speaks of mor-
phemes as "the atoms of words" (Booij 3005: 27; also cf. Plag's similarly
structuralist depiction of words as syntact~c atoms, see note 2). By a similar
metapliorical token, Booi-j goes on to refer to the process of determining
tlie structure of words as "words can be chopped into smaller pieces"
(2005: 27). On the other hand, Booij also acknowledges the fact tliat "mor-
phology contributes to the uider goals of cognitive science that explores
the cognitive abilities of human beings" (2005: 24), and he devotes a full
chapter in his book on morphology and mind to discussing issues of the
mental lexicon, the rule vs. storage dichotomy, connectionist modelling of
language (cf. Rumelliart and McClelland 1986), and Bybee's network ap-
proach (cf. 1985, 2001). This includes the notion of exemplar-based mod-
els according to which new words are created in analogy to stored exem-
plars, e.g., seatcupe coined in analogy to luncl~cape. In the end, Booij
proposes a "morpl~ological race" scenario which is based on parallel proc-
essing of stored word forms and rule-governed formations (2005: 25 I). A
parallel processing architecture of word formation which allows for redun-
dancy in mental processing is also in line with recent findings in psycllo-
I~nguistic research (cf. Libben'~ postulate of wluxlwiutlon of opl?ortunlty for
both morpl~ological decomposition and holistic processing of stored words
in a speaker's mind, 2006 6).
Apart from Booij, the importance of a cognitive perspectibe on proc-
esses of word formation has also been implied in Plag's discussion on the
role of tlie mental lexicon in word storage and productivity (2003: 47-5 I).

Most outspokenly, Schniid calls for a cognitive ti~rn in word formation
research and outlines the central concerns of a cognitively inspired view:
In1 Zentrum des Interesses stehen die Fragen nach dem kognitiven Prozess
der Konzeptbildung (s. Kap. 4). den kognitiven Funktionen von Wortbil-
dung und Wortbildungsniustern sowie die Mechanismen der Protilierung
von Konzepten in komplexen Lexemen (2005: 103)
[The questions of central concern are those targeted at the cognitive process
of concept formation (see chapter 4), at cognitive functions of word forma-
tion and patterns of word formation, and at mechanisms of conceptual pro-
tiling in cornplex lexemes]
These recent voices stressing the impol-tance of investigating word forma-
tion in the light of cognitive processes can be interpreted from two general
perspectives. First of all, they indicate tliat a structural approach to the
architecture of words and a cognitive view are not incompatible. On the
contrary, both perspectives try to work out regularities in language. What
sets them apart is the basic vision of how language is encapsulated in tlie
mind and the ensuing choice of terminology in the description of the proc-
esses. While a generativist, a structuralist. and by a similar token an opti-
lnality theoretic view (cf. Ackeina and Neelernan 2001) assumes innate
governing modules that formulate rules of language production and a sepa-
rate word store as tlie mental lexicon, cognitive linguists tend to see struc-
tures and regularities emerging from a network of interconnections guided
by general cognitive processes instantiated in language use. Crucially, cog-
nitive linguistics metapliorizes language as holistic, non-modular, emer-
gent, and depicts language as consisting of interconnected adaptive proto-
typical categories (cf. Givon 2005: 46-48), as based on image schemas,
semantic spaces and frames (cf. Fillmore 1982, 1985), grammatical con-
structions (e.g., Croft 2001, Goldberg 2006), metaphorical mappings ex-
tending from embodied and cultural experiences (cf. Lakoff and Joh~ison
1980, Kovecses 2005), figure-ground relations (cf. Langacker 1999, 2008),
and as grounded in patterns of usage (cf. Bybee 2001). As such, cognitive
linguistics takes a constructionist position on language arguing in terms of
lexical networks, emergent schemas, and associative patteriis tliat create
possibilities of expression in contrast to a generativist-structuralist view-
point of setting boundaries on language production via constraints operat-
ing on binary logic. In this way, cognitive linguistics concedes closely to
tlie self-organizing nature of humans and their language whereas generativ-
ist-structuralist perspectives represent external boundaries as given in the
institutionalized order of human interaction.

6 /fIexunder On,v?yrko nnd Snrchu h.llc,hrl
Apart from the unifying concern of these diverse schools of tliouglit in
trying to grasp the way language functions, the recurrent mention of the
importance of a cognitive perspective on word formation among structural-
ist accounts stresses the necessity for tlie field of cognitive linguistics to
expand its endeavours of language description onto productive processes
pertaining to tlie word level of language. This evokes tlie issue whether
cognitive linguistics lias developed the appropriate theoretical notions to
take on tliis task. In order to dwell on tliis question, a brief overview of
ma-jor theoretical developments in the field is necessary.
2. The advent of cognitive linguistic thought
Originally, cognitive lingit istics gained its impetus from three related tlieo-
retical developments and findings in the mid seventies and early eighties.
Eleanor Kosch's empirical investigations of tlie internal associative struc-
ture of certain sets of categories (e.g., bird, fifr-u it,vehicle, fiirnitur.e, weapon
cf. 1975, 1978) proved that humans associatively construct their categories
around central members, the so-called prototypes. Rosch's findings have
inspired a prototypical conception of lexical semantics which lias readily
been embraced as a model of semantic category structures in cognitive
linguistics. 'Today, a prototypical view of tlie semantic structure of catego-
ries is still prevalent even thoi~gli the dynamic nature of prototypes has
been emphasized. Tlius, Stnitli and Samuelson (1 997) provide evidence for
variable categories that are constructed on-line during language production
according to speakers' needs. In a similar fashion, Geeraerts concludes his
discussion on the notion of prototypicality by stating that "prototype for-
mation may be influenced by other factors than purely conceptual ones"
(2006: 46). Tlius, "stylistic, sociolinguistic, [and] connotational expressiv-
ity rather than purely conceptual needs may determine the flexible use of a
category" (2006: 46).
Complementary to prototype theory, Charles Filltnore developed the no-
tion of frame semantics (cf. 1982, 1985), which Croft and Cruse describe
in its essence as an attempt to account for "a concept as a complexly struc-
tured body of interconnected knowledge" (2004: 9 1). Such interconnected
knowledge is activated in association with any concept in the mind of a
speaker. Thus, dependent on discourse context and intention, the semantic
frame of HOUSE can involve a set of associations to encyclopaedic and
experientially connected parts of a liouse such as batliroom, kitchen, stair-
case, and so on. Frame semantics inspired tlie foundation of related notions

IJt~ruvelling the cognitive in word formution 7
such as u'orf~uins applied in Cognitive Grammar (1,angacker 2008: 44-47)
and Ideulized ('ognitive Mode1.s (ICM, Lakoff 1987: 68-74), which de-
scribe a mode of organizing knowledge by its idealized kernel, i.e., by its
decontextualized default interpretation.
The third major foundation of cognitive linguistics was laid down in the
groundbreaking work of L,akoff and Johnson (1 980) on the cognitive inter-
pretation of metaphor and metonymy. Built upon the central function of
metaphor to ~~nderstand and experience one kind of thing in terms of an-
other ( 1980: 51, Lakoff and Johnson argue that metaphorical imagery is
fundamental to our conceptual system, as such based on internalized ex-
periences and perceptions, and structured by a basic set of metaphorical
pro-jections that underlie human discourse. In their early work they distin-
guished between ontological (e.g., AHs.r~~c.1. CONCEI'P ,IS ENTITY), orien-
tational (e.g., C;OOl> Is UP, BAD IS DOWN), and structural types of metaphors
(e.g., ANGI'K IS A ~0'1' FL~JID IN A C'ON.I'AINEK, I,OVF, IS A JOURNEY). More
recently, Lakoff and Johnson abandoned this distinction since all meta-
phors are structural and ontological and many metaphors emerge from ba-
sic orientational image schetnas (2003: 264). Instead, they stress the pro-
fundity of primary metaphor as postulated in Grady's work (1997), which
establishes a basic level of metaphorical thought grounded in primaly,
image-schematic experiences. As a further development of metaphor re-
search, cross-cultural variation of conceptual metaphors has been acknowl-
edged, particularly in Kovecses' work, which stresses cultural influences
on metaphorical conceptions and considers metaphor as a linguistic, con-
ceptual, socio-cultural, neural, and bodily phenomenon (2005: 8-9).
Closely related to cognitive metaphor, conceptual metonymy developed
into a separate branch of research particularly focussing on linguistic ex-
pressions that conceptually higliliglit part of a concept which is expressed
linguistically while reference is made to tlie whole entity. For detailed
treatments of metonymic processes see the works of Barcelona (2003,
2005) and the volumes of Barcelona (2003), Panther and Thornburg
(2003), and Panther and Radden ( 1999).
While these foundational theories of cognitive linguistics primarily pro-
vided insight into lexical semantic issues, they also crucially stimulated
further theory construction. Thus, drawing on tlie metaphor of semantic
frames, Fauconnier (1985) developed a model of mental spaces that has
recently been proven as a valid explanatory tool for describing grammatical
phenomena of hypotlietical space building in English conditional clauses
(cf. Dancygier and Sweetser 2005). Apart from that, cognitive linguistics
saw the emergence of two major grammatical frameworks: Cognitive

8 .ille.~under Onysko cmd Swchu Michel
Grammar and Construction Grammar. The latter developed from initial
concerns to treat idiomatic phrases as constructions, i.e., uniform represen-
tations of all grammatical knowledge, and grew into several strands of
theories (cf. Kay and Fillmore 1999, Goldberg 2006, Croft 2001). 'These
theories of Construction Grammar are unified by three central principles:
the independent existence of constri~ctions as symbolic units, the i~niform
representation of grammatical structures, and the taxonomic organization
of constructions in grammar (Croft and Cruse 2004: 265). In his model of
Cognitive Grammar, Langacker (2008) conceives of the essence of lan-
guage as based on a series of cognitive principles and fi~nctions, such as
tlie existence of image schemas (preconceptual schematized patterns of
activity derived from bodily sense experiences), the construction of Ideal-
ized Cognitive Models (i.e., frames) based on prototypical classifications,
tlie perception of figure and ground (or the corresponding trajector and
landmark), conceptual profiling of active zones through focal attention, and
grounding of events in discourse context. His conception of language is
also in line with usage-based appl-oaclies to language structure (cf. Bybee
1985, 200 1 ). Tlius, in Cognitive Grammar, patterns of language emerge via
entrenched, i.e., frequently employed, schemas and constructions. For ex-
ample, Laligacker describes compound forrnatioli in English as a construc-
tional schema of specijier - specified, e.g., a tublecloth is a cloth that is
specified for its use as covering a table (2008: 164-1 74).
Apart from tlie widening of cognitive linguistic approaches to mainly
grammatical phenomena, the field has recently experienced the advent of
another tlieory that caters for the way the human mind creates novel mean-
ing by drawing from previously constructed reference frames and concep-
tual units. This is conceptual blending theory as put forward most compre-
hensively in Fauconnier and Turner (2002). In a nutsliell, conceptual
blending theory builds on the notion of mental spaces wliicli form a con-
ceptual integration network. 'The structure of the network consists of input
spaces which feed associable meaning components into a blended space.
Generally, Fauconnier and Turner distinguisli four types of conceptual
blending networks: simplex networks, mirror networks, single scope and
double scope networks (2002: 120-135). To give just one example of the
latter, most creative type of conceptual blending, Fauconnier and Turner
describe the conlpuler desklop as a double scope blending in which the
input spaces of cornpuler and de,tklop have different organizing frames.
Tlius, regular computer commands (e.g., delete a digital document) are
mapped onto office work (e.g., throwing a piece of paper in a trashcan)
(2002: 13 1 ).

Unr-uvelling [he cognitive m word fortnution 9
In view of these developments in cognitive linguistic thoughts,' two
immediate questions arise as soon as word forination knocks on the door of
research on language and cognition. First of all. are the theoretical frame-
works that structure the field of cognitive linguistics capable of investigat-
ing processes of word internal structuring? Secondly, and related to the
first question, what kinds of attempts have been made so far to explain
word fortnation from a cognitive vision of language?
To briefly address the first question, it appears as if the various basic
tenets of cognitive linguistics are applicable to issues pertaining to the
word level. Thus, the notion of prototype and periphery could be employed
to distinguish between different types of productive processes (e.g., prefer-
ences atnong different types of derivational suffixes). Furtlier~nore, frame
semantics in combination with contiguity among sense elements of a frame
(cf. Koch 1999) shed some light on the issue of cornpound formation, and
particularly conceptual metaphor theory and conceptual blending theory
represent insightful frameworks that add to the understanding of meaning
construction in newly created terms and compounds. On a general level,
processes of word formation also tie in with tlie neurological grounding of
a cognttive linguistic conception of language. Thus, word formational
processes can be conceived of as constructional schemas and patterns that
emerge in usage-based mental networks (cf. Bybee 1985, 200 1 ). As far as
Construction Grammar and partly also Cognitive Grammar is concerned,
the neglect of word for~nation is, thus, not motivated by a theoretical void
but seems related to a more stringent interpretation of grammar as primar-
ily syntactic phenomena in line with traditional views. In his discussion of
specification schenias, Langacker actually creates a link to the issue of
compound formation (see above).
This cursory glance at the tool kit of cognitive linguistic theories al-
ready alludes to their possible function of disentangling the internal com-
position of words and the productive processes of coining new terms. In
spite of this potential,i processes or word fortnation have remained a fairly
neglected branch of study in the field of cognitive linguistics. This general
disregard is also reflected in tnajor introductory books and volurnes on
cognitive linguistics which remain silent on this issue (cf. Croft and Cruse
2004, Evans and Green 2006) or merely tentatively point out its relevance
and call for further research in this area (cf. Dirven and Verspoor 1998,
Ungerer and Schmid 2006). Thus, it is not surprising that only recently first
efforts have been made to apply and to develop cognitive views capable of
accounting for processes of word formation.

1 0 i-llc..vanu'er. Ot1y.rko and Smchu Michel
As part of tlie most recent handbook of cognitive linguistics (Geeraerts
and Cilyckens 2007), Ungerer provides a first summary of cognitive re-
search into word formation (2007: 650-675). According to him, studies
have mostly tried to explore traditional types of word formation such as
compounding, affixation, processes of abbreviation, and blending. Apart
from diminutives and contrastive prefixation, the Englisli suffix -er has
earned considerable attention among derivational processes. Thus, Panther
and Thornburg (2001) postulate a prototypical agentive function of -er,
wliich by metaphorical and metonymic extension develops into a radial set
of meanings including instrumental, causal, locative, and patient senses. A
silnilar line of reasoning has also been given earlier in Dirven and Ver-
spoor, who describe tlie derivational schema (verb (V) + -er) as "a human
or other source tliat is fi~nctionally linked to the event in V" (1998: 65).
Kyder (1999) criticizes a pure argument structure analysis of -er suffixa-
tion and, instead, proposes a series of constraints acting on tlie event
schema of tlie base concept in order for it to undergo tliat type of word
formation. Thus, base event scliemas preferably refer to single events, must
be able to bear durative and habitual aspect, and must be specific and
liiglily entrenched. 111 view of the different accounts on -er suffixation, the
volume at hand adds yet another facet to tlie discussion, wliich is tlie pecu-
liar process of double suffixation apparent in doubler-upper nouns.
Apart from some first explorations into the metonymic nature of con-
version (cf. Dirven 1999), and the schematic structure of blends (cf. Kern-
mer 20031, nominal compounding and attributive nominal specitication (cf.
Sweetser 1999, Coulson 200 I) have been subject of both psycholinguistic
investigations (cf. Libben and Jarema 3006) and cognitive linguistic re-
search on word formation at large. The latter has particularly drawn from
conceptual blending theory as applied in a study on creative compounding
in English (cf. Benczes 2006). Cognitive aspects of compounding and
nominal specification also feature prominently in the present volume in
wliich three contributions pick up loose ends in the area of compounding.
In general, the overview of research so far alludes to tlie fact that cogni-
tive linguists have largely tackled issues of word formation by applying
established theories in the tield. In a similar vein, Tuggy employs the basic
tenet of scliematicity from Cognitive Grammar to focus on constructional
scliemas of compound formation and pluralization (2005: 233-265). His
all-out schematic vision of language is built on layers of scliemas ranging
from general, liiglier-level ones to more specific, lower-level types. Thus,
the compound octopu,c curry is constructed as a nested structi~re of com-
pounding scliemas ranging from a general schema of (NI Thing associated

Unrcrvclling tlie cognitive in word fomcition 1 I
with N: Thing) to the ingredient schema in wliicli (N, is an ingredient of
N-) (2005: 253). The postulate of language as purely schematic allows a
holistic interpretation of language wliicli defies any nodular distinctions
between syntax and morphology and likewise between inflection and word-
formation. In addition, constituent ordering becomes irrelevant as the ques-
tion of how pieces are combined matters more than their order or type
(2005: 258). While the formation of schemas is indeed central to the nature
of language, Tuggy's approach to word formation remains a perspectival
sketch which calls for more tine-grained schematic analyses of word for-
mation patterns. So, interesting questions remain open to further research
such as what is the internal conceptual and formal structure of sche~natic
units, how is the combination of schematic units motivated, and why are
certain schematic combinations more productive than others?
In some of his recent work, Tal~ny (cf. 2007) propounds a theory of re-
combinance which is constitutive of conibinatorial processes evident in
lexical and phrasal-idiomatic expression of concepts. Recombinance con-
sists of a continuum bounded by two poles of productivity: recombination
and emergentness. While recombination explains regular semantically and
fortnally transparent schemas of word formation (e.g., -er agentive suffixa-
tion), emergentness describes unpredictable formal - setnantic mappings
which are processed as autono~nous gestalts (e.g., idiomatic phrases).
Talmq's thoughts on these issues are picked up more extensively in the
opening chapter of this volume, which discusses his theory as a viable
process of lexical creation.
Finally, looking beyond the core of cognitive linguistic theories, Ste-
kauer's onomasiological depiction of word formation emerges as a relevant
approach since it provides a functional-cognitive response to '-the one-
sided formalism'' of mainstream generative accounts of word fortnatioll
(2005: 21 2). Inspired by the Prague School of functional-structuralism, he
does not emphasize the cognitive Iiolistic account of word formation, i.e.,
its enlergence from a network of schematic representations. Instead, Ste-
kauer postulates that word fortnation is an independent component of lin-
guistics, which is crucially related to extra-linguistic reality and the naming
demands of speakers in a speech community. In his view, the naming de-
mand is a cognitive process based on conceptual activation and semantic
processing which build the onomasiological structure as the basis for the
act of naming (2005: 2 16). The expression of an onolnasiological stimulus
is then carried out on an onomatological level of morpheme - seme map-
ping and is t'inally marked by phonological conventions (e.g., assignment
of initial stress in compounds).

1 2 /Ilexandcr Onj>.5ko ond Suschu hlichcl
Altliougli Stekauer's onomasiological theory of word formation is not
explicitly addressed among the individual contributions of this volume, his
model strikes two base notes that reverberate tlirougliout tlie book. First of
all, cognitive and structuralist reasoning are reconcilable if structuralist
categories are grounded in cognitive processes of schematicity and concep-
tual combination. Secondly, the formation of words is in its essence a cog-
nitive plienomenon. Accordingly. research on various types and processes
of lexical creation needs to be based on cognitive principles in order to
adequately account for a speaker-oriented, usage-based view of word for-
mation.
3. Outline of the volume
The discussion so far has shown that in modern linguistics tlie field of
word formation has traditionally been rooted fimily in structuralist and
generativist theories. These approaches have established taxonomies of
word formation types and various sets of rules which, for example, try to
account for the combination of affixes and for issues of lieadedness in mor-
phologically complex constructions. Structuralist, generativist, and opti-
mality theoretic views of word formation have continued to dominate the
scene of research up until today, and only recently first alternative ap-
proaches have been put forward. Initially, cognitive linguistics has kept
silent on questions of word formation as the field developed primarily
along insights into conceptual categorization, frame semantics, metaphor
theory, mental spaces, and early Cognitive Gra~iimar. Ever since Bybee
postulated the relation between usage frequency and entrencliment of mor-
pl~ological processes (cf. 1985), tlie ground has been prepared for casting
cognitive perspectives on issues of analyzing word internal structures and
productive patterns. In line with fitrtlier developments of cognitive linguis-
tic theories in metaphor and metonymy research, conceptual blending,
Construction Grammar, and the entrenchment of a schematic vision of
language, the set of tools for analyzing word formation have increased,
and, ai shown above, tlie first investigations have come underway. To re-
phrase Ungerer's claim (cf. note 5). however, the potential of cognitive
explorations into the issue have only sparsely been realized, and there is a
lack of studies utilizing diverse empirical methods for achieving deeper
conceptual insights into word formation.
In light of this need, tlie present volume is the first one to take a sub-
stantive step towards illuminating diverse aspects of word formation from

Unru~vlling the cognitive in word$~rrnation 13
cognitive perspectives. For this purpose, the book brings together contribu-
tions of tlie 2"" International Cognitive Linguistics Conference of tlie Ger-
nian Cognitive Linguistics Association in Munich in 2006 and a selection
of invited papers by scholars working on issues of word formation and
cognitive linguistics. Tlie concerns of part of tlie contributions are of a
theoretical nature such as tlie discussion of recombinance as a model of
word formation and tlie postulate of a taxonomy of word formation proc-
esses as construction types. A few papers deal witli the interface between
word formation and syntactic processes, word formation and inflection,
and plionology and word formational patterns. Tlie remaining studies in the
volume are concerned witli investigating phenomena related to traditional
types of word formation (compounding, derivation, and conversion), and
they contribute to reframing our understanding of these processes.
In ~nethodological terms, the majority of tlie papers take a data-driven
approach to analysis including corpus linguistic investigations, elicited
data, psycholinguistic experiments and computational linguistic applica-
tion. A few follow an introspective path of reasoning based on tlie discus-
sion of selected examples (e.g., creative co~npounds and word coinages in
fantasy writing). Tlie metliodological pluralism falls in line witli recently
uttered methodological concerns that cognitive linguistics should strive to
employ tlie full range of methods for analyzing language, from introspec-
tion to corpus evidence and empirical data. This would strengthen interdis-
ciplinary links to psyclioling~iistics, discourse analysis, and corpus linguis-
tics (cf. Gibbs 2007: 2-17; Grondelaers, Geeraerts and Speelman 2007:
167).
As mentiolied in the previous section, structural linguistics and cogni-
tive considerations are not necessarily irreconcilable in their basic con-
cerns. In fact, this volume intends to contribute to a vision of tlie two as
being complernentary rather than diametrically opposed. '1 hus, many stud-
ies go from traditional terminology and established categories to novel,
cognitive ways of analyzing patterns of word formation. Language data and
examples are mainly drawn from diverse Germanic languages (Afrikaans,
Dutch, English, German, Lurembourgisli, and Norwegian), and, in one
case, from Italian.
While we are aware that tlie range of papers would allow for several
ways of arrangement, we have decided to highlight their nature along tlie
following two lines: Part 1 subsumes primarily theoretical contributions on
basic cognitive processes of word formation, on the interplay between dia-
clirony and synchrony in word formational analysis, on a classitication of
word formation types, and on issues on the interfaces between word forina-

14 Alexunder Onv.,ko und Saschm Mchel
tion and inflection, word formation and phonology, and word formation
and phrasal constri~ctions. Part 2 comprises papers focussing on established
processes of word formation (compounding, derivation, and conversion)
including an empirical psycholinguistic and a computational linguistic
approach.
In detail, Part 1 commences witli Martina and Giintlier Lampert's con-
tribution on WordTfi)rn~a/ion or worcl,fOrrnation? The formation qf'conlplex
~z~or*dv in Cognitive Z,ingui.~tic.,. This paper raises the fundamental issue of
how word forniatioli can be couched in a cognitive li~iguistic framework.
To answer this question, tlie authors first of all provide an overview of
usage-bascd approaches to morphology and word formation, in which they
discuss tlie notions of morpliological constructions, tlie dichotomy of stor-
age vs. computation, and the view of ~norphological constructions as sclie-
mas, as perpetuated in Bybee's network type approach to ~norphological
structure. As a viable alternative for describing compositional morpliology,
the authors then follow Talmy's notion of recombinance, which is charac-
terized by tlie interplay of recombination, i.e., semantically transparent
(re)arrangements of linguistic units, and emergentness, i.e., unpredictable,
arbitrary and, thus, gestalt-like combinations. After giving a detailed ac-
courit of I'almy's theory wit11 examples from the lexical network of emo-
tion, tlie authors conclude witli an application of recombinance to tradi-
tional types of word formation in order to stress the essential similarity
across the range of compositionality.
In tlie next chapter, Livio Gaeta retlects On the viubilit~ c?j'cognitive
111orph010,qy~ fi)r expluining langzrcrge chcmge. His discussion high lights tlie
importance of considering tlie diachronic dimension in cognitive analyses
of language since purely synchronic evidence based on "naturally" occur-
ring cognitive processes (e.g., metaphor and metonymy) can lead to over-
simplified and misleading explanations. He demonstrates the cr~~cial inter-
action between diaclirony and synchrony by closely investigating two
examples of language change: the passive auxiliary ginn in Luxern-
bourgisli, and the developtnent of agentive/instrumental suffixes in Ro-
mance languages. I:or ginn, an image schema analysis combined with his-
torical evidence show that presumed homonymy can actually be
disentangled as grammaticalization following abstraction from polysemous
senses. As far as agentive/instrumental suffixes are concerned, tlie reverse
conclusion appears to hold truc since tlie universal claim of cognitively
grounded polyselny extensions of agentive suffixes is not borne out in Ital-
ian where alternative explanations of borrowing, sound change, and ellipsis
account for liornonymy of individual agentive and instrumental suffixes.

Unr.crvel/ing the cognitive in word,fi)rrntrlion 1 5
The third paper of the volume aims to detine component structures in
~norphological constructions in Afrikaans from the perspective of Cogni-
tive Grammar. Based on a set of valence factors comprising schematicity,
autonomyldepende~~ce, promiscuity, and constituency, Gerhard Van
Huyssteen proposes a classification of morphological component structures
into autonomous stems, dependent stems, affixes, and paramorphemes.
While conceding lo cognitive principles, this taxonomy offers the neces-
sary clarity of categorization, which facilitates its application for the com-
putational annotation of morphological composition in Afrikaans lexis.
This approach could serve as a rnodel of morphological analysis in other
languages.
Chapter 4 opens up the discussion of interface issues in word formation.
In Beween pho17ology und moi-pholop, Hilke Elsen provides a rich array
of data from child language, the terminology of chemistly, and names in
fantasy and science tiction novels to argue for, on the one hand, the gestalt-
like processing of lesser known sound sequences, and, on the other hand,
for semanticization of recurrent sound shapes into morphemic units. These
processes can be aligncd on a perceptual continuum ranging liom sound
shape to recurring groups of sounds to segmental morphemes. Thus, her
contribution stresses the interwoven nature of phonological and morpho-
logical phenomena which dispute their analytical segmentation as separate
levels of language.
Philipp Conzett's contribution investigates The role of grurni?ialical
gender in 11out7~forn1ution in Norwegian based on a comparison of histori-
cal and recent language data. His study sheds light on the interface of word
formation and inflection and is a further contribution that considers dia-
chronic evidence in its comprehensive analysis. The author approaches the
issue from a bidirectional perspective, stressing that patterns of word for-
mation can function as a base of assigning gender to nouns and that gender
assignment also plays an active role in the formation of novel nouns. By
comparing all gender marked non-compound nouns in an Old Norse and in
a modern Norwegian dictionary, Conzett reaches the conclusion that gen-
der patterns (formalized as gender specific suffixes or simple change of
gender in the determiner) represent a productive means of word formation.
This is indicated by the functions of deriving gender specific referents
(e.g., masculine and feminine pairs of agentive nouns), and of marking
semantic differences of same surface forms, i.e., to dissociate instances of
lexical homonymy.
Thc last chapter of Pai-t I probes the transitional area between word for-
mation and syntax as exemplified in ad-jective and noun constructions in

Dutch and Gerinan. Mattliias Hiining points out that both in Dutch and
German lexicalized phrases (e.g., suurer. Regeri 'acid rain') mirror regular
syntactic groups in ternis of stress placement, inflection of tlie attributive
ad-jective, and their orthographic conventions. However, lexicalized
phrases also exhibit the typical compound features of bearing a naming
(labelling) function arid of disfavouring modification of the adjectival
specifier. When comparing tlie creation of compounds and syntactic groups
in Gertnan and Dutch, kluning assumes tliat tlie trend towards miverbation
in German is related to its synthetic character while in Dutch, which has
comparably fewer inflectional processes, adjective-noun phrases are pre-
ferred as naming elements. The paper's concern with compounding antici-
pates Part 2, which shifts the perspective onto individual processes of word
creation.
Thus, as the first contribution of the second part, Reka Benczes pursues
the immanent questions of why people coin inetaphorical and metonymic
noun-noun compounds at all and how transparency of meaning and crea-
tivity in this type of compounds can be explained in a cognitive linguistic
framework. In answering tlie first of tliese questions, Benczes discusses the
role of compactness and vividness, context, memorability, analogy, and
remotivation as motivating factors of compound creation. Her analysis is
supported by tlie application of conceptual blending theory which shows
how coricept~~al traits of tlie compound elements are integrated to form the
conceptual (blended) space of the compound. When it comes to the issue of
semantic transparency vs. creativity, Benczes argues from a Langackerian
schematic perspective. She specifically applies the notions of elaboration
and extension to correlate creative extension with transparency of meaning.
To add yet another facet to the cognitive construal of compounding,
Alexander Onysko's study provides evidence in support of the view that
the formation of co~npounds is concept~rally structured. A detailed investi-
gation of hybrid norninal compounds in German (e.g., Ahen~lshow, Fir-
~nenrn~unuger) unveils that tlie specifying element in a compound emerges
from the semantic frame of the head, which acts as tlie conceptual base of
compound formation. His analysis of corpus data also shows tliat concep-
tual blending operates on the base of head-frame internal specifier selec-
tion. As such, conceptual blending is only active in the case of metaphori-
cal and metonymic compounds. llis study concludes with a detailed
appendix containing the individual types of hybrid compounds and a set of
conceptual maps illustrating head frames and their contiguous sense ele-
ments as specifiers in co~npound formation.

Ui~vuvetling the cognitive in wordfi,rmation 1 7
After the focus on compounding as a central process of lexical creation,
Birgit Umbreit's contribution topicalizes the crucial aspect of directionality
in conversion. Before proposing her own theory on directionality in con-
version pairs, Ilnibreit ~~nveils the weaknesses of the claim for unidirec-
tionality in certain patterns of word formation. She discusses common
methods of trying to account for directionality in lexical creation whicli are
etymology, usage frequency, semantic dependency and specificity, and the
fortnal criterion of overt analogy. Each of these seems insufficient to ex-
plain tlie direction of conversions. As an alternative, Umbreit offers a bidi-
rectional view, whicli is supported by empirical evidence from tlie cogni-
tive organization of word-families, by data from L2 acquisition, and by
evidence of speaker judgements on motivation. The latter, however, tend to
show preferences for certain ro~~tes of conversion whicli empliasizes the
existence of a continuum of bidirectionality framed between two opposite
poles of unidirectional motivation.
In Doubler-upper nouns: A cl?allenge ,fi,r usuge-bused modeLs of lan-
guage?, Bert Cappelle investigates the rare but regular plienomenon of
double -er derivations (e.g., dropper-inner, a as her-upper). His detailed
analysis of the phenomenon sets out with a quantitative corpus investiga-
tion based on tlie British iVutionu1 Chrpus (BNC), tlie CTor~)u,s c!f'C'onteni-
porary Anlerican Eu?gli.r.h (COCA), and tlie World Wide Web, all of which
confirm tlie rare but steady presence of double -er derivations. Previous
research on tlie phenomenon has uncovered a few reasons for its occur-
rence: plionological expressiveness, tlie misleading assumption of the un-
availability of adverb - verb compounds, and the fact that double suffixa-
tion depends on the interim status of adverbs and prepositions as head or
non-head of the construction. 'l'hus, fuzzy lieadedness exerts double force
for -er suffixation in doubler-upper nouns: suffixation of tlie semantic head
(left hand element) and suffixation of tlie structural head (right hand ele-
ment). This last observation is also crucial for Capelle's approach to the
issue, wliicli adds a few other principles of formation s~lch as the phonaes-
tlietical jingling effect of double -er suffixation. In the end, tlie author
comments on the fact tliat the capabilities of language users to create this
structure without prior input would favour a rule-based account over a
usage-based view. However, double -er suffixation, could also be ab-
stracted from a more general schema of -er suffixation so tliat a usage-
based view could actually explain tlie formations.
Continuing with derivational processes, Judith Heide, Antje Lorenz,
Andre Meinunger, and Frank Burchert's contribution sheds light on The
i??fluence qf'n~orphol(>gicwl structure on the proce.ssing of Geri~~cm prefixed

1 8 Ale.xc~nu'er. Onj>.~ko and Suschu Michel
verh,~ from an experimental psycholinguistic perspective. The particular
focus of their study is on inseparable ver-prefixed verbs (e.g., vergehen 'to
forgive', verluufin 'to get lost'), wIiic11 call forth the question whether the
prefix is processed separately from the root, i.e., whether tlie prefix is rep-
resented autonomously in the mental lexicon. To test this hypothesis, tlie
authors conducted a lexical decision task with masked ~norphological prim-
ing, measuring response accuracies, response latencies, and priming effects
for related and unrelated root and root+en primes. By discussing their find-
ings in relation to previous research, tlie authors conclude that ver-verbs
are decon~posed eitlicr as a right branching structure (e.g., ver + Iuufin) or
as a flat structure (e.g., vpr + urt~ + en 'to impoverisl~') dependent on
whether the root exists as a separate item in the mental lexicon or not.
The final contribution of the volume takes an applied computational ap-
proach, called Zeitgeist, to finding neologisms as blends in Wikipedia. For
classifying novel blends semantically, Veale and Butnariu have designed
Zeirgeisi to first of all seek out neologisms that represent a formal blend of
two different lexical items. As a next step, the cross-references given in
corresponding Wikipedia articles are used as semantic information of the
blend, and this information allows for an integration of the neologisms in
the lexical-semantic network of WordNet. The relation between headwords
in Wikipedia and lexical entries in WordNet is built on two semantic con-
nectives: x isu y (as in ,superhero is a hero) and x hedges y (as in ~yintron-
ic~ hedges electronics), which is a case of taxonomic coordination. After
exemplifying various schemas arising from tlie two connectives, Veale and
Butnariu present the results of how precise tlie neologisms extracted from
Wikipedia are interpreted semantically. From a cognitive perspective, Zeit-
geist sl~ows that many of the sense elements entailed in neologisms are
instantiated in tlie cross-references given in the corresponding Wikipedia
entry.
As the brief previews of the individual contributions show, the volume
provides a rich array of topics emerging under the umbrella of cognitive
linguistic thought and established patterns and processes of word forma-
tion. The various studies add to a yet marginal body of research in cogni-
tive word formation and, thus, are intended to help substantially increase
awareness about the benefits of applying cognitive linguistic thoughts for
investigating processes of lexical creation.

(Inravelling /he cognitive in ~~ordfi,rn7ution 1 9
Notes
1. 'Traces of iconic mappings between the world and language exist in onomato-
poeic imitation, in the phenomenon of reduplication, and as secondary iconic-
ity in selected morphological and syntactic principles (e.g., sequential order,
cf. De Cuypere 2008).
2. Plag, for example, distinguishes four properties of words: (a) they have a part
of speech specification, (b) they are syntactic atoms, (c) they usually carry one
main stress, and (d) they are indivisible units (2003: 8).
3. We favour the unhyphenated spelling of word formation to emphasi~e its con-
ceptual unity as an inclusive combinatorial process on the lexical level rather
than as a traditional discipline of linguistics. In the volume, however, contribu-
tors are free to follow their own preferences, which lead to variation in the
spelling of word,fi)rmution and ~~ordTfi,rrnation across contributions. With the
exception of Martina and Giinther Lampert's contribution, this variation in
spelling is deemed irrelevant for the claims and observations put forward in
the volume.
4. Cf. also The Handbook of Cognitive L2inguistics (Geeraerts and Cuyckens
2007) for a detailed overview of basic theoretical concepts. approaches to lan-
guage analysis, and for the relation between cognitive perspectives and other
theoretical strands of linguistics.
5. As far as the contribution of cognitive linguistics to word formation is con-
cerned, Ungerer stresses that "it [cognitive linguistics] can provide both the
theoretical background and the empirical tools to complete a process that had
already been set going: the semanticization of word-formation analysis (2007:
65 1 ). Despite this potential, lie concludes his survey by affirming that "current
cognitive research in word-formation is still very much in its initial stages"
and that "the application of most empirical methods has been too selective for
a proper evaluation of their usefulness and should be supported by further
studies" (2007: 67 1).
References
Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neelenian
2004 Beyond Mor-pholofi)?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Adams, Valerie
1973 An iniroc/uciion to ti~odern English 1~ord,fi1rn7atior7. London: Long-
man.

20 -1lexunu'er Onwko und Su\c hu &fiche1
Aronoff, Mark
1976 Word Forniation in Generative C;rtmimur. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Barcelona, Antonio
2003 Metonymy in Cognitive 1,inguistics: An analysis and a Sew modest
proposals. In n/lotivu/ion in Lunguuge: Sludies in Honor c?fCiiniet*
Rudden, Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, Kene Dirven, and Klaus-
Uwe Panther (eds.), 223-255. AtnsterdamlPhiladelphia: Benjamins.
1005 The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse,
with particular attention to metonymic chains. In Cognitive Linguis-
tiex: lnlernul Dynunlics utid lnterdi.sciplinury /nterudion, Francisco
J. Ruiz Mendoza Ibafiez and M. Sandra PeAa Cervel (eds.), 3 13-352.
Berlin!New York: De Gruyter.
Barcelona, Antonio (ed.)
2003 Metuphor nnd iMetonylr1.y at the C'ros.srouds: A cogniiive perspective.
BerlinINew York: De Cruyter.
Baiter, Laurie
1983 English Word-t;ornlu/ion. Catlibridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benc~es, Reka
2006 CYreu/ivc conipounding it7 Et~gli.rh: The semuntic.~ of' ~~etupl~oricul
a~d t??e/ot?ymi~~~/ 17oz1n-n0un con?hina/inn.s. Amster-
dam1Philadelphia: Ben.janiins.
Booij, Gert
3005 The Gramnlur of Word.s. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, Joan I,.
1985 Morphology. AmsterdamiPhiIadeIptiia: Beri.jarnins.
2001 Phonology (mu' Lunglruge Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Coulson, Seana
200 1 Set7iuniic Leups: Frunie-Shijting cmd C'onceptuul Blending in hleun-
itig (Iori~trz~ction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crofi, William
200 1 Radical C'on.strmciion Grumniur: S,w~uciic Theory in Typological
Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, William, and Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive 1ingzri.stic.s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cuyckens, Hubert, Rene Dirven, and John R. Taylor (eds.)
1003 Cognitive Approuche~ 10 Lexic~I Seniuriiic~. BerlinJNew York: De
Cruyter.
Cuyckens, Hubert, Thomas Berg, Rene Dirven, and Klaus Panther (eds.)
2003 Motivutiori in Luriguc~ge. AmsterdamIPhiladeIphia: Benjamins.

Unruvellin~y /he cognitive in word,fi,rrncrtion 2 1
Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sueetser
2005 Men/uI Spucc.s it1 C;rummur-: C'ondi~ional C'on.strzrctions. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
De Cuypere, I,udovic
ZOO8 Lirniting the I~.onic.: Ft-otn the ~t~e~utlieoreticul ,fi)undutions to the
c,l-ecxtivc possibilities of iconicitv in lunguuge. Amstcr-
damPhiladelphia: Benjamins.
Dirven, Rene
1999 Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In Meton-
yn7y in lur7guuge nnd ~houghl, Klaus-Uwe Panther and Giinter Rad-
den (eds.), 273-287. AmsterdamiPhiladelphia: Benjamins.
2005 Ma-jor Strands in Cognitive Linguistics. In Cognitive Lingz~isfics:
It7tcrntrl Djjnar~ic.~ (~nd Interdis~iplinury Ir7teruction, Francisco J.
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibafiez and M. Sandra Pefia Cervel (eds.), 17--68.
BerlinINew York: De Gruyter.
Ilirven. Rene, and Mar-joli.jn Verspoor
1998 Cognitive Explorutions of' Languugc ut7d Linguistics. Amsterdam1
Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green
3006 Cognitive Lit7guisric.s. An In/rodirction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Uni-
versity Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles
1985 Men/ul Spuces: A.s/,ec/s of' h4euning Construelion in Nutrrrul LUII-
guuges. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles. and Mark Turner
2002 T/7e Wuy We Think: C'onceptuul Blending und /he Mind's Hiddm
C'otnplexxilies. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, Charles J.
1982 Frame semantics. In 1,inguistics in the morning cultn. The 1,inguistic
Society of Korea (ed.), I1 1 137. Seoul: Hanshin.
1985 F'r-aines und /he semur7tic.v of undet,,stunding. Quuderr7i di ..rernunticu
6, 222 254.
Geeraerts, Dirk
2006 Words ond ()/her IVonclet-s: Pripers on Lexicul and Sen7antic Topics.
BerlinINew York: De Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk, and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.)
2007 Hunc~!huok oj' ('og~itive I,ing~ii,stic.s. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Gibbs. Raymond W. Jr.
2007 Why cognitive linguists should care inore about elnpirical methods.
In ~lfethod.~ it? cog~i~ive Iit7g~istic~. Monica Gonzalez-Marquez,
Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson, and Michael J. Spivey (eds.), 2-18.
AmsterdalnlPhiladelphia: Benjamins.

22 AIexun~Ier 0nj:rko and Suschu Michel
Givon, Talmy
2005 Context us Other Minds: The Prugniulics c?f'Sociality, C'ognition und
C'om~nunicuiion. AmsterdamIPhiladelphia: Benjamins.
Goddard, Cliff (ed.)
2006 Ethnoprrig~natics: understonding a'i.rcourse ill cultmral context. Ber-
IinINew York: De Gruyter.
Goldberg, Adele
2006 Con.structions at Ifirk. The Nature c?f'Generalizution in Languuge.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Irene Mittclberg, Seana Coulson, and Michael J.
Spivey (eds.)
2007 hkthods in cognitive 1inguislic.s. A~nsterdamiPhiladelphia: Benja-
mins.
Grady, Joseph
1997 Foundations of' Meaning: Primaty Metaphors and Primary Scenes.
PhD. diss., Department of Linguistics, University of California,
Berkeley.
Grondelaers. Stefan, Dirk Geeraerts, and Dirk Speelman
2007 A case for cognitive corpus linguistics. In Methods in cognitive lin-
guistics, Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coul-
son, and Michael J. Spivey (eds.), 149169. Amster-
damiphiladelphia: Ben.jamins.
Halle, Morris
1973 Prolegomena to a Theory of Word Formation. Linguistic lnyuiyy 4,
3-16.
Janssen, Theo, and Gisela Kedeker (eds.)
1999 Cognitive Linguistics: F'o~rndation.~, Scope, and Method~lo~q. Ber-
IinINew York: De Gruyter.
Kastovsky, Dieter
1992 The formats change -- the problems remain: Word-formation theory
between 1960 and 1990. In Thirij) years oflinguistic evolution, Mar-
tin Piitz (ed.), 285-3 10. A~listerdamiPhiladeIphia: Benjamins.
Kataniba, Francis
1993 Morphology. London: Macmillan.
Kay, Paul, and Charles Fillmore
1999 Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the
"What's X doing Y?" construction. Language 75, 1-33.
Kemmer. Suzanne
2003 Schemas and lexical blends. In Motivutiorl it7 Language. Hubert
Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, Rene Dirven, and Klaus Panther (eds.), 69-
97. AmsterdamIPhiladelphia: Benjamins.

Unravelling [he cognitive in word forniutiori 23
Kiparsky, Paul
1983 Word formation and the lexicon. In Proceedirigs of the 1982 Mid-
.America Linguistics C-onf2rence. Frances Ingemann (ed.), 3-32.
University of Kansas.
Koch, Peter
1999 Frame and contiguity: on the cognitive bases of metonymy and cer-
tain types of word formation. In Metonymy in Languqqe und
Thought, Klaus-Uwe Panther and Gunter Radden (eds.), 139-167.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Kovecses, Zoltan
2005 Metaphor in Culfz~re. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George
1987 Wornen, Fire, und Dangerous 7hirig.s. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
1980 Metul~hors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2003 Metaphors we live by. [Afterword]. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press
Langacker, Ronald
1999 Gramrnur und Concel~tuulizution. BerlinINew York: De Gruyter.
2008 Cognitive Grurnrnur. Oxford: Oxford llniversity Press.
Libben, Gary, and Gonia Jarema (eds.)
2006 The Representation und Proci?s.cing of Cornpound W0rd.s. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lieber, Rochelle
1992 Deconstructi~g Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lipka, Leonhard
2002 Erlgli.sh 1e.xicology. Lexicul .structzre, word semantics and ~jord-
,fi)rmution. Tiibingen: Narr.
Marchand, Hans
1969 The Cutegories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formution.
Miinchen: C.H. Beck.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Linda Thornburg (eds.)
2003 Metonyniy and Prugrnutic Infcrencing. AmsterdamIPhiladelphia:
Benjamins.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Linda Thornburg
2001 A conceptual analysis of English -er nominals. In Applied Cognitive
Linguislics 11: Languuge Pcdugogy, Martin Putz, Susanne Niemeier,
and Rene Dirven (eds.), 149-200. Berlinmew York: De Gruyter.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe, and Gunter Radden (eds.)
1999 hletonyrny in Lunguugc and Thought. Amsterdam. Philadelphia:
Benjamins.

24 Ale.~~n&r Onysko und Sascha Michel
Plag, lngo
2003 Word-Formution in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Radden, Giinter, and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.)
2004 Studies in Lingz/istic 1\4o/iva/ion. Berlinmew York: De Gruyter.
Rosch, Eleanor
1975 Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. .Journal qf' Ex-
perimental P.syc.hology: Gmerul 104. 193-233.
1978 Principles of Categorization. In C'ognifion and Cutegorization, Elea-
nor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), 2748. I-lillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Rumelhart, David E., and James L. McClelland
1986 On Learning the Past Tenses of English Verbs: Implicit Rules or
Parallel Distributed Processing. In Parallel Distributed Processing,
James L. McClelland, David E. Rumelhart, and the PDP Research
Group (eds.), 2 16-27 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ryder. Mary Ellen
1999 Bankers and blue-chippers: An acco~~nt of -er formations in present-
day English. English Lungzruge und Linguistics 3,269-297.
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1916 Cours de lingui.s!ique generule. Bally, Charles and Charles Albert
Sechehaye (eds.). Paris: Payot.
Scalise, Sergio
1984 Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Scalise, Sergio, and Emiliano Guevara
2005 The Lexicalist Approach to Word-Formation. In Handbook of Word-
Formation, Pavol ~tekai~er and Rochelle Lieber (eds.), 147-1 87.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Schmid, Hans-Jorg
2005 Engli~che hI(>rphologie und Wortbildur~g: Eine Einfuhrung. Berlin:
Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Smith, Linda B., and Larissa K. Samuelson
1997 Perceiving and remembering: category stability, variability and de-
velopment. In Knowledge, concepts and categories, Koen Lamberts
and David Shanks (eds.), 16 1--195. Hove: Psychology Press.
~tekauer, Pavol
1998 An onon~usiological theory of' English word-formation. Amster-
damiPhiladelphia: Benjamins.
Stekauer, Pavol, and Rochelle Lieber (eds.)
2005 Hundl7ook qf' Word-Formation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Spencer, Andrew
199 1 Morphologicul Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Unrcrvelling the cognitive in wordjbrmution 25
Spencer, Andrew, and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.)
200 1 The Hcrndhook c?fMorphology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stump, Gregory
200 1 lnfIec/ionul Morl~holoa-. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sweetser, Eve
1999 Compositionality and blending: semantic composition in a cogni-
tively realistic framework. In C-ognitive Linguistics: Foundations,
Scope, and hfilhodology, Theo Janssen and Gisela Redeker (eds.),
129-! 62. BerlinINew York: De Gruyter.
Talmy, Leonard
2007 Reconibinance in the evolution of language. In CLS 39-2: The Pari-
els. Papers ,fi-on1 the 39"' A~MLIU/ Meeting of the Clhicogo Linguistic
Society, Jonathan E. Cihlar, Arny L,. Franklin and David W. Kaiser
(eds.), 26-60. Chicago: CLS.
Tuggy, David
2005 Cognitive Approach to Word-Formation. In Handbook of' Word-
Formation, Pavol ~tekauer and Rochelle Lieber (eds.), 233-265.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Ungerer, Friedrich
2007 Word-Formation. In Hutidhook of'C'ognitive Linguisfics, Dirk Geer-
aer-ts and Andre Cuyckens (eds.), 650-675. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Ungerer, Friedrich, and Hans-Jorg Schrnid
2006 An Introu'llc/ion lo Cognitive Linguistics. 2"" ed. Harlow: Longman
Pearson.

Part I
Theory and interfaces in word formation

Word-formation or word formation? The formation
of complex words in Cognitive Linguistics
Martina Larnpert and Giinther Larnpert
I. Introduction
To sustain a minimum of conceptual coherence within Cognitive Linguis-
tics, attempts at stock-taking or meta-reflection may appear advisable from
time to time,' especially so as Cognitive Linguistics is faced with an all-
pervasive "empirical imperialism" (Geeraerts 2006: 34) that might eventu-
ally seek to completely discard its standard methods of introspection and
analytical thought (see Talmj 2007a,b for a recent defense of introspec-
tion)."e fi~lly endorse a remark made some time ago in the first volume
of Cognitive LinguisticL$ that it is indeed a "serious metatheoretical ques-
tion whether we are basically all talking about the same thing or whether
substantially different cognitive processes or organizational principles are
being inferred from [the] data" (Brugman 1990: 265-266). We thus take
George Lakoff s dictum seriously that "[w]ithout agreement on initial
premises, arguments about conclusions will be pointless" (1990: 46). This
article, then, is less about facts, but more about essences, commitments,
and theories. With the present volume being devoted to cognitive linguistic
perspectives on word-formation,' we will be addressing the theoretically
relevant issue whether a specific 'site' for studies into morphological com-
positionality can be found in Cognitive Linguistics at all. So our ob-jective
is to go beyond treating the notoriously difficult-to-define concept of word-
formation merely as a convenient label in view of solving practical prob-
lems in the first place.
Since most current data-oriented studies in Cognitive Linguistics ex-
plicitly or implicitly position the~nselves within the internally heterogene-
ous family of construction grammars, we will, in section 2, discuss the
theoretical implications of the construction grammar approach for a study
of word-f~rrnation.~ And if it can be agreed upon that word-formation has
always been an interface level of language, caught between lexicon and
syntax, words and rules, free combination and lexicalization, we notice that
these are still prevailing queries within Cognitive Linguistics. While con-

30 Martima Lanzperl und Giinfher Lunzpert
struction graminars (including Ronald 1,angacker's Cognitive Grammar)
tend to investigate all coinplex expressions as kinds of constructional idi-
oms' (see Booij 2007a: 83), Leonard Taliny has, in his recent account of
recombinance (Talmy 2007a). expressed a inore differential stance on
tliese issues that might turn out to be foundational for any cognitive theory
of morpliology and word(-)formation. In the third section of the present
article we will thus set out to present and assess Talmy's views, especially
against the background of the two rnost influential usage-based models of
morpliology, tliose of Langacker and Bybee, but also witli a side-glance at
other related cognitive approaches to morpliology or word-formation that
do not specifically anchor theinselves within the Cognitive Linguistics
paradigm.
In illustrating tliese approaclies we will not fall back on invented exam-
ples, but will instead liave recourse to an emergent lexical network witli
ctnotion as its morphological base, wliicli has expanded over the last few
years at an amazing rate (cf. littp:ll\~w\?i.~rba~~dictiona~y.co~n). The enlo-
tion-network instantiations to be cited in this article liave all been taken
from Web sources (including examples froin blog language). While Web-
based data are still looked LI~OII critically by many corpus linguists for their
messiness, their 'anarchic' character has proved a major asset not only in
the present context. Thus, the Web appears to provide satisfactory access
to language phenomena and realistic insight into the dynamics of language
as represented by nonces, their spreading use, and their ongoing entrench-
ment as well as instit~~tio~lalization."
2. Usage-based approaches to morphology and word-formation
2.1. 'Pre-theoretical' accounts
Maybe it comes as no surprise that the existing state-of-the-art surveys of
word-formation in Cognitive Linguistics (Taylor 2002, Sclimid 2005,
Tuggy 2005, Ungerer 2007) tend to use morpliology or word-formation in
terms of the traditional umbrella notions, as convenient descriptive labels
without assigning them any decisive theoretical import. Take Ungerer's
statement as an exernplary case: "Word-formation is one of tliose linguistic
terms that may be unsatisfactory on a Inore theoretical level, but that are
immensely ilsefi~l when one tries to survey processes of extending the lexi-
con" (2007: 650). Key proble~ns of word-formation such as analyzability,
compositionality vs. lexicalization (or, alternatively, coinp~~tatioii vs. stor-

Worcl- Formation or word,fi,rma/ion 3 1
age), institutionalization (echoed in 1,angacker's entrenchment concept),
productivity, and the formation of novel expressions are ultimately consid-
ered non-specific of word-formation itself, either dealt with in an ad-lioc
fashion as cross-domain plienoliiena, or investigated with respect to indi-
vidual word-formation patterns. Of coursc researchers apply, in their spe-
cific analyses, the well-known tools and concepts from the repertoire of
Cognitive Linguistics, but they often seem not to be aware tliat the con-
cepts in question have not been specifically developed for studies in word-
formation.
A brief glance at existing surveys will imtiiediately substantiate this as-
sessment: Ungerer, for instance, sees "the semanticization of word-
formation analysis" as tlie most decisive asset for Cognitive Linguistics to
stimulate further research (2007: 651). The envisaged semanticization be-
comes most obvious in tlie principles relevant for the formation of new
gestalt-like (liiglier-level) conceptual identities on tlie basis of at least two
input concepts (especially in compounding) and in the concept-modifying
functions of affixation (see Schmid 2005: 105). Accordingly, Cognitive
Linguistics approaches to word-formation have investigated (and will most
likely continue to do so) metaphoric and metonymic concept extensions
(Benczes 2006 and this volume, Geeraerts 2002, Panther and Thornburg
2001, Dirven 1999), figure-ground alignment (Schmid 2005), scliematiza-
tion (Ti~ggy 2005, Ryder 199 1, 1994, 1999, Farrell 200 1 ), conceptual fu-
sion or integration in terms of the blending framework (Sweetser 1999,
Kemmer 2003), and form-meaning iconicity (Ungerer 2002), to mention
sonie persistent topics.' In any case, the ultimate goal of the proposed se-
manticization of word-formation research under the aegis of Cognitive
1,inguistics is "to provide more comprehensive and consistent descriptions
of individual word-formation phenomena" (Ungerer 2007: 651). For
Ungerer, and obvioi~sly not only for him, word-formation appears to essen-
tially imply some sort of 'constructiveness.' Since complex niorphological
structures usually involve encoding the same kind of semantic extensions
tliat are found in clialiges of meaning in simplex itenis, the only difference
between semantic extensions in simplex struct~lres and those involved in
the formation of complex ones, lies not in the increase of semantic compo-
nents, but, prototypically at least, in an increase (or, less frequently, a de-
crease) in tlie formal complexity of expressions. Given this 'constructive'
view, a nonce-formation sucli as ewioter would indeed have to be seen as
-extending' tlie meaning of the (verbal) base emote by adding -er; if one
adopts the constructional schema view to be sketched below, however,
ptlloter would as well be conceivable as 'elaborating' or 'instantiating' the

32 Mcrrtintr Larnpert und Gzmrher Lon~pert
schematic meaning of -cr, where the elaboration site of the latter is com-
pletely exhaustive of one constituent strilcture of the resultant structure.
3.3. Morphological constructions
From the perspective of the constri~ction-based frameworks that have be-
come so fashionable in Cognitive Linguistics, again including Cognitive
ram mar,' it woi~ld definitely be odd to assume a concept of word-
formation, for language users' knowledge is captured entirely in terms of a
vast structured inventory of sy~nbolic units-entrenched (i.e., convention-
alized and routinized) pairings of phonological form and semantic repre-
sentation; such pairings are, in turn, syntagtnatically combinable "to form
progressively more elaborate symbolic structures" (Langacker 1987: 82).
Among the resultant complex structures there would also be polymor-
phemic words, the very home domain of word-formation. All these com-
plex symbolic units of language, including those that are only partially
lexically filled (V + -able) and those that may even entirely consist of ab-
stract patterns (N + N), are now termed con.structions; in being construc-
tions, they are "fully parallel in all immediately relevant aspects" to other
multi-word structilres like phrases, idioms, and even sentences: There is
then "no fi~ndamental distinction between morphological and syntactic
constructions" (Langacker 1987: 82), an assumption which follows from an
axiom that Langacker in fact takes to be foundational for all constri~ction
grammars: "Lexicon and gralntnar are not distinct components, but form a
continuum 01' constructions" (2005a: 102). Consequentially, in such a
mono-stratal, non-derivational approach, the domain of wordTfOrmafion
will readily dissolve into myriads of hierarchically organized niorphologi-
cul con.s/ructions (cf. Langacker 1987: 82), linked in networks of inheri-
tance. One may note that the idea of subsuming morphology and syntax
under the all-embracing concept of the cons/ruc/ion is actually not recent:
It was in fact already suggested in Bloomfield's classic Lungucxge (1933:
169):
Whenever two (or, rarely, more) forms are spoken together, as constituents
of a complex form, the grammatical features by which they are cornbincd,
make up a construction. Thus, the grammatical features by which duke and
-12.5.5 combine in the fortn u'llches.5, or the grammatical features by which
poor .John and run u~uu-y combine in the fortn poor .John run LIM>U~, make up
a construction.

Word-Fornia/ion or word fbrrnation 33
Accordingly, this early structuralist conception of the construction is not
confined to the clause level but inclitdes 'smaller' units provided they are
complex.
But, as has often been noted before,') invoking the construction concept
does not guarantee unequi\ocal usage of the term. In one view, it will em-
brace only coniplex assemblies consisting of more than one constituent:
Langacker (e.g., 2005a: 168), for instance, assumes the minimal construc-
tion to be symbolically complex; other strands within construction gram-
mar even consider nionomorphernic symbolic units to qualify as construc-
tions (see Croft 2001 : 17, Evans and Green 2006: 693, Dqbrowska 2009),
and, beyond that, one may categorize the (complex) formal and the seman-
tic poles of any linguistic sign as construction^.'^'
From a constructional point of view, there would thus appear no princi-
pled differences among linguistic structures of increasing formal complex-
ity, as the following table reveals:
Tahle I. Categories and exalnples of constructions, see Goldberg (2006: 5). The
original examples are here replaced by items fi-om the erno(tion)-network.
Idiom LMOED, i.e., every monlenl of every day
Idiom (partially filled) erno ;something> out 'sit and sulk about
one's love life while cranking winey emo-
music'
Category
Morpheme
Word
Complex word
Colnplex word (partially
filled)
Example
un-, -1es~
emo, ernollon
uizernotlonal, ernotron1e.s.rne.s~
[N-sJ for regular plurals: emotrons
In order to obliterate sucli discrepant views, Bergen (2007)" proposes a
general, cognitively oriented conceptualization in which constructions are
only those form-meaning pairings "that psycholinguistic evidence shows
Away-Construction
Transitive
Passive
Ving /he N away: emoing the night away
Sub.i V Obj: ernotionuli;e, ernotifi
Subj aux VPpp (PP by): 11 was emoed all
over hv tlie azrthor.

people store". Only under these premises would it really make sense to
claim that constructions reflect &nowledge of grammar in lolo-"in other
words, it's constructions all the way down" from the sentence to the mor-
pheme (Goldberg 2003: 223). In light of the professedly usage-based orien-
tation of the approach, one might fancy it should rather read 'constructions
all the way up' (see Talmy's view below), for the acquisition of construc-
tions is generally presumed to proceed 'bottom-LIP' through simple expo-
sure to usage-events; but, methodologically speaking, constructions are
usually broken 'down' into their lower-level constituent constructions."
And as the basic units of this exposure are no longer words, which may
beco~ne combinable to for111 syntactic structures, but constructions all over,
the mental resi~lt of the acquisition process would have to be a huge con-
l -i
.s fruclicon.
In the 'classical' conceptualization of the construction in Construction
Grammar (CxGrammar), however, the label is to be accorded only to those
linguistic patterns where some aspect of their form or function is not
strictly predictable from their component par-ts or from any other construc-
tions acknowledged to exist (see L,akoff 1987, Goldberg 1995, 2006,
2009). However, in her most recent surveys, Goldberg eliminates the non-
predictability constraint: "In addition, patterns are stored as constructions
even if they are fully predictable as long as they occur with sufficient fre-
quency" (2006: 5). Subscribing to such a position will have significant
consequences for the demarcation of the traditional domains of morphol-
ogy and word-formation: A boundary would then have to be assumed to
exist between complex expressions that can be claimed to have some inde-
pendent cognitive status (the constructions proper, as it were), and others
whose form and meaning is conceived of as derivable by some general
statements (reluctantly called -rules,' maybe).
2.3. Storage orlvs. computation
The separation of constructions from non-constructions is accomplished in
a different way by yet another strand of construction-based approaches
where it is argued that all complex units may be stored, and not computed
by rules (even if they are fully predictable) as long as they are used with
sufficient frequency and are conventionalized, i.e., when they have become
'entrenched' as cognitive routines (see Langacker 2005a: 161 and 1987:
59, I00 as well as Bybee 1985, 1998, 2001 ). If it must be considered axio-
matic that the notorious I-ule-list fallacy (1,angacker's term) is best avoided,

Word-Formation or word, formurio~i 3 5
a minimal construction would simply consist of two component strilctures
that are filsed to form a composite structure'! More technically, then,
composite structures of any type are obtained via unification of their com-
ponents by superimposing corresponding elements and merging (or 'inte-
grating') their specifications (see, e.g., Langacker 2005a: 168, Langacker
2007, chapter 3). I11 Langacker's view, composite structures are never
strictly reducible to their components, for "no component routine is mani-
fested in precisely the form it would have in isolation" (2000: 4). Composi-
tionality is thus on principle only /~urtiul; the meanings of components
typically do not exhaust the meaning of the composite, which has to be
regarded as an entity in its own right. It is a gestalt that is more than the
silrn of its parts and where the components only niotivute the whole; or,
conversely, where the component structures may be thought of as just
"categorizing those facets of the colnposite to which they belong" (Lang-
acker 1987: 466). The colnpositional value of a composite, conceivable as
the regular compositional function of two components, usually does not
give a complete account of the fully specified contextual meaning of a
composite, as, say, printer. But, for Langacker, this does not entail that the
opposite extreme [nust prevail, namely "that the expression is semantically
opaque, listed in the lexicon as an unanalyzable unit" (1987: 456).
Ultimately, then, Langacker's ( 1987: 466) view on co~npositionality
amounts to considering it a case of categorization: The meaning of a com-
posite structure receives "systemic motivation" from its components' struc-
tures, but may diberge from the colnpositional value by means of extension
(which is different from elaboration or instantiation of the compositional
value) or specialization. If it is more the rule than the exception that com-
plex expressions fall short of full compositionality, the building-block
metaphor (see Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 204) that is seen to i~nderlie this
view of compositionality turns out to be inadequate: "[llf the component
structures are stacked together to form the composite structure, how can
the latter have content that is either absent in the former or conflicts with
their specifications?" (1,angacker 1987: 463) What is more, the same issues
arise in syntax (or phraseology; see Cries 2008); and accordingly, Lan-
gacher (2000: 20) treats morphology and syntax in a strictly parallel fash-
ion:
What we intuitively feel to be the meaning of a complex syntactic structure
(e.g. a clause or a sentence) is usually more elaborate than its compositional
value, or else diverges from it. The only real difference is that syntactic

structures are less likely than morphological ones to recur and establish
themselves as conventional units with extra-compositional meanings.''
Consequentially, Langacker (2000: 20) suggests to replace the building-
block metaphor (entailing an i~ndesired 'constructive' view of grammar)
with the metaphor of scaffolding: "[C]omponent structures are seen as
scaffolding erected for the construction of a co~nplex expression; once the
cotnplex structure is in place (established as a unit), the scaffolding is no
longer essetntial and is eventually discarded" (Langacker 1987: 461). Yet
this shift of metaphors does not imply that colnplex expressions ulti~nately
bar their components from being perceived, they are not to be seen as un-
analyrable wholes. Indeed, as Langacker (1987: 46 1) notes,
The notion of a complex lexical item would be a contradiction in terms: the
n nit status characteristic of lexical items would entail their immediate and
automatic loss of analyzability, removing any grounds for considering them
to be complex; all fixed expressions would therefore constitute single mor-
phemes, regardless of size or any resemblance to other units.
Unequivocal as these statements may appear, yielding Cognitive Grammar
to be clearly non-reductionist, they are partially retracted when Langacker,
likewise ~unequivocally, maintains: "The building blocks of gralntnar are
minimal sylnbolic units, i.e. morphemes" (1987: 97).
Diminished systemic motivation in a non-compositional colnposite may
lead to the gradual loss of analyzability (instantiated in propeller for in-
stance), but such loss is generally not predictable. Analyzability is, in Lan-
gacker's framework, considered to refer to co-activation of components,
"the likelihood that a cotnposite structure will be construed in relation to
the component structures, irrespective of their degree of compatibility"
(1 987: 464). An extreme application of this stance on compositionality and
analyzability would be to regard words like doctor, hanlmer, .father,
~lolher, hroiher, and si.cier as composites, recognizing the presence of the
common -erl-or s~~ffix, without the residue entailing a similar (morpheme-)
I 0
status. Far-fetched as this analysis may seem at first glance, the compos-
ite reading of history to yield her~tory" is a well-known attested example,
as is the analysis ofpeddler in terms of a composite, which, in turn, is the
pre-condition Ihr the reading of to peddle as a back-formation involving the
deletion of a presumed component; see also the 'case' of enlolion below.
As may be predictable, filndamentally different views on conceptualiz-
ing the notional value of the construction have other profound effects on
potential studies in word-fortnation, especially when it comes to the tradi-
tional basic 'building-block' of uord-lorniation (and morphology, for that

CZ'ord- Forniulion or. ~.vor.d,/brtnutioll 3 7
matter), the n~orphen~e. As we have seen, 1,angacker's (1987: 452-457)
non-constructive Cognitive Grammar strongly proposes to discard the
building-block metaphor,'x so that, in line with Bybee's (1 985, 1998, 200 1 )
I 0
usage-based approach to morphology, morphemes are considered epiphe-
nomena that can only be obtained through abstracting them out of strings
of naturally occurring discourse by observing similarities and recording
frequency effects. Such a discovery procedure might gain additional plau-
sibility just by the very fact that in the niajority of known languages most
morphemes are bound to other lexical material and do not occur on their
own. Should one prefer to adopt the widest-ranging construction concept
by which all form-meaning pairings are to be conceived of as construc-
tions, the morpheme would indeed be [he minimal construction. Finally, if
the preferred option is Bergen's cognitive definition of the construction in
terms of 'storage,' it becomes an elnpirical problem (perhaps difficult to
solve in an uncontested manner) to determine what will count as a con-
struction; in the case of bound morplietnes like -ah/. or -er one would in-
ev~tably have to engage in the still unsettled debate on wug-test types of
evidence (see Taylor 2002: 3 12-3 15). Maybe all this will appear as only a
matter of perspective (as a way of steering clear of too much generativity
and constructiveness in Cognitive Linguistics); it will lead to defining mor-
phology in a different way, though, as does, for inslance, Taylor (2002:
282), echoing the approach long pi~rsued in the work of Joan Bybee:
Morphological analysis is not so much a question of breaking up a complex
form into its building-block components, it is a matter of whether a given
form shares commonalities (phonological andlor semantic) with other forms
in the language. Conversely, creating a complex form is not so much a ques-
tion of putting together its component parts, but of creating a form in accor-
dance with existing constructional schemas.
2.4. Morphological constructions as schelnas
Taylor's remarks express the conviction that the regular formation of novcl
linguistic items is definitely not achieved by means of applying 'rules.'
The only process sanctioned is that of schematization, with .schernu defin-
able as "a cognitive representation comprising a generalization over per-
ceived similarities among instances of usage", emerging "via repeated acti-
\ation of a set of co-occurring properties" (Barlow and Ke~niner 2000:
xxiii)."' Unlike combinatorial rules, which are claimed to have a separate

identity (see. c.g., Pinker 1999: 6-8). constructional schenias are always
extractcd from acti~al linguistic structures-which is meant to imply that
the only difference between a schema and its instantiations lies in degrees
of specificity: The scherna is more abstract, and the structures instantiating
it receive more specific descriptions. Any composite structure in which at
least one component is not specified lexically may then be addressed as a
con.vtructionu1 schema. A typical example of a high-level schema would be
the well-known word-for~nation pattern for deverbal nouns in English:
[[XI" erIN 'one who Vs' (see Rooij 2002). 'Old-style' word-lhrmation pat-
terns (like compounding, aft'ixatio back-formation, etc.) are now seen to
emerge in a higlily piece-meal fashion, associated with specific lexical
items first (by means of the 'starting small' principle), and only then gradu-
ally being generalized to become scliematic." If constructional schemas
may be considered "templates" for the construction and evaluation of
novel expressions" (Langacker 2005a: 170), the constructional schema (at
whatever level) becomes the basic site for any studies of word-formation in
Cognitive Linguistics (see Tuggy 2005). And indeed many data-oriented
sti~dics invoke schemas at all levels of specificity, so that it might be le-
gitimate to raise the question what is to count as an adequate level of
'granularity' for such schema-based studies. Moreover, all constructional
scliemas (including morphological ones) identify their constituents via
constraint satisfaction, or, expressed in more positive terms, by licensing or
sanctioning them. These constituents may of course be constructions or
constructional subscliemas themselves, so that constructions that satisfy the
constraints on another construction's constituent can unify with it. This
process is usually describcd in terms of superimposition or integration.
Some might argue, however, that schemas as they have been conceived
of here are just notional variants of rules, especially if they are also to
cover the formation of non-idiosyncratic, i.e., 'regitlar' complex expres-
sions; in fact, Pinker and Ullman (2002: 458), ~najor proponents of the
Words-and-Rules theoly, claim that their approach "is compatible with
constraint- and construction-based theories of language, as long as they
allow for variables and combinatorial operations" - as does Rooij's con-
structional morphology (scc, e.g., 2002, 2005, 2007a,b).I3 But for other
construction grammarians, especially for those following 1,angacker. con-
structional schemas are definitely not rules but symbolic units them-
selves:"' The scliemas do not only define how components are to be com-
bined, but the constructional schema contributes its own (contextually
determined) properties to the complex assemblies; while rules, as has been

Word-Formation or word,fi,rnfation 39
pointed out, are (maybe mistakenly) assumed to be of a different kind of
entity than the elements the) combine.
Bybee (1 995, 200 1 : 126-1 28), on tlie other hand, introduces two types
of schemas (witli both types being "templatic" in nature), source-oriented
scliemas and proU'~c.1-orier~le schemas: While the former are obviously
tlie equivalents of the classical generative 'rules,' the latter rather corre-
spond to Langacker's constructional scliemas, and they are also the preva-
lent ones in Bybee's (1995: 428) netmork-model of morphology:
"[M]orpliological properties of words, paradigms and morphological pat-
terns once described as rule emerge from associations made among related
words in lexical representation". Words (including complex words) that are
entered in tlie lexicon are "related to other words via sets of lexical connec-
tions between identical a~~d similar phonological and semantic features";
these connections are responsible for yielding an "internal morphological
analysis of complex words".
Tlie words that are found in tlie lexicon are no longer "broken up'' into
their constituent morpliemes, but the morpliological structure "emerges
from tlie connections the> make witli other words in tlie lexicon" (Bybee
1995: 428-429). Connections may be seen to exist between what is tradi-
tionally referred to as a base form and a complex form (cut - cut,,), as well
as between related coniplex forms (cuts, hats, ruts, mcrts, cup.\Morplio-
logical relations are constituted by parallel sets of plionological and seman-
tic connections, if they are repeated across multiple sets of words. Sche-
mas, in turn, 'emerge' when sets of words "having similar patterns of
semantic and phonological connections reinforce one another and create
emergent generalisations" (Bybee 1995: 430), and novel formations are
obtained by means of schema extension, which is, following Bybee (1995:
430), dependent on two factors: "(i) the defining properties of the scliema
and (ii) its strengths. the latter property being derivable from the number of
items that reinforce the schema"; schemas then come, as has been men-
tioned before, in two types, "corresponding to the two ways that morpho-
logically complex forms can relate to other forms". Tlie first type, tlie so-
called "source-oriented scl~emas", are "generalisations over pairs of basic
and deribed forms" (for instance, believe - unbelievable), so that scliemas
of this type "correspond roughly to generative rules, since they can be
tliouglit of as instructions for liow to modify one form in order to derive
another" (Bybee 1995: 430). l'he second type, "product-oriented scliemas",
refers to "generalisations over sets of complex or 'derived' forms", as in
climber, printer, propeller, and ruler. They reveal what common features
the derived forms have, but they give no information as to what operations

40 Martina Lanipert und Gutither Latnper.t
are required to produce tlicm. In other words, "product-oriented schemas
are generalisations over non-basic forms rather than generalisations about
tlie relation of a non-basic form to some underlying stem or base form"
(Bybee 3995: 443); membership in classes formed by product-oriented
schemas is not based on prototypes but on family resemblances.
Sy~nbolic rules, on the other hand, "correspond to a source-oriented
schema in that it specifies tlie input shape and details the procedure for
changing it" (Bybee 1995: 443). Morpliological regularities can now be
formulated either in ter~ns of a source-oriented or a product-oriented
schema. As an example, Bybee (200 1 : 128) mentions the regular past-tense
formation in English:
A better candidate for a source-oriented generalization would be an affixa-
tion process, such as that used to forln the regular Past Tense in English. In
most cases, the productive use of this schema appears to add It/, /dl or 11dI to
an input form, the base stem. However, there is some indication that even
this fairly agglutinative affixation may be conceptualized as a product-
oriented schema - that is. a schema that simply says, 'a Past verb ends in It/,
/dl or ildl,' rather than 'add 'ti, id/ or /~di to a verb to form the Past.'
Since Bybee's model allows maximal redundancy in representations, it
accepts both source-oriented and product-oriented scliemas (wliicli may
cast doubt again on presumptions tliat tlie difference is that great). But in
contradistinction to tlie Words-and-Rules theory, there is no rules compo-
nent that is supposed to be separate from tlie lexicon. Only one module is
deemed necessary for niorpliology, and tliat is tlie lexicon: "Morpliological
structure and organisation emerge from connections made among related
stored items. Even forms produced by combination are produced in tlie
lexicon by accessing a stem and ~~tilising a schema tliat is available in tlie
lexicon" (Bybee 1995: 452).
At this point it is essential to note that we have so far (more or less im-
plicitly) dealt with compositionality only in terms of .,ernantic composi-
tionality. The same issues, however, arise with regard to (mor)plionology,
and they will of course be handled in the same spirit: As in semantic com-
positionality, symbolic rules are not assumed to exist, but only schemas
that may be abstracted from actual strings to serve as categorizing tem-
plates. Just as morphemes arc abstracted from words by means of observ-
ing recurring con~monalities, segments like phonemes will then emerge as
distinct (cognitive) entities only by means of plionological decontextualiza-
tion. If tlie decontextuali~ed segments have enougli in common "and occur
in enough distinct environments, a schematized segment arises which em-

bodies their commonality" (Langackcr 2000: 44). How all this may find a
practical application has again been amply demonstrated in Bybee's cogni-
tive phonology (see especially 1994 and 2001; see also Langacker 2000:
43-46).
As regards the notorlous words-and-rules debate, Langacker (2000: 58),
more outspoken than anybody else, rejects the applicability of classic 'con-
structionist' rules, considered "algorithmic operations on strings of discrete
symbols". Rules in Langacher's (2000: 58) sense of the term are "extracted
regirlarities with some kind of enduring cognitive presence"; in short, they
can only be schemas of a particular kind - not assumed to be stored as
fixed entities that might operate on other stored units to yield some 'out-
put,' but conceived of as cognitive routines, or, more adeqi~ately pcrhaps,
as "recurrent patterns of mental (ultimately neural) activation" (Harlow and
Kem~ner 2000: xii). T~LI\, it is not accidental that both Langacker's Cogni-
tive Grammar view on 'morphology' and Bybee's network approach dis-
play close ties with connectionist models where information simply resides
in patterns of connection weights (see Bjbee and McClelland 2005 and
Bybee 2006).
If the matter were coerced to become an either-or-decision, Langacker
(and Rybee) would clearly have to be located on the side of 'words' only,
and, to play with ~ordc, word-formation would just be an instance of
(complex) word formation. I here is, however, an alternative approach
within Cognitive Linguistics: As we read it, Len Talmy has recently sub-
mitted a more sophisticated and more balanced account of compositionality
that goes both beyond the mords vs. rules dichotomy and beyond the 'con-
structions only' view. In particular, his framework allows for a cognitively
plausible integration of linguistic conipositionality across all 'levels' of
language, from the initial combination of phonetic features into phonemes
through morphemes and \lords to the complex rearrangement patterns
characteristic of syl~tau !rl addition, Palmy's suggestions (cf. ralmy 2006,
2007a) are conclusivelj backed up by drawing on evidence from both the
evolution of language and the cognitive sciences, to converge in a new
neural model that maj \+ell accou~it for the combinatorial principles perva-
sive in language Since Talmj's niodel may not yet be well-known, the
following section will present an elaboration of its major points that relies
more on quotation than may be ususal. In fact, Ialmy is most appropriately
introduced by himself'. because, in his case, wording is anything but ran-
dom.

42 Mavtina Lotnpert and Gunther Lampert
3. Recombinance in language
Leonard Talmy (2007a)'~ introduces and elaborates on i-ecornhinuncc, a
fundamental cognitive mechanism that, during the evolution of language,
has come to pervasively figure among the representation of information in
language. Recombinance, the key concept of the present section, is framed,
in most general terms, as a subordinate concept related to digitalness,
which proves to be the major distinctive design feature of and the funda-
mental type of representation in (spoken'") language (cf. Talmy 2007a: 5 1)
- a set of properties that categorially sets spoken and written language
apart from the predominantly analog nature of both non-linguistic cogni-
tive systems and of signed language. Digitalness features as a gradient
category (i.e., not involving binary representation) "cumulatively built up"
(Talmy 2006: 2) from the factors of
1. degree of discreteness or granularity, ranging from non-digital gra-
dience to distinctly chunked elements at its digital pole;
2. degree of categoriality, applying to distinctly chunked elements
only, that, at its 'less digital' pole, corresponds to discrete steps
along a parameter and comprises, at the higher end, qualitatively
distinct categories with separate identities in their own right;
3. degree of recombination, in turn only applying to qualitatively dis-
tinct categories with their own identities, and these categories sys-
tematically combine with each other in alternative arrangements;
4. degree of emergentness, applying to alternative arrangements only,
either resulting in patterns that directly follow from the process of
arranging at tlie less digital pole or, in its most advanced expres-
sion of digitalness, constituting new higher-level entities with their
own identities (see Talniy 2006: 2, l l and 2007a: 394 1 ).
That is, a high-end value for the first factor, its more digital pole, "enables
tlie second factor to play a role, and so on progressively to the circum-
stance in wliicli digitalness is manifested to its greatest extent with a high-
end value for the fourth f'dctor" (Taltny 2007a: 40). In its most advanced
form, digitalness is manifested in recombinance, which, both as distinctive
and basic design feature of language, is intended to capture "the assem-
bling of discrete units into a new higher-level unit with its own identity"
(Talmy 3007a: 26). It is of immediate concern in the present context that,
although recombination and elnergentness are conceivable as distinct types
of properties in language, they are at the same time systematically related

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

Credits: Producer, Charles Mintz; story, Allen Rose; animation,
Harry Love: music, Joe de Nat.
© Screen Gems, Inc.; 10Jul36; MP6617.
PLAYING POSSUM. 1921. 2 reels.
Credits: Written and directed by Alf Goulding.
© Century Film Corp.; 13Nov21; LP17184.
PLAYING THE GAME. 1915. 2 reels.
Credits: Director, Wilfred North.
© The Vitagraph Co. of America (William Addison Lathrop,
author); 22Apr15; LP5099.
PLAYING THE GAME. 1918. 5 reels.
Credits: Supervision, Thomas H. Ince; director, Victor
Schertzinger; story, Julien Josephson; picturized by R. Cecil
Smith.
© Thomas H. Ince Corp.; 25Mar18; LP12248.
PLAYING THE PIPERS. 1913.
Credits: Director, William Humphrey.
© Vitagraph Co. of America (Andrew Robb, author); 25Jul13;
LP1029.
PLAYING THE PONIES. Blue Grass Motion Picture Production
Company. 1925. 1 reel each. © Arrow Pictures Corp.
Credits: Director, J. Harrison Edwards.
1. Sporting Blood. © 28Jan25; LP21160.
2. Race 'Em Denny. © 22Apr25; LP21390.
3. Fast Tracks. © 28Apr25; LP21411.
4. The Bribe. © 8May25; LP21438.
PLAYING THE PONIES. 1937. 2 reels, sd.

Credits: Director, Charles Lamont; story, Irving Frisch, Will Harr;
screenplay, Al Giebler, Elwood Ullman, Charlie Melson.
© Columbia Pictures Corp. of California, Ltd.; 4Oct37; LP7455.
PLAYING THE SAME GAME. 1915. 1 reel.
Credits: Producer, Edwin McKim; adaptation, Daniel Ellis.
© Lubin Mfg. Co. (Cornelia Bleakney, author); 30Nov15; LP7088.
PLAYING THE SWELL. Century. 1925. 2 reels.
Credits: Director, Francis Corby; story, Ted Ross.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 18Dec25; LP22158.
PLAYING WITH DANGER. 1937. 2 reels, sd.
Credits: Director, Joseph Henabery; screenplay, Ira Genet.
© The Vitaphone Corp.; 26Dec37; LP7975.
PLAYING WITH FIRE. 1914. 2,000 ft.
Credits: Producer, Thomas Santschi.
© Selig Polyscope Co. (James Oliver Curwood, author); 10Oct14;
LP3507.
PLAYING WITH FIRE. Victor. 1915. 2 reels.
Credits: Producer, Harry C. Myers.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 16Mar15; LP4740.
PLAYING WITH FIRE. 1916. 5 reels.
Credits: Director, Francis J. Grandon; scenario, Aaron Hoffman.
© Popular Plays and Players; 27Apr16; LP8168.
PLAYING WITH FIRE. 1921. 5 reels.
Credits: Producer, Dallas M. Fitzgerald; story, J. U. Giesy, W. M.
Clayton; scenario, Doris Schroeder.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 10Dec21; LP17347.

PLAYING WITH FIRE. 1931. 1 reel.
© The Vitaphone Corp.; 26Mar31; MP2423.
PLAYING WITH SOULS. First National. 1925. 7 reels.
Credits: Countess de Chambrun; director, Ralph Ince; adaptation,
C. Gardner Sullivan.
© Thomas H. Ince Corp.; 3Mar25; LP21196.
PLAYMATES. Sterling. 1915. Split reel.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 7Apr15; LP4951.
PLAYMATES. © 1916.
© Juvenile Film Corp.; title, descr. & 25 prints, 15Sep16;
LU9112.
PLAYMATES. Century. 1921. 2 reels.
Credits: Story and direction, Fred Fishback.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 6May21; LP16491.
PLAYMATES. SEE Arthur & Morton Havel in Playmates.
THE PLAYTHING OF BROADWAY. 1921. 5 reels. From the story
"Emergency House" by Sidney Morgan.
Credits: Director, Jack Dillon; scenario, E. Lloyd Sheldon.
© Realart Pictures Corp.; 4Feb21; LP16088.
PLAYTHINGS. 1918. 5 reels. From the play by Sidney Toler.
Credits: Director, Douglas Gerrard; scenario, F. McGrew Willis.
© Bluebird Photoplays, Inc.; 5Aug18; LP12724.
PLAYTHINGS OF DESIRE. 1924. 7 reels. From the novel by J.
Wesley Putnam [pseud. of Harry Sinclair Drago].
Credits: Producer, Herman F. Jans; director, Burton King;
adaptation, William B. Laub.
© Jans Productions, Inc.; 2Oct24; LP20924.

PLAYTHINGS OF DESTINY. First National. Presented by Louis B.
Mayer. 1921. 75 min. From the play by Jane Murfin.
Credits: Director, Edwin Carewe; adaptation, Anthony Paul Kelly.
** © Anita Stewart Productions, Inc.; 15Jun21; LP16676.
PLAYTHINGS OF FATE. 1914. 1 reel.
© Biograph Co.; 31Dec14; LP4078.
PLAYTHINGS OF THE GODS. 1916. 3 reels.
Credits: Director, Wilbert Melville.
© Lubin Mfg. Co. (Josephine McLaughlin, author); 19Apr16;
LP8123.
A PLEASANT JOURNEY. © 1923.
© Pathe Exchange, Inc. (Hal E. Roach, author); title, descr. & 40
prints, 26Feb23; LU18732.
PLEASE. 1933. 2 reels, sd.
Credits: Director, Arvid E. Gillstrom; story, Dean Ward, Vernon
Dent.
© Paramount Productions, Inc.; 12Dec33; LP4331.
PLEASE BE CAREFUL. 1922. 2 reels.
Credits: Director, Tom Buckingham.
© William Fox (Fox Film Corp., author); 12Feb22; LP17638.
PLEASE BE MY WIFE. Victor. 1917. 1 reel.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 21Mar17; LP10425.
PLEASE DON'T. (Stern Brothers Comedy) (Excuse Maker Series)
1927. 2 reels.
Credits: Director, Scott Pembroke; story, William Anthony.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 21May27; LP24000.
PLEASE EXCUSE ME. (Stern Brothers Comedy) 1926. 2 reels.

Credits: Director, Samuel Neufield; story, William Anthony.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 26Jun26; LP22864.
PLEASE GET MARRIED. 1919. 6 reels. From the Oliver Morosco
stage success by James Cullen and Lewis Allen Browne.
Credits: Director General, Maxwell Karger; director, John E. Ince;
scenario and adaptation, Finis Fox.
© Metro Pictures Corp.; 6Oct19; LP14263.
PLEASE GO 'WAY AND LET ME SLEEP. 1931. 1 reel.
Credits: Director, Dave Fleischer; story, Max Fleischer.
© Paramount Publix Corp.; 9Jan31; MP2223.
PLEASE HELP EMILY. 1917. 5 reels.
Credits: Scenario, Joseph F. Poland.
© Empire All Star Corp.; 19Nov17; LP11956.
PLEASE HELP EMILY. SEE The Palm Beach Girl.
PLEASE HIT ME. (Star Comedy) 1918. 1 reel.
Credits: Directors, Lyons and Moran; story, Frank Howard Clark.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 12Sep18; LP12857.
PLEASE KEEP ME IN YOUR DREAMS. 1937. 1 reel, sd.
Credits: Director, Dave Fleischer; animation, Roland Crandall.
© Paramount Pictures, Inc.; 28May37; MP7490.
PLEASED TO MEET CHA. 1935. 1 reel, sd.
Credits: Director, Dave Fleischer; animation, Willard Bowsky,
Harold Walker.
© Paramount Productions, Inc.; 21Mar35; MP5472.
PLEASING GRANDPA. 1934. 2 reels, sd.

Credits: Producer, Warren Doane; director, James W. Horne;
story, W. P. Hackney, James W. Horne.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 4Jun34; LP4743.
PLEASURE BEFORE BUSINESS. Century. 1923. 2 reels.
Credits: Written and directed by Alf. T. Goulding.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 27Jan23; LP18632.
PLEASURE BEFORE BUSINESS. 1927. 6 reels.
Credits: Director, Frank R. Strayer; screenplay, William Branch.
© Columbia Pictures Corp.; 30Apr27; LP23896.
PLEASURE BENT. (Bull's Eye Comedy) 1925. 1 reel.
Credits: Director, Richard Smith.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 15Aug25; LP21731.
PLEASURE BOUND. (Mermaid Comedies) 1925. 2 reels.
Credits: Written and directed by Norman Taurog.
© Educational Film Exchanges, Inc.; 19Nov25; LP22018.
THE PLEASURE BUYERS. 1925. 7 reels. From the novel by Arthur
Somers Roche.
Credits: Director, Chet Withey; adaptation, Hope Loring, Louis D.
Lighton.
© Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.; 8Sep25; LP21808.
PLEASURE CRAZED. 1929. 7 reels.
Credits: Director, Charles Klein; story, Mockton Hofe; scenario,
Douglas Z. Doty.
© Fox Film Corp.; 5Aug29; LP570.
PLEASURE CRUISE. 1933. 6,300 ft., sd. From the play by Austen
Allen.

Credits: Director, Frank Tuttle; screenplay, Guy Bolton; editor,
Alex Troffey.
© Fox Film Corp.; 15Mar33; LP3753.
PLEASURE HUNTING. Presented by Record Pictures, Inc. 1928. 1
reel.
Credits: Edited and titled by Beth Brown.
© Pathe Exchange, Inc.; 10Jul28; MP5171.
PLEASURE ISLAND. 1933. 2 reels, sd., color.
Credits: Director, Roy Mack; story, A. Dorian Otvos, Burnett
Hershey.
© The Vitaphone Corp.; 13Feb33; LP3650.
PLEASURE ISLAND. SEE Haunted Island.
PLEASURE MAD. 1923. 8 reels. Adapted from the novel "The Valley
of Content" by Blanche Upright.
Credits: Producer and director, Reginald Barker; scenario, A. P.
Younger.
© Louis B. Mayer Productions, Inc.; 14Nov23; LP19688.
PLEASURE SEEKERS. 1920. 5 reels.
Credits: John Lynch; director, George Archainbaud; scenario,
Edward J. Montagne.
© Selznick Pictures Corp.; 30Dec20; LP15989.
PLEASURES OF THE RICH. 1926. 7 reels. Suggested by the story
"The Wrong Coat" by Harold MacGrath.
Credits: Supervision, A. P. Younger; director, L. J. Gasnier;
scenario, Leete Renick Brown; film editor, James C. McKay.
© Tiffany Productions, Inc.; 26Feb26; LP22427.
PLENTY OF MONEY AND YOU. (Merrie Melodies) 1937. 7 min., sd.,
color.

Credits: Producer, Leon Schlesinger; supervision, I. Freleng;
animation, Cal Dalton, Phil Monroe; music score, Carl W. Stalling.
© The Vitaphone Corp.; 1Dec37; MP7950.
PLENTY OF NERVE. Century. 1925. 2 reels.
Credits: Written and directed by William Watson.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 29Jan25; LP21090.
THE PLOT. 1914. 2 reels.
Credits: Directors, Maurice Costello, Robert Gaillord.
© The Vitagraph Co. of America (William B. Courtney, author);
26Nov14; LP3914.
PLOT AND COUNTERPLOT. Imp. 1916. 2 reels.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 11Feb16; LP7619.
THE PLOT THAT FAILED. 1914. 1 reel.
© Selig Polyscope Co. (William Courtney, author); 14Apr14;
LP2520.
THE PLOT THICKENS. 1936. 7 reels, sd.
Credits: Associate producer, William Sistrom; director, Ben
Holmes; story, Stuart Palmer; screenplay, Clarence Upson Young,
Jack Townley; editor, John Lockert.
© RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.; 7Dec36; LP6752.
THE PLOUGH AND THE STARS. 1937. 8 reels, sd. From the play by
Sean O'Casey.
Credits: Associate producers, Cliff Reid, Robert Sisk; director,
John Ford; screenplay, Dudley Nichols; editor, George Hively;
music score, Roy Webb.
© RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.; 15Jan37; LP6944.
THE PLOUGHSHARE. 1915. 4,000 ft.
Credits: Mary Imlay Taylor; director, John H. Collins.

© Thomas A. Edison, Inc.; 16Sep15; LP6403.
PLOW BOY. (Mickey Mouse Cartoon) 1930. 1 reel.
Credits: U. B. Iwerks.
© Walter E. Disney; 28Jul30; MP2128.
THE PLOW BOY'S REVENGE. © 1927.
© Pathe Exchange, Inc. (Paul Terry, author); title, descr. & 20
prints, 13Jan27; MU3730.
THE PLOW GIRL. Released by Paramount Pictures Corp. 1916. 5
reels.
Credits: Harvey Thew; producer, Robert Leonard; story, Edward
Morris.
© Jesse L. Lasky Feature Play Co.; 8Nov16; LP9475.
THE PLOW THAT BROKE THE PLAINS. 1936. 3 reels, sd.
Credits: Written and directed by Pare Lorentz; editor, Leo
Zochling; narrator, Thomas Chalmers; music, Virgil Thomson.
© Pare Lorentz & Resettlement Administration; 12Mar36;
MP6327.
THE PLOW WOMAN. Butterfly. 1917. 5 reels. From the story by
Eleanore Gates.
Credits: Director, Charles Swickard; adaptation, J. Grubb
Alexander.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 23Jun17; LP10983.
PLUCK AND PLOTTERS. 1918. 2 reels.
Credits: Story and direction, Lawrence Semon.
© Vitagraph Co. of America; 12Dec18; LP13162.
PLUMB CRAZY. (Radio Flash, no. 2) 1939. 2 reels, sd.
Credits: Producer, Bart Gilroy; director, Jean W. Yarbrough; story,
Pat C. Flick, Monty Collins; film editor, Les Millbrook.

© RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.; 3Feb39; LP8626.
PLUMB DUMB. (Mermaid Comedies) 1927. 2 reels.
Credits: Producer, Jack White; written and directed by Norman
Taurog.
© Educational Film Exchanges, Inc.; 10Aug27; LP24281.
PLUMB GOOFY. (Cameo Comedy) 1926. 1 reel.
Credits: Director, Clem Beauchamp.
© Educational Film Exchanges, Inc.; 11Oct26; LP23200.
THE PLUMBER. 1914. 1 reel.
Credits: Producer, Mack Sennett.
© The Keystone Film Co. (Mack Sennett, author); 10Dec14;
LP3942.
THE PLUMBER. © 1924.
© Pathe Exchange, Inc. (Mack Sennett, author); title, descr. &
40 prints, 26Dec24; LU20950.
THE PLUMBER. (Oswald Cartoon) Snappy. 1933. 1 reel.
Credits: Animation and direction, Walter Lantz, William Nolan.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 20Jan33; MP3789.
THE PLUMBER AND THE LADY. 1933. 2 reels, sd.
Credits: Director, Babe Stafford.
© Paramount Productions, Inc.; 30Mar33; LP3766.
THE PLUMBERS ARE COMING. Sound Studios, Inc. 1929. 2 reels.
Credits: Director, George LeMaire; story, Ray Hodgdon; editor, E.
Pfitzenmeier.
© Pathe Exchange, Inc.; 29May29; LP456.
THE PLUMBER'S DAUGHTER. © 1926.

© Pathe Exchange, Inc. (Mack Sennett, author); title, descr. &
40 prints, 17Sep26; LU23129.
A PLUMBER'S LIFE. © 1926.
© Pathe Exchange, Inc. (Paul Terry, author); title, descr. & 20
prints, 6Jul26; MU3480.
THE PLUMBERS' PICNIC. 1914. 1 reel.
© Biograph Co.; 17Sep14; LP3387.
THE PLUMBER'S WATERLOO. Victor. 1916. 1 reel.
Credits: Scenario and direction, R. M. Donaldson; story, Harry
Depp.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 11Oct16; LP9288.
PLUMBING FOR GOLD. 1934. 2 reels, sd.
Credits: Director, Charles Lamont; story, Jack Cluett; screenplay,
Ewart Adamson.
© Columbia Pictures Corp.; 20Jun34; LP4792.
PLUMBING IS A PIPE. 1938. 1 reel, sd.
Credits: Director, Dave Fleischer; animation, Willard Bowsky,
Orestes Calpini.
© Paramount Pictures, Inc.; 17Jun38; MP8525.
THE PLUMED RIDER. Mustang. 1927. 2 reels.
Credits: Director, Ray Taylor; story and continuity, William Lester.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 9Jul27; LP24163.
PLUNDER. © 1922-23.
Credits: Herbert Crooker; adaptation, Bertram Millhauser.
© Pathe Exchange, Inc. (George B. Seitz, Bertram Millhauser,
authors).

1. The Bandaged Man. © title, descr. & 54 prints, 14Dec22;
LU18481.
2. Held by the Enemy. © title, descr. & 32 prints, 14Dec22;
LU18482.
3. The Hidden Thing. © title, descr. & 32 prints, 14Dec22;
LU18483.
4. Ruin. © title, descr. & 36 prints, 14Dec22; LU18484.
5. To Beat a Knave. © title, descr. & 40 prints, 14Dec22;
LU18485.
6. Heights of Hazard. © title, descr. & 38 prints, 14Dec22;
LU18486.
© Pathe Exchange, Inc. (Bertram Millhauser, author).
7. Mocked from the Grave. © title, descr. & 35 prints, 20Feb23;
LU18698.
8. The Human Target. © title, descr. & 33 prints, 20Feb23;
LU18699.
9. Game Clear Through. © title, descr. & 34 prints, 20Feb23;
LU18700.
10. Against Time. © title, descr. & 33 prints, 20Feb23; LU18701.
11. Spunk. © title, descr. & 34 prints, 20Feb23; LU18702.
12. Under the Floor. © title, descr. & 40 prints, 20Feb23;
LU18703.
13. The Swamp of Lost Souls. © title, descr. & 38 prints,
20Feb23; LU18704.
14. The Madman. © title, descr. & 36 prints, 20Feb23; LU18705.
15. A King's Ransom. © title, descr. & 40 prints, 20Feb23;
LU18706.
THE PLUNDERER. 1915. 5 reels. From the novel by Grace Miller
White.

Credits: Picturized by Edgar Lewis; adaptation, Garfield
Thompson, Louise Keller.
© William Fox (Garfield Thompson and Louise Keller, authors);
31May15; LP6154.
THE PLUNDERER. 1924. 6 reels.
Credits: Director, George Archainbaud; story, Roy Norton;
scenario, Doty Hobart.
© William Fox (Fox Film Corp., author); 24May24; LP20023.
THE PLUNGER. 1920. 5 reels.
Credits: Director, Dell Henderson; story, Thomas F. Fallon.
© William Fox (Fox Film Corp., author); 7Nov20; LP15895.
PLUNGING HOOFS. 1928. 5 reels.
Credits: Director, Harry MacRae; story, Basil Dickey, William Lord
Wright; adaptation and continuity, George Morgan.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 15Jun28; LP25380.
PLUS VALUE. Presented by D. L. & W. Coal Co. 1936. Filmstrip, sd.
© AudiVision, Inc.; 18Aug36; MP6876.
THE PLUTOCRAT. SEE Business and Pleasure.
PLUTO'S JUDGEMENT DAY. 1935. 1 reel.
© Walt Disney Productions, Ltd.; 9Sep35; MP5817.
PLUTO'S QUIN-PUPLETS. (A Walt Disney Pluto the Pup) 1937. 1
reel.
© Walt Disney Productions, Ltd.; 24May37; MP7801.
PLYMOUTH MARCHES ON. 1936. Filmstrip, sd.
© Chrysler Corp. (Harry P. Longstreet, author); 29Feb36;
MP6405.
PNEUMONIA. 1938. 2 reels, sd.

© Mead Johnson & Co. (Isaac A. Abt, author); 1May38; MP8409.
POCAHONTAS AND JOHN SMITH. (Hysterical History Comedy)
1924. 1 reel.
Credits: Director, Bryan Foy.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 19Sep24; LP20605.
THE POCATELLO KID. 1931. 7 reels, sd.
Credits: Producer, Phil Goldstone; director, Phil Rosen; story and
continuity, W. Scott Darling; film editor, Roy Luby.
© Tiffany Productions of California, Inc., Ltd.; 6Dec31; LP3131.
POET AND PEASANT. 1915. 1,000 ft.
© Lubin Mfg. Co. (A. Gil-Spear, author); 12Feb15; LP4459.
POET AND PEASANT OVERTURE BY VON SUPPÉ, PLAYED BY
VITAPHONE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA, HERMAN HELLER
CONDUCTING. 1927. 1 reel, sd.
© Vitaphone Corp.; 18Apr27; MP3960.
THE POET OF THE PEAKS. © 1915. 2 reels.
© American Film Mfg. Co. (Marie Layet, author); title, descr. &
165 prints, 23Apr15; LU5089.
THE POETIC JUSTICE OF OMAR KHAN. 1915. 2 reels.
© Selig Polyscope Co. (James Oliver Curwood, author); 3Apr15;
LP4921.
THE POETIC JUSTICE OF UKO SAN. SEE I Am the Law.
POETRY OF NATURE. (A Pete Smith Specialty) Presented by Metro-
Goldwyn-Mayer. 1939. 1 reel, sd., sepia.
Credits: Director, Mervyn Freeman; film editor, Ferris Webster.
© Loew's, Inc.; 15Jun39; MP9505.
POINT FOCUS PHOTOGRAPHY. 1939. 1 reel, b&w, 16 mm.

© Mylon Merriam; 6Oct39; MP9683.
THE POINT OF VIEW. 1920. 6 reels.
Credits: Edith Ellis; director, Alan Crosland; scenario, Edward
Montagne.
© Selznick Pictures Corp.; 10Dec20; LP15901.
THE POINTED FINGER. Special Big U. 1917. 2 reels.
Credits: Archer McMackin; director, A. W. Rice.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 18Jun17; LP10957.
POINTED HEELS. 1929. Si. & 5,689 ft., sd.
Credits: Charles Brackett; director, A. Edward Sutherland;
screenplay, Florence Ryerson, John V. A. Weaver.
© Paramount Famous Lasky Corp.; 27Dec29; LP948.
THE POINTER. (A Walt Disney Mickey Mouse) 1939. 1 reel, sd.
© Walt Disney Productions; 21Jul39; LP8989.
POINTERS ON PROSPECTING. Audivision, Inc. 1936. For the
Plymouth Division of Chrysler Corp. 1 reel, sd.
© Chrysler Corp. (Business Training Corp., author); 31Jan36;
MP6221.
THE POINTING FINGER. 1919. 5 reels. Adapted from the story "No
Experience Required" by Frank R. Adams.
Credits: Director, Edward Kull; scenario, Violet Clark.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 10Dec19; LP14525.
POINTS ON POINTERS. (The Color Parade) 1939. 10 min., color.
Credits: Producer, E. M. Newman; director, Del Frazier.
© The Vitaphone Corp.; 28Jan39; MP9156.
POINTS WEST. Jewel. 1929. 6 reels.

Credits: Director, Arthur Rosson; story, B. M. Bower; adaptation,
George Morgan; continuity, Rowland Brown.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 15Jun29; LP484.
POISE. (Grantland Rice Sportlight) Van Beuren Corp. 1931. 1 reel.
© RKO Pathe Distributing Corp.; 26Jul31; MP2731.
POISON. © 1924.
© Hurricane Film Corp. (Charles A. Hutchison, author); title,
descr. & 266 prints, 16Jun24; LU20312.
THE POISON PEN. © 1919.
Credits: Written and directed by Edwin August; scenario, J.
Clarkson Miller.
© World Film Corp. (Edwin August, author); title & descr.,
15Nov19; 248 prints, 10Nov19; LU14428.
THE POISONED BIT. 1914. 2 reels.
Credits: Clyde Morey.
© Thomas A. Edison, Inc.; 14Sep14; LP3369.
POISONED BY JEALOUSY. 1915. 2,000 ft.
Credits: Salvator Stano, Clement Easton; director, Langdon West.
© Thomas A. Edison, Inc.; 14Apr15; LP5033.
THE POISONED CHOP. © 1913.
© American Film Mfg. Co. (Alice A. Methley, author); title & 61
prints, 20Oct13; descr., 3Oct13; LU1431.
POISONED IVORY. 1934. 2 reels, sd.
Credits: Director, Alf Goulding; story, Norman Markwell, Les
Goodwins.
© RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.; 1Feb34; LP5062. (See also Poisoned
Ivory; 16Nov34; LP5101)

POISONED IVORY. 1934. 2 reels, sd.
Credits: Producer, Lee Marcus; director, Alf Goulding; story,
Norman Markwell, Les Goodwins; film editor, John Lockert.
© RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.; 16Nov34; LP5101. (See also
Poisoned Ivory; 1Feb34; LP5062)
POISONED LIPS. Laemmle. 1916. 2 reels.
Credits: Producer, Francis Ford; scenario, Grace Cunard.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 9Sep16; LP9070.
POISONED PARADISE. 1924. 7 reels. From the novel by Robert W.
Service.
Credits: Producer, Gasnier; adaptation, Waldemar Young.
© B. P. Schulberg; 28Feb24; LP19944.
POKER AT EIGHT. (Hal Roach Comedy) 1935. 1,927 ft., sd.
Credits: Director, Charles Parrott; film editor, William Terhune.
© Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corp.; 7May35; LP5535.
POKER FACES. Universal-Jewel. 1926. 8 reels.
Credits: Director, Harry A. Pollard; story, Edgar Franklin;
continuity, Melville W. Brown.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 22May26; LP22756.
POKER WIDOWS. 1931. 20 min., sd.
Credits: Director, Leslie Pearce; story and dialogue, John A.
Waldron, Earle Rodney, Harry McCoy, Lew Foster.
© Mack Sennett, Inc.; 17Sep31; LP2615.
POKES AND JABBS. Sterling. 1915. 1 reel.
Credits: Burns and Stull.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 5May15; LP5222.
THE POLAR BARON. 1926. 2 reels.

Credits: Director, Lex Neal; story, Andrew Bennison.
© William Fox (Fox Film Corp., author); 28Mar26; LP22617.
A POLAR FLIGHT. (Fables, no. 389) 1928. 1 reel.
© Pathe Exchange, Inc.; 8Nov28; MP5524.
POLAR PALS. (Tom and Jerry Animated Cartoons, no. 2) 1931. 7-
1/2 min., sd.
Credits: John Foster, George Rufle.
© The Van Beuren Corp.; 5Sep31; LP2469.
POLAR PALS. (Looney Tunes) 1939. 1 reel, sd.
Credits: Producer, Leon Schlesinger; supervision, Robert
Clampett; story, Warren Foster; animation, John Carey; music
director, Carl W. Stalling.
© The Vitaphone Corp.; 3Jun39; MP9425.
POLAR PERILS. (Mermaid Comedies) 1928. 2 reels.
Credits: Producer, Jack White; director, Stephen Roberts.
© Educational Film Exchanges, Inc.; 30Sep28; LP25729.
POLAR TRAPPERS. (A Walt Disney Donald Duck and Goof) 1938. 1
reel, sd.
© Walt Disney Productions, Ltd.; 26May38; MP8621.
POLICE. Essanay-Chaplin. 1916. 2 reels.
© Essanay Film Mfg. Co.; 9May16; LP8269.
POLICE CALL. Screencraft. 1933. 6 reels.
Credits: Supervision, Al Alt; director, Philip H. Whitman; story
and adaptation, Norman Keen; continuity, Jean Hartley.
© Showmen's Pictures, Inc.; 5Aug33; LP4055.
POLICE CAR 17. 1933. 6 reels.

Credits: Story, screenplay, and direction, Lambert Hillyer; film
editor, Otto Meyer.
© Columbia Pictures Corp.; 27Sep33; LP4142.
THE POLICE PATROL. 1925. 6 reels. From the play by A. Y.
Pearson.
Credits: Supervision, Lon Young; director. Burton King; scenario,
Victoria Moore.
© Lumas Film Corp.; 20Jul25; LP21659.
THE POLICE QUARTETTE. 1927. 1 reel.
© Vitaphone Corp.; 29Dec27; MP4579.
THE POLICEMAN AND THE BABY. © 1913.
Credits: Producer, Hardee Kirkland.
© Selig Polyscope Co. (Clarence L. Cullen, author); title, descr. &
35 prints, 20Sep13; LU1274.
THE POLICY GIRL. 1934. 2 reels, sd.
Credits: Director, Roy Mack; story, A. Dorian Otvos, Eddie Moran.
© The Vitaphone Corp.; 8Nov34; LP5082.
THE POLISH JEW. Messter-Film Co., Berlin. © 1914.
© Commercial Biophone Co., Inc. (Antor Film, author); title,
descr. & 29 prints, 21Dec14; LU3998.
POLISHED IVORY. (Educational-Lloyd Hamilton Talking Comedy)
1930. 18 min., sd.
Credits: Producer, H. D. Edwards; director, Alf Goulding.
© Educational Film Exchanges, Inc.; 12May30; LP1302.
POLISHING UP. 1914. 1 reel.
Credits: Director, George D. Baker.

© The Vitagraph Co. of America (James Oliver Curwood,
author); 23Jul14; LP3080.
POLISHING UP POLLY. 1915. 1 reel.
Credits: Producer, Burton L. King; story, Maibelle Heikes Justice.
© Selig Polyscope Co. (Maibelle Heikes Justice, author);
19May15; LP5392.
POLITENESS PAYS. 1916. 3 reels.
© Essanay Film Mfg. Co.; 21Feb16; LP7692.
POLITENESS REFLECTS. (Etiquettigrams) © 1928.
© Zeldon Pictures, Inc. (Louis J. Blumberg, author); title, descr.
& 34 prints, 30Jul28; LU25483.
POLITICAL PULL. © 1924.
© Pathe Exchange, Inc. (Hal E. Roach, author); title, descr. & 40
prints, 20Feb24; LU19933.
A POLITICAL TRAMP. Nestor. 1916. 1 reel.
Credits: Director, Louis William Chaudet; story, Eddie Lyons, Lee
Moran; scenario, Charles J. Wilson, Jr.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 23Oct16; LP9379.
THE POLITICIANS. Presented by The Kleine-Edison Feature
Service. 1915. 5 reels.
© George Kleine (Aaron Hoffman, author); 17Nov15; LP7101.
THE POLITICIANS. Trailer. 1936. 1 reel, sd.
© Royal Revues, Inc.; 13Apr36; MP6435.
POLITICS. 1924. 1 reel.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 14Apr24; LP20070.
POLITICS. 1930. 2 reels, sd.
© The Vitaphone Corp.; 14Nov30; MP2143.

POLITICS. 1931. 8 reels, sd., b&w.
Credits: Director, Charles F. Riesner; story, Zelda Sears, Malcolm
Stuart Boylan; adaptation, Wells Root; dialogue, Robert E. H
opkins; film editor, William S. Gray.
© Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corp.; 5Aug31; LP2378.
POLITICS AND SUFFRAGETTES. © 1914.
© Biograph Co. (E. Middleton, author); title, descr. & 32 prints,
5Mar14; LU2270.
POLITICS AND THE PRESS. 1914. 1 reel.
Credits: Director, Van Dyke Brooke.
© The Vitagraph Co. of America (W. A. Tremayne, author);
31Aug14; LP3291.

POLLY MORAN, THE MOVIE CHATTERBOX. 1928. 1 reel.
© Vitaphone Corp.; 10Apr28; MP4877.
POLLY OF THE CIRCUS (DER ZIRKUSTEUFEL). Deutsche
Kinematographen Gesellschaft, Köln, Germany. © 1914.
© Oliver Francis Malcolm (Deutsche Kinematographen
Gesellschaft, author); title, descr. & 53 prints, 25Feb14; LU2218.
POLLY OF THE CIRCUS. 1917. 8 reels. From the play by Margaret
Mayo.
Credits: Directors, Charles Thomas Horan, Edwin L. Hollywood;
picturized by Adrian Gil Speare, Emmett Campbell Hall.
© Goldwyn Pictures Corp.; 8Sep17; LP11359.
POLLY OF THE CIRCUS. 1932. 8 reels, sd., b&w. From the play by
Margaret Mayo.
Credits: Director, Alfred Santell; adaptation, Carey Wilson;
dialogue, Laurence E. Johnson; film editor, George Hively; music
score, William Axt.
© Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corp.; 27Feb32; LP2912.
POLLY OF THE FOLLIES. First National. 1922. 7 reels.
Credits: Director, John Emerson; scenario, John Emerson, Anita
Loos.
** © Joseph M. Schenck; 16Jan22; LP17499.
POLLY OF THE POTS AND PANS. 1915. 1 reel.
Credits: Producer, John Ince.
© Lubin Mfg. Co. (Shannon Fife, author); 5Aug15; LP6026.
POLLY PUT THE KETTLE ON. Red Feather. 1916. 5 reels.
Credits: Director, Douglas Gerrard; story, Grace Helen Bailey;
scenario, Elizabeth Chandler Hendrix.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 22Dec16; LP9793.

POLLY REDHEAD. 1917. 5 reels. Founded on the Pollyooly stories
by Edgar Jepson.
Credits: Director, Jack Conway; scenario, E. J. Clawson.
© Bluebird Photoplays, Inc.; 14Feb17; LP10193.
POLLY TIX IN WASHINGTON. (A Jack Hays Baby Burlesk)
Presented by E. W. Hammons. 1933. 963 ft., sd.
Credits: Director, Charles Lamont; film editor, Arthur Ellis; music
director, Alfonso Corelli.
© Educational Films Corp. of America; 4Jun33; LP3971.
POLLY WITH A PAST. 1920. 6 reels. From the play by George
Middleton and Guy Bolton.
Credits: Supervision and direction. Maxwell Karger; scenario,
June Mathis, Arthur Zellner.
© Metro Pictures Corp.; 13Dec20; LP16024.
POLLYANNA. 1920. 6 reels. From the novel by Eleanor H. Porter
and the play by Catherine Chisholm Cushing.
Credits: Director, Paul Powell; screen adaptation, Frances Marion.
© Mary Pickford Co.; 10Jan20; LP14635.
POLLYOOLY STORIES. SEE Polly Redhead.
POLO. (A Sports Parade Subject) 1936. 1 reel.
Credits: Director, George Sidney; explanatory remarks by Pete
Smith.
© Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corp.; 11Jun36; MP6570.
THE POLO BEAR. (A Fistical Culture Comedy) Released by The
Bray Studios. 1927. 2 reels.
Credits: Director, Albert Herman; story. Earl Montgomery.
© The Bray Productions, Inc.; 26Mar27; LP23790.
POLO JOE. 1936. 7 reels.

Credits: Director, William McGann; screenplay, Peter Milne, Hugh
Cummings.
© Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. & The Vitaphone Corp.; 23Nov36;
LP6720.
THE POLO KID. Century. 1924. 2 reels.
Credits: Written and directed by Jess Robbins.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 27Dec24; LP20959.
THE POLO MATCH. (Fable, no. 417) 1929. 1 reel.
Credits: Paul Terry.
© Pathe Exchange, Inc.; 20May29; MP206.
POLO THRILLS. (World of Sports) 1934. 1 reel, sd.
Credits: Story, Jack Kofoed.
© Columbia Pictures Corp.; 10Oct34; MP5071.
POLYGAMY. 1936. 9 reels, sd. Based on the novel "I Am a
Polygamist" by Peter Salia.
Credits: Director, Patrick Carlyle.
© Unusual Pictures; 15Nov36; LP7255.
A POLYNESIAN ODYSSEY. (A Paramount-Burton Holmes Travel
Picture) 1921. 1 reel.
© Burton Holmes Lectures, Inc. (Burton Holmes, author);
1May21; MP1952.
POMAY R_x7, A FILM REVIEW OF WEIGHT REDUCTION. Audio
Productions, Inc. © 1937. Sd., b&w, 35 mm.
© Cutasy Laboratories, Inc. (Ralph Cattell, employee, author);
title & descr., 23Jun37; 3 prints, 12Jun37; MU7727.
PONCE DE LEON. (Hysterical History Comedies) 1924. 1 reel.
Credits: Director, Bryan Foy.

© Universal Pictures Corp.; 15Dec24; LP20977.
PONCE SISTERS [IN] SONGS: EASY GOING AND UKULELE DALY.
(Movietone Act) 1928. 1 reel, sd.
© Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corp.; 10Nov28; MP5515.
THE PONCE SISTERS [IN] SONGS: TOO BUSY AND I'D RATHER
CRY OVER YOU. (Movietone Act) 1928. 1 reel, sd.
© Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corp.; 20Oct28; MP5569.
POND AND FOREST. SEE Vagarschabad.
POND INSECTS. 1932. 1 reel.
Credits: Narration, Clyde Fisher.
© Electrical Research Products, Inc.; 15Jan32; MP3027.
PONJOLA. Presented by Sam E. Rork. 1923. 7 reels. Adapted from
the novel by Cynthia Stockley.
Credits: Director, Donald Crisp.
© Associated First National Pictures, Inc.; 1Nov23; LP19556.
PONTIAC FOR PRIDE AND PERFORMANCE. The Jam Handy
Organization. © 1939. B&w, 35 mm.
© Pontiac Motor Div., General Motors Sales Corp. (Jam Handy
Picture Service, author); title & descr., 5Sep39; 110 prints,
8Sep39; MU9633.
THE PONY EXPRESS. Paramount. Presented by Adolph Zukor and
Jesse L. Lasky. 1925. 9,801 ft. From the story by Henry James
Forman and Walter Woods.
Credits: Producer and director, James Cruze; screenplay, Walter
Woods.
© Famous Players-Lasky Corp.; 13Oct25; LP21902.
THE PONY EXPRESS RIDER. 1916. 2 reels.
Credits: Directed and written by Tom Mix.

© Selig Polyscope Co. (Tom Mix, author); 26Aug16; LP9030.
THE PONY EXPRESS RIDER. 1921. 2 reels.
Credits: Written and produced by Jacques Jaccard; scenario, Kay
Harrison.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 28Feb21; LP16233.
THE POOCH. (Our Gang Comedies) Presented by Hal Roach. 1932.
2 reels, sd., b&w.
Credits: Producer and director, Robert McGowan; dialogue, H. M.
Walker; editor, Richard Currier.
© Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corp.; 13Jun32; LP3086.
THE POODLE. © 1935.
© Walter Graham Productions, Inc. (Alene S. Erlanger, author);
title, descr. & 2 prints, 18Oct35; MU5923.
THE POODLE. Presented by Adolph Zukor. 1936. 1 reel, sd.
Credits: Director, Adele Nathan.
© Paramount Pictures, Inc.; 22May36; MP6501.
THE POOL OF FLAME. Red Feather. 1916. 5 reels.
Credits: Producer, Otis Turner; story, Louis Joseph Vance;
scenario, F. McGrew Willis.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 14Feb16; LP7628.
POOR AUBREY. 1930. 2 reels.
© The Vitaphone Corp.; 30Jan30; MP1129.
POOR BABY. 1915. 1,000 ft.
Credits: Elizabeth Miller; director, Will Louis.
© Thomas A. Edison, Inc.; 21Jul15; LP5889.
POOR BOOB. 1919. 5 reels.

Credits: Director, Donald Crisp; story, Zella Covington, Margaret
Mayo Selwyn; scenario, Gardner Hunting.
© Famous Players-Lasky Corp.; 24Jan19; LP13339.
POOR BUT DISHONEST. L-Ko. 1915. 1 reel.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 15Oct15; LP6674.
POOR BUT HONEST. (Mirthquake Comedy, no. 12) 1923. 2 reels.
Credits: Director, Eugene De Rue; scenario, Glen Lambert.
© Arrow Film Corp.; 25Jan23; LP18623.
POOR BUTTERFLY. (Mermaid Comedies) Educational. 1924. 2 reels.
Credits: Supervision, Jack White.
© Sultan Comedies, Inc.; 12Nov24; LP20765.
POOR CHILDREN. © 1913.
© Société Française des Films et Cinématographes "Éclair"; title,
descr. & 102 prints, 19Nov13; LU1616.
POOR CINDERELLA. 1934. 1 reel, sd.
Credits: Director, Dave Fleischer; animation, Seymour Kneitel,
Roland Crandall, William Henning.
© Paramount Productions, Inc.; 1Aug34; MP4903.
POOR DEAR MARGARET KIRBY. Presented by Lewis J. Selznick.
1921. 5 reels. From the novel by Kathleen Norris.
Credits: Director, William P. S. Earle; scenario, Lewis Allen Brown.
© Selznick Pictures Corp.; 3Mar21; LP16230.
POOR ELMER. (Scrappy) (A Color Rhapsody) Released by
Columbia Pictures Corp. 1938. 1 reel, sd., color.
Credits: Producer, Charles Mintz; director, Sid Marcus; animation,
Art Davis, Herb Rothwill; music, Joe de Nat.
© Screen Gems, Inc.; 18Jul38; MP8588.

A POOR FISH. 1922. 2 reels.
Credits: Director, Earl Kenton.
© William Fox (Fox Film Corp., author); 24Dec22; LP19093.
THE POOR FISH. © 1924.
© Pathe Exchange, Inc. (Hal E. Roach, author); title, descr. & 20
prints, 3Dec24; LU20827.
POOR FISH. (Outdoor Sketches) Presented by E. W. Hammons.
1927. 1 reel.
Credits: Robert C. Bruce.
© Edco Producing Unit, Inc.; 12Sep27; MP4317.
THE POOR FISH. 1930. 1 reel, sd.
© The Vitaphone Corp.; 8Jun30; MP1598.
A POOR FISH. (Mack Sennett Brevities) 1931. 1 reel, color.
© Mack Sennett, Inc. (Mack Sennett, author); 4Jan31; LP2406.
THE POOR FISH. Lambs Club. 1933. 2 reels, sd.
Credits: Director, Joseph Santley; story, Joseph Santley, Harry
Clarke; music, Paul Lannin.
© Columbia Pictures Corp. & The Lambs; 1May33; LP3895.
THE POOR FOLK'S BOY. 1914. 2 reels.
Credits: Director, Ulysses Davis.
© Vitagraph Co. of America (G. W. Ogden, author); 17Jun14;
LP2888.
POOR GIRLS. 1927. 6 reels.
Credits: Director, William James Craft; story, Sophie Bogen;
screenplay, William Branch.
© Columbia Pictures Corp.; 22Apr27; LP23891.
A POOR GIRL'S ROMANCE. Released by F. B. O. 1926. 6 reels.

Credits: Director, F. Harmon Weight; story, Laura Jean Libbey;
screenplay, Enid Hibbard, Betty Roberts.
© R-C Pictures Corp.; 23May26; LP22755.
POOR KID. Presented by Century Comedies. 1924. 2 reels.
Credits: Written and directed by Arvid E. Gillstrom.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 5Jan24; LP19799.
POOR LITTLE BUTTERFLY. (Scrappy) (A Color Rhapsody) 1938. 1
reel, sd., color.
Credits: Producer, Charles Mintz; director, Ben Harrison;
animation, Manny Gould; music, Joe de Nat.
© Screen Gems, Inc.; 28Jun38; MP8568.
POOR LITTLE ME. (Happy Harmonies) 1935. 1 reel, sd.
Credits: Hugh Harman, Rudolf Ising.
© Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corp.; 31Jul35; MP5813.
POOR LITTLE RICH BOY. 1933. 2 reels.
Credits: Director, Joseph Henabery; story, Burnet Hershey, J. P.
Murray.
© The Vitaphone Corp.; 9Jan33; LP3545.
POOR LITTLE RICH GIRL. 1936. 7,093 ft., sd. Suggested by the
stories by Eleanor Gates and Ralph Spence.
Credits: Director, Irving Cummings; screenplay, Sam Hellman,
Gladys Lehman, Harry Tugend; music director, Louis Silvers.
© Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.; 24Jul36; LP6683.
POOR LITTLE RICH MAN. © 1915.
© Mica Film Corp. (Eustace Hale Ball, author); title, descr. & 21
prints, 9Jan15; LU4140.
POOR MEN'S WIVES. Presented by B. P. Schulberg. 1923. 7 reels.

Credits: Written and adapted by Agnes Christine Johnston, Frank
Dazcy; director, Gasnier.
© Preferred Pictures, Inc.; 20Mar23; LP18865.
THE POOR NUT. Presented by Jess Smith Productions, Inc. 1927. 7
reels. From the play by J. C. and Elliott Nugent.
Credits: Director, Richard Wallace; screenplay and continuity,
Paul Schofield.
© First National Pictures, Inc.; 11Jun27; LP24069.
THE POOR NUT. SEE Local Boy Makes Good.
POOR PAPA. (Oswald the Lucky Rabbit Cartoon Comedy) Snappy.
1928. For Winkler Productions. 1 reel.
Credits: Walt Disney.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 22May28; LP25296.
POOR PETER PIOUS. Nestor. 1917. 1 reel.
Credits: Director, Louis William Chaudet; story, Eddie Lyons, Lee
Moran; scenario, Frederick A. Palmer.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 20Jun17; LP10967.
POOR POLICY. L-Ko. 1915. 1 reel.
Credits: Director, Harry Edwards.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 16Apr15; LP5050.
A POOR PRUNE. Nestor. 1919. 1 reel.
© Universal Film Mfg. Co., Inc.; 24Feb19; LP13435.
A POOR RELATION. 1914. 3 reels.
© Klaw & Erlanger (Protective Amusement Co., author);
24Sep14; LP3430.
A POOR RELATION. 1915. 3 reels.
© Biograph Co.; 1Dec15; LP7100.

A POOR RELATION. 1921. 5 reels.
Credits: Director, Clarence G. Badger; story, Edward E. Kidder.
© Goldwyn Pictures Corp.; 29Nov21; LP17243.
THE POOR RICH (ZWEI ARME REICHE). Deutsche
Kinematographen Gesellschaft, Köln, Germany. © 1914.
© Louis Gerö (Deutsche Kinematographen Gesellschaft, author);
title, descr. & 34 prints, 25Feb14; LU2216.
THE POOR RICH. 1934. 8 reels.
Credits: Director, Edward Sedgwick; story, Ebba Havez, Dale Van
Every.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 15Feb34; LP4492.
THE POOR RICH MAN. 1918. 5 reels.
Credits: Director General, Maxwell Karger; director, Charles J.
Brabin; story, Elaine Sterne; scenario, A. S. LeVino.
© Metro Pictures Corp.; 31Dec18; LP13244.
POOR SCHMALTZ. © 1915.
© Famous Players Film Co. (Hugh Ford, author); title, descr. &
15 prints, 20Aug15; LU6144.
THE POOR SIMP. 1920. 5 reels.
Credits: Director, Victor Heerman; story, J. Shakespeare Sap;
picturized by Sarah Y. Mason; editor, Duncan Mansfield.
© Selznick Pictures Corp.; 30Aug20; LP15567.
POP AND SON. (Benny Rubin Comedy) 1929. 1 reel.
Credits: Direction and continuity, Walter Fabian; story and
dialogue, Benny Rubin.
© Universal Pictures Corp.; 14Oct29; LP769.
POP GOES MY HEART. (Merrie Melodies) 1935. 7 min., sd., color.

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Cognitive Perspectives On Word Formation Alexander Onysko Editor Sascha Michel Editor

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

Cognitive Perspectives On Word Formation Alexander Onysko Editor Sascha Michel Editor

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 32

Slide 33

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 39

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 54

Slide 55

Slide 56

Slide 57

Slide 58

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 63

Slide 64

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 67

Slide 68

Slide 69

Slide 70

Slide 71

Slide 72

Slide 73

Slide 74

Slide 75

Slide 76

Slide 77

Slide 78

Slide 79

Slide 80

Slide 81