Skip to main content
Log in

How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q-interaction

  • Original paper
  • Published:
Morphology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For several reasons, phrasal compounds like I-told-you-so attitude are a typical case of a marginal type of word-formation: (i) integration of a phrase into the word should not be allowed (violation of the No Phrase Constraint), (ii) lexical integrity is weakened (violation of the Principle of Lexical Integrity), (iii) they display an expressive flavour typical of marginal morphology. Using the mixed model of Ackema and Neeleman (2004) that allows for insertion from phrasal syntax into word syntax (Generalized Insertion) it is shown that phrasal compounds are by no means marginal from a purely theoretical point of view. However, the expressivity of marginal compounds has to be explained. Drawing on experimental data, it is shown that ad hoc phrasal compounds are understandable and witty to a high degree. These results are explained within the Presumptive Meanings approach of Levinson (2000) that develops the notion of Generalized Conversational Implicature (GCI). It is shown that the expressivity of ad hoc phrasal compounds stems from a word-level conflict between observing the I-principle (that favours the enrichment of underdetermined structures) on the one hand, and the Q-principle (that requires maximal information) on the other.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackema P., Neeleman A. (2004). Beyond morphology. Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackema P., Neeleman A. (2007). Morphology ≠ Syntax. In: Ramchand G., Reiss C. (eds). The oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 325-352

    Google Scholar 

  • Baayen H., Renouf A. (1996). Chronicling The Times: productive lexical innovations in an English Newspaper. Language 72, 69–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer L. (1997). Evaluative morphology: in search of universals. Studies in Language 21, 533–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer L. (2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij G. (2002). The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Borer H. (1998). Morphology and syntax. In: Spencer A., Zwicky A.M. (eds). The handbook of morphology. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 151-190

    Google Scholar 

  • Botha R.P. (1981). A base rule theory of Afrikaans synthetic compounding. In: Moortgat M., van der Hulst H. (eds). The scope of lexical rules. Dordrecht, Foris, pp. 1-77

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan J.W., Mchombo S.A. (1995). The lexical integrity principle. Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 181–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll J.M. (1979). Complex compounds: phrasal embeddings in lexical structures. Linguistics 17, 863–877

    Google Scholar 

  • Downing P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language 53, 810–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dressler W.U. (2000). Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology. In: Doleschal U., Thornton A.M. (eds). Extragrammatical and marginal morphology. München, Lincom Europa, pp. 1-10

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressler W.U., Merlini Barbaresi L. (1997). Morphopragmatics. In: Verschueren J., Östmann J.-O., Blommaert J., Bulcaen C. (eds). Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins

  • Foolen A. (1997). The expressive function of language: Towards a cognitive semantic approach. In: Niemeier S., Dirven R. (eds). The language of emotions: conceptualization, expression, and theoretical foundation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, pp. 15-31

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallmann P. (1990). Kategoriell komplexe Wortformen. Tübingen, Niemeyer

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohenhaus P. (2005). Lexicalization and institutionalization. In: P. Štekauer, Lieber R. (eds). Handbook of word-formation. Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 349-373

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiefer F. (1998). Morphology and pragmatics. In: Spencer A., Zwicky A.M. (eds). The handbook of morphology. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 272-279

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubo S. (2002). Illocutionary morphology and speech acts. In: Vanderveken D., Kubo S. (eds). Essays in speech act theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, pp. 209-224

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrenz B. (1996). Der Zwischen-den-Mahlzeiten-Imbiß und der Herren-der-Welt-Größenwahn: Aspekte der Struktur und Bildungsweisen von Phrasenkomposita im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 24, 1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrenz B. (2006). Moderne deutsche Wortbildung. Phrasale Wortbildung im Deutschen: Linguistische Untersuchung und didaktische Behandlung. Hamburg, Kovaé

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson S.C. (2000). Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieber, R. (1988). Phrasal compounds and the morphology—syntax-interface. Chicago Linguistic Society 24, Part II: Parasession on Agreement in Grammatical Theory, 202–222.

  • Lieber R. (1992). Deconstructing morphology: Word-formation in syntactic theory. Chicago, Chicago University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieber R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieber R. (2005). English word-formation processes. In: P. Štekauer, Lieber R. (eds). Handbook of word-formation. Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 375-427

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lieber, R., & Scalise, S. (2007). The lexical integrity hypothesis in a new theoretical universe. In G. Booij, et al. (Eds.), On-line proceedings of the fifth mediterranean morphology meeting (MMM5). Fréjus 15–18 September 2005, University of Bologna, 2007. URL: http://mmm.lingue.unibo.it/

  • Meibauer J. (2003). Phrasenkomposita zwischen Wortsyntax und Lexikon. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 22, 153–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meibauer J. (2006). Implicature. In: Brown K. (ed). Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd ed., Vol 5. Oxford, Elsevier, pp. 568-580

    Google Scholar 

  • Meibauer, J., & Steinbach, M. (2007). Generalized insertion: Parentheticals and phrasal compounds. Talk given to the 29th DGfS Annual Meeting, Siegen, 2007.

  • Meyer R. (1993). Compound comprehension in isolation and in context. The contribution of conceptual and discourse knowledge to the comprehension of German novel noun-noun compounds. Tübingen, Niemeyer

    Google Scholar 

  • Plag I. (1999). Morphological productivity. Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter

    Google Scholar 

  • Poser W.J. (1992). Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In: Sag I., Szabolsci A. (eds). Lexixal matters. Stanford, CSLI, pp. 111-130

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie G. (2004). The linguistic analysis of jokes. London/New York, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruszkiewicz P. (1997). Morphology in generative grammar. From morpheme-based grammar to lexical morphology and beyond. Gdánsk, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdánskiego

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryder M.E. (1994). Ordered chaos. The interpretation of english noun-noun compounds. Berkeley, University of California Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Scalise S., Guevara E. (2005). The lexicalist approach to word formation and the notion of the lexicon. In: P. Štekauer, Lieber R. (eds). Handbook of word-formation. Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 147-188

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer C. (2005). Wortbildungswandel und Produktivität. Eine empirische Studie zur nominalen - er-Derivation im Deutschen. Tübingen, Niemeyer

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer A. (2005). Word-formation and syntax. In: Štekauer P., Lieber R. (eds). Handbook of word-formation. Dordrecht, Springer, pp. 73-97

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sproat R. (1993). Review article: Morphological non-separation revisited: a review of R. Lieber’s Deconstructing Morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 235–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Stump G.T. (1993). How peculiar is evaluative morphology?. Journal of Linguistics 29, 1–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traugott E.C. (2004). A critique of Levinson’s view of Q- and M-inferences in historical pragmatics. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5, 1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahrig-Burfeind R. (ed). (2006). WAHRIG Deutsches Wörterbuch 8 Aufl. Gütersloh/München, Wissen Media Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiese R. (1996). Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 183–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanuttini R., Portner P. (2003). Exclamative clauses: At the syntax—semantics-interface. Language 79, 39–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwicky A.M., Pullum G.K. (1987). Plain morphology and expressive morphology. In: Aske J., Beery N., Michaelis L., Filip H. (eds). Proceedings of the thirteenth annual Meeting of the Berkeley linguistic society. Berkeley, Berkeley Linguistic Society, pp. 330-340

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jörg Meibauer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meibauer, J. How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q-interaction. Morphology 17, 233–259 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-008-9118-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-008-9118-1

Keywords

Navigation