Morphology (2007) 17:233–259
DOI 10.1007/s11525-008-9118-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
How marginal are phrasal compounds?
Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q-interaction
Jörg Meibauer
Received: 28 May 2007/Accepted: 28 January 2008/Published online: 2 February 2008
Springer ScienceþBusiness Media B.V. 2008
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.
Keywords Phrasal compounds Æ Marginal morphology Æ Word syntax Æ
Morphopragmatics Æ Implicatures
1 Introduction
As a first approximation, one might say that marginal word formation is
somehow distinct from regular word formation. Another way of expressing the
J. Meibauer (&)
German Department, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, 55099 Mainz, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
123
234
J. Meibauer
same idea is to conceive marginal word formation as something that is
peripheral to the grammatical system of word formation. Following Dressler
(2000), marginal morphology covers morphological phenomena that either
transgress the external boundaries of the morphological module or the internal
boundaries between morphological submodules.1 Clitics and Umlaut are, for
example, morpho-phonological phenomena, i.e. the boundary between morphology and phonology is touched. In the case of the comparative, the infinitive, and the participle, the boundary between inflection and word formation is
touched.
Some morphopragmatic phenomena like diminution and augmentation
(,,evaluative‘‘ morphology, cf. Stump 1993; Bauer 1997), as well as ,,affective‘‘
or ,,expressive‘‘ morphology (cf. Zwicky and Pullum 1987) possibly fall under
the heading of marginal morphology, too. Furthermore, lack of productivity is
another feature that is typical of marginal morphology (Dressler 2000, p. 7).
Although this gives a very sketchy picture, we may define a marginal type of
word formation as in (1):
(1)
Marginal word formation
A certain type of word formation (possibly) is marginal,
• if it transgresses the boundaries of modules,
• is evaluative or expressive,
• and lacks productivity.
Let us shortly comment on each of these points. It goes without saying that
phrasal compounds, understood as types of word formation of the type YP+X,
with YP modifying X semantically, transgress the boundaries of modules. The
crucial question is, of course, what that latter characterisation amounts to. We
will discuss a certain modular view, the mixed approach of Ackema and
Neeleman (2004), in the course of our paper.
Phrasal compounds certainly are not evaluative, at least if evaluative morphology is understood as in Bauer (1997), where it is restricted to diminution
and augmentation and certain effects of melioration and pejoration, as well as
concomitant properties of intensification, politeness, and modesty. While
evaluative morphology may have expressive properties, it is nevertheless part of
the ,,central morphology in an adult’s morphological system‘‘ (Bauer 1997,
p. 563). Expressivity, so Bauer reasons, may be not so much a property of the
system, but a property of use.
1
Note that Dressler (2000) draws a distinction between marginal morphology and extragrammatical morphology, the latter being divided into metamorphology (i.e., deliberate reflexion
and production of morphology), premorphology (i.e., early morphology in language acquisition)
and paramorphology (e.g., clipping, blends, reduplication, back formation, etc.). Paramorphological
processes are not subject of a separate morphological component, they basically are an interface
phenomenon.
123
How marginal are phrasal compounds?
235
What is, then, expressive morphology? Here is one classical definition:
(2)
Expressive morphology
,,Expressive morphology is associated with an expressive, playful, poetic
or simply ostentatious effect of some kind.‘‘ (Zwicky and Pullum 1987,
p. 335)
This definition gives a certain hint at what expressive morphology is, but has the
obvious disadvantage of being partly circular. I will argue that ad hoc phrasal
compounds are expressive indeed, expressivity being defined in a specific manner.
The notion of productivity has recently been the subject of several studies
(cf., among others, Plag 1999; Bauer 2001; Scherer 2005). One important view is
the assumption put forward by Harald Baayen and collaborators that the status
of an item as a Hapax legomenon can be seen as an indication of productivity
(cf. Baayen and Renouf 1996). Since in most texts phrasal compounds are
Hapaxes, it may be ventured that phrasal compounds are productive. However,
phrasal compounds seem to be marked in relation to their more common sisters, the N+N-compounds. The pattern of phrasal compounding is principally
available for the language user, but it appears to be not very profitable, i.e. there
are constraints for the exploitation of that pattern. Furthermore, the amount of
lexicalized phrasal compounds is very restricted (cf. Bauer 2001).
To sum up: There is some initial evidence for the impression that phrasal
compounds are marginal. However, I will show that phrasal compounds are not
so marginal as it seems at first sight. At least in a mixed approach such as the one
of Ackema and Neeleman (2004), they are totally regular. Their expressive
properties, so I will argue, may be derived with reference to pragmatic principles
being operative on word level; four morphological experiments are discussed
which support this claim. Thus, an explanation for the apparent markedness of
phrasal compounds is proposed. Finally, it is concluded that a system such as
Ackema and Neeleman‘s, is in need for interaction with pragmatics.
2 Phrasal compounds and generalized insertion
2.1 Properties of phrasal compounds
Phrasal compounds exist in several languages. Typical Examples in English,
Afrikaans, and Dutch are given in (3) (cf. Booij 2002, Scalise and Guevara 2005,
p. 178, Lieber (2005), p. 377), and German examples in (4) (cf. Meibauer 2003):
(3)
a. Engl.
a [[floor-of-a-birdcage] taste]
an [[ate-too-much] headache]
b. Afrik. [[God is dod] theologie]
,god-is-dead theology‘
c. Du.
[[lach of ik schiet] humor]
,laugh-or-I-shoot humour‘
123
236
(4)
J. Meibauer
a. die [[Rote-SockenNP]-Kampagne]
,the red-socks campaign‘
b. der [[Zehn-TageNP]-Urlaub]
,the ten-days holydays‘
c. die [[Affe-auf-SchleifsteinNP]-Position]
,the ape-on-grindstone position‘
d. der [[Vater-und-SohnNP]-Konflikt]
,the father-and-son conflict‘
e. die [[Vor-PremierenPP]-Fahrt]
,the before-première trip‘
f. die [[Länger-lebenVP]-Diät]
,the longer-live diet‘
g. der [[Muss-das-denn-seinCP]-Blick]
,the must-that-[MP]-be gaze‘
As can be seen in (4), all of the major phrasal categories may function as YP.
The left-hand members of the compound display the normal stress pattern
(Wiese 1996). Thus we have pairs as in (5), where (5a) displays the phrase vor
Ort, while (5b) shows the noun Vorort:
(5)
a. Vor-’Ort-Tarif
(PP+N-phrasal compound)
before-place tariff
,local tariff‘
b. ’Vorort-Tarif
suburb tariff
,suburban tariff‘
(N+N-compound)
The question arises whether there are any constraints for the left-hand member
of the compound (i.e., the non-head).
We will focus here on three constraints for the left-hand member of the
phrasal compound (see Lieber 1988) that are discussed in the literature:
•
•
•
phrasal compounds are right-headed,
heads are nominal,
NP only (i.e., no DP).
The first constraint is borne out, at least when considering German data. Rightheadedness is a typical feature of German compounds, and generally found in
the Germanic languages.
The second constraint is somewhat more problematic. Following Lieber
(1982, 210 pp.), non-nominal heads as in (6a–c) are generally excluded.
Adjectival heads, however, are said to be marginally acceptable.2
2
And indeed, an anonymous reviewer finds (6c) acceptable.
123
How marginal are phrasal compounds?
(6)
237
a. *[competition-of-the-month] inP
b. *[Charles-and-Di] watchV
c. *[third-month-of-the-year] coldA
d. *[der Mitte-des-Lebens]-inP
‘the middle-of-the-life in’
e. *[Angelina-und-Brad]-sehenV; *[am Abend]-wartenV
‘Angelina-and-Brad watch’; ‘in-the-evening wait’
f. *[auf-den-Sohn]-stolzA; [Blut-und-Boden]-mystischA
,of-the-son proud’; ‘blood-and-soil mystical’
g. ein [fünf-Stufen]-integriertesA/Part Filtersystem
,a five-steps integrated filtering system’
In German, there appears to be one exception, namely adjectives with a nonhead that cannot be understood as a complement of the head, e.g. Blutund-Boden-mystisch in (6f). Moreover, we find deverbal adjectives (participles)
as heads, as in (6g).3 Lawrenz (1996, p. 7) comments that phrasal compounds
with an adjectival head are quite rare in comparison with their nominal head
counterparts. Because our focus is on the latter type, I will not go into a more
detailed discussion here.
Thirdly, consider the ,No DP!‘-constraint. As Lawrenz (1996, 2006) has
shown, only NPs are allowed as a non-head:
(7)
a. ein/der *[die-graue-Schläfe]-Effekt
a/the [the-grey-temple] effect
,effect (on women) caused by grey temples (of men)‘
b. ein/der *[eine-graue-Schläfe]-Effekt
c. ein/der *[die grauen-Schläfen]-Effekt
d. ein/der [Ø graue-Schläfen]-Effekt
Usually, this is explained by the assumption that the non-heads must not be
referential. However, where the non-head is a fixed expression, DPs are possible, e.g.:
(8)
a. dieFEM [der-schöne-Rheingau]-LabereiFEM
,the [the-beautiful-Rheingau] talk‘
b. dieFEM Ein-Kerl-wie-ich-VisagenFEM.PL (Wiese 1996)
,the a-guy-like-me faces‘
Therefore, the constraint appears to be semantic in nature (cf. Ackema and
Neeleman 2004, p. 129 who assume that an explanation for the DP-constraint
will be found ,,in possible semantics of words and phrases‘‘).
3
This example is taken from Lawrenz (2006, p. 7).
123
238
J. Meibauer
2.2 No phrase constraint and quotational hypothesis
After having reviewed some of the data, let us now turn to theoretical aspects of
phrasal compounds. Phrasal compounds, this is for sure, are a sort of morphological provocation. They run against the No phrase constraint (a selfviolating name, as Spencer 2005, p. 83 notes) originally proposed by Botha
(1981), as rendered in (9):
(9)
No phrase constraint
No phrase may appear within complex words.
It is clear that (9) is immediately relevant for one of the most intriguing
questions in theoretical morphology, namely where word formation can be
located in the system.
A useful taxonomy of basic approaches to that question has been put forward by Borer (1998). She draws a distinction between linear (derivational),
syntactic, and mixed models. Linear models accept the validity of the Lexical
Integrity Hypothesis, a principle that has the ‘‘effect of preventing syntactic
rules from looking into and operating on the internal structure of words’’, as
Lieber and Scalise (2007, p. 1) put it. Linear models thus assume that the output
of the word formation component is the input for the syntactic component. If
that is correct, phrasal compounds simply should not occur. But they do.
Syntactic models assume that word formations may be described with syntactic
means. There is no autonomous component of word formation, and thus the
problem with phrasal compounds does not arise in the first place. Mixed models
admit the interaction between syntax and word formation in so far as syntactic
processes may have access to word formation and vice versa.
One prominent linear (derivational) model is the Strong Lexicalist model,
where Morphology—via Lexical Insertion—is the input for Syntax (cf. Borer
1998; Scalise and Guevara 2005). Lieber (1988, 1992) argued that such a model
cannot explain why phrases appear within complex words, concluding from this
that Strong Lexicalism is wrong, and that morphology is syntax indeed; this
went together with the assumption of an universal X-bar-scheme being valid for
both syntax and morphology. Several criticisms were put forward against this
approach, e.g. the modification of the (syntactic) X-bar-scheme so that it could
handle word formations, and the fact that selection cannot be described in an
uniform manner (cf. Sproat 1993; Ruszkiewicz 1997; Borer 1998).
Wiese (1996), in an attempt to rescue Lexicalism, argued persuasively that
the non-heads of phrasal compounds are quotations (cf. Bresnan and
Mchombo 1995):
(10)
Quotational hypothesis
Non-heads of phrasal compounds are quotations.
Because they are quotations, they are not really used, but only mentioned. And
therefore, phrasal compounds are no real challenge for Strong Lexicalism.
123
How marginal are phrasal compounds?
239
Intrusions into words such as material from other languages, signs or gestures
are quite normal, but are excluded from the operation of the language modules.
(11)
a. die no-future-Jugendlichen
,the no-future kids‘
b. this rien-ne-va-plus statement
c. this [gesture for someone with big ears] attitude
d. the @-sign
Accordingly, Wiese (1996, p. 188) proposed the following structure, the quotation marks showing the quotational character of the non-head:
(12)
X0
Y0
X0
„NP“
Note that the left constituent is no longer an XP: it has been converted
somehow into a lexical category. Exactly how this happens remains mysterious.
A tempting solution may be seen in the approach of Gallmann (1990)
illustrated in (13):
(13)
a. [any string] fi N
b. [NPsaure Gurken]
sour cucumbers = pickled cucumbers
fi
fi
[NSaure Gurken]
[N[NSauregurken][Nzeit]
pickled cucumbers time
,silly season‘
(nominalisation)
(composition)
The basic observation is that nearly any string of elements (,,beliebiger
Sprachausschnitt‘‘) may be converted into a neuter noun. If this noun enters
into composition, the phenomenon of the phrasal compounds dissolves into
thin air. However, this approach, appealing as it is, faces several problems:
First of all, the notion of ,,beliebiger Sprachausschnitt‘‘ is not properly defined, because it is not a lexical, phrasal or functional category. Second, the
rule (13a) overgenerates, because the non-heads of phrasal compounds are
always XPs. Thirdly, this approach draws a strong parallel between phrasal
compounds and N+N-compounds, and this blurs the distinction between
them.
123
240
J. Meibauer
Let us come back to Wiese’s quotational approach. This approach was clear
enough, but was it right? A closer inspection of German data reveals that the
non-heads are either lexicalized or not lexicalized (cf. Meibauer 2003). Following Jackendoff (1997), it is assumed that the non-heads in (14) are elements
of the lexicon.
(14)
a. (Idioms)
Leck-mich-am-Arsch-Bullen
,kiss-my-ass cops‘
b. (Clichés)
Hier-kriegt-man-alles-was-man-braucht-Seminar
,here-you-get-all-you-need seminar‘
c. (Titles)
Romeo-und-Julia-Gefühl
,Romeo-and-Juliet feeling‘
d. (Quotes)
Keine-Macht-den-Drogen-Schmarrn
,no-power-to-drugs bullshit‘
e. (Binomials)
Freund-oder-Feind-Philosophie
,friend-or-foe philosophy‘
f. (Loan phrases) Fast-Food-Kino
,fast-food cinema‘
g. (Quantity
expressions)
630-Mark-Gesetz
,630-Mark law‘
If these non-heads are elements of the lexicon, they may be inserted into word
structures. This should pose no problem, neither for derivational nor for lexicalist approaches.
Let us now consider non-lexicalized non-heads:
(15)
a. Irgendetwas-stimmt-mit-dem-Jungen-nicht-Blick
,something-is-wrong-with-the-boy look‘
b. Teenager-finden-sich-und-ihre-Liebe-Prinzip
,teenagers-find-themselves-and-their-love principle‘
c. Zap-und-weg-Fernsehzeiten
,zap-and-away TV times‘
d. 90-Tonnen-Steak
,90-tons steak‘
These non-heads are freshly produced, they are not part of the lexicon.
Therefore, the quotational approach fails. To be sure, there are some examples
where a quotational approach seems right, i.e. there exists an original phrasal
utterance that is quoted (be it lexicalized or not). But these cases are rather
marginal.
I conclude from the foregoing discussion, as far as phrasal compounds
are concerned, that a model is called for that allows for intermodular
123
How marginal are phrasal compounds?
241
access. This is also the point of Lieber and Scalise’s (2007) recent review of
the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis. They propose the Limited Access Principle
saying that ‘‘Morphological Merge can select on a language specific basis to
merge with a phrasal/sentential unit’’, and ‘‘there is no Syntactic Merge
below the word level’’ (Lieber and Scalise 2007, p. 21). Hence, the idea that
syntax and morpology are separate (or ‘‘are normally blind to each other’’,
as Lieber and Scalise 2007, p. 21 put it) is upheld, but intermodular access
is limited.
In the remainder of the paper, I concentrate on the mixed approach of
Ackema and Neeleman (2004, 2007), because it allows for insertion of syntactic
material into morphological material, captures insertion directly from the
lexicon, and is not forced to assume a quotational view. Furthermore, because
it has a strong modular architecture, it is promising in its potential to determine an interface to pragmatics, a point I will come back to in the final
discussion.
2.3 Generalized insertion
In this section, I will give a sketch of Ackema and Neeleman’s (2004) account of
phrasal compounds, and I will point out some problems that arise within in
their approach.4 Ackema and Neeleman make a distinction between lexicon
and syntax. The lexicon is conceived of as a list of syntactic, morphological and
phonological irregularities. Phrasal Syntax and Word Syntax are independent
structure-generating systems that work in parallel and are fully symmetrical
(Ackema and Neeleman 2004, p. 123).
Ackema and Neeleman (2004) define a very general process of insertion
(i.e. generalized insertion) which is not sensitive to the nature of the
representations it connects. More specifically, insertion is an irreducible
relation of feature matching between a node of a representation and
another node of representation; it is unselective with respect to the kind of
representation (syntax or morphology) and the kind of node (terminal
or non-terminal); finally, it is conditioned by inclusiveness, the principle of
inclusiveness stating that all features of a node must be traceable back to
lexical entries.
4
For more general objections, see Scalise and Lieber (2007, pp. 15–16) who point out that Ackema
and Neeleman’s notions of competition and insertion are not restrictive enough. Specifically, ‘‘the
alignment of semantic irregularity with morphological derivation and semantic regularity with
syntactic derivation is an arbitrary move on A&N’s part, without which the notion of competition
would not work.’’ (Scalise and Lieber 2007, p. 16).
123
242
(16)
J. Meibauer
Generalized insertion and the modular organization of the grammar
(Ackema and Neeleman 2004, p. 130)
LEXICON
SYNTAX
Phrasal Syntax
Word Syntax
phrasal syntactic structure
word syntactic structure
INSERTION
COMPETITION
From the six types of insertion that are possible in this model, we concentrate
on the insertion from phrasal syntax into word syntax (for a treatment of
insertion from phrasal syntax into phrasal syntax—as in the case of parentheticals—see Meibauer and Steinbach 2007).5
Ackema and Neeleman (2004) give the structure under (17a) for a NP+Xphrasal compound. The arrow indicates insertion. Its rival, the ‘‘building
block’’ theory, has the obvious disadvantage to display ‘‘syntax below zero’’, cf.
(17b), in so far as the NP (a maximal projection) is a proper part of the N0.
Note that a ‘‘building block’’ theory is, according to Ackema and Neeleman
(2004, p. 90), every theory that views insertion as ‘‘the use of morphological
objects as building blocks in the syntactic representations.’’ However, as they
argue, lexical items are not literally ‘‘inserted’’ into terminals, but certain features of the lexical entry are matched against terminal nodes.
(17)
(a) Matching theory
(b) “Building block” theory
N
N
N
N
NP
AP
5
NP
A
N
N
N
The six types are: (i) Lexicon fi Phrasal Syntax (listed words), (ii) Lexicon fi Word Syntax (ad
hoc complex words), (iii) Phrasal Syntax fi Word Syntax, (phrasal compounds) (iv) Word
Syntax fi Phrasal Syntax (ad hoc complex words), (v) Phrasal Syntax fi Phrasal Syntax
(parentheticals), (vi) Word Syntax fi Word Syntax (expletive insertion).
123
How marginal are phrasal compounds?
243
Which are the features that may play a role in the process of feature matching
indicated by the arrow in (17a)? I guess that Ackema and Neeleman think of
categorial features. Thus, in (17a) the feature [+nominal] may be matched. But
this presupposes that the phrasal compound is a genuine N+N-compound.
Even if this is so, the question arises which features have to be checked in the
case of PP-, VP-, and CP-phrasal compounds. There is no feature that allows
for checking when the non-head is N and the inserted/checked phrase is a CP.6
Arguably, a ,,building block’’ theory Ackema and Neeleman argue against is
more plausible here, if it simply assumes that the respective ,,building block‘‘ is
inserted without any feature checking mechanism.7
In line with standard approaches to lexical integrity, Ackema and Neeleman
assume that phrasal compounds do not allow for binding and movement
(=identificational functions), but they allow for thematic functions and
negative polarity (=nonidentificational functions).
(18)
Properties of phrasal compounds (Ackema and Neeleman 2004)
Phrasal compound
Identificational
Nonidentificational
Licensing
Nonlicensing
*Movement
*Binding
Thematic
Negative polarity
Ackema and Neeleman define a function as identificational, ,,if its satisfaction
implies that the antecedent and the terminal in which the function originates are
equated in certain respects.‘‘ (Ackema and Neeleman 2004, p. 111). A function
is nonlicensing, if there is no other element that motivates or requires a certain
relation. More specifically, ,,satisfaction of a binding function (a nonlicensing
function) has the effect that the antecedent and the terminal share a single
reference [...].‘‘ (Ackema and Neeleman 2004, p. 111). Anaphorical interpretation of the whole word or anaphorical binding within that word should be
possible.
However, there are cases of anaphorical binding into the non-heads of
phrasal compounds (Lawrenz 1996; Meibauer 2003):8
(19)
6
a. Damals wurde die Gotti-ist-tot-Thematik in allen Zeitungen
diskutiert, aber wir glaubten nicht daran, dass eri tot ist.
,In those days the god-is-dead subject was discussed in all
newspapers, but we did not believe that he was dead.’
A similar observation is made in Scalise and Lieber (2007, p. 15).
7
I do not see that there is any convincing solution to this problem within Ackema and Neeleman’s
approach. But, as I tried to show, the idea that left-hand members of phrasal compounds are
essentially of the category N, seems problematic, too. Thus, the empirical ‘‘provocation’’ of phrasal
compounds is still with us.
8
As an anonymous reviewer remarked, (19b, c) are not necessarily anaphorical, because the phrase
could expressing a general attitude. However, an anaphorical reading appears possible.
123
244
J. Meibauer
b. Doch mit der Ichi-geb-Gas-ichi-will-Spaß-Politik des liberalen
Wirbelwindsi allein dürfte der Kampf um Platz drei nicht zu gewinnen
sein. (Wiesbadener Kurier, 38/2000)
,Though with the I-step-on-the-accelerator-I-want-fun politics of the
liberal whirlwind alone, the fight for place three is not likely to win.‘
c. Seit geraumer Zeit grassiert unter Prominenteni eine neue Krankheit:
Das ,,Ichi-lass-mich-fotografieren-und-kassier-dafür-Fieber‘‘. (Stern,
30.11.2000)
,Recently, a new disease takes hold of VIPs: The I-let-them-takephotos-and-I-take-the-money fever.
d. Die Rote-Augeni-Reduktion ist durchaus wünschenswert, weil die
Fotografierten damiti wie Zombies aussehen.
,The red-eyes reduction is desirable because the photographed
persons look like zombies with them.‘
e. Das Verdrängte-Aggressioneni-Syndrom wurde immer wieder
geleugnet, aber plötzlich kommen siei dann doch hoch. (Marga
Reis, p.c.)
,The suppressed-agressions syndrome was repeatedly denied, but
suddenly they come back again.‘
f. Ich nehme Zwischen-den-Mahlzeiteni-Imbisse ein, weil mich danni
häufig ein Hungergefühl überkommt. (Lawrenz 1996, p. 8)
,I take between-the-meals snacks, because then I often get a hungry
feeling.‘
This shows, then, that phrasal compounds do not behave like normal words,
because they are more transparent for anaphorical binding. Arguably, the
anaphorical relation comes about through some process of accommodation,
possibly of a pragmatic nature. However, cases like (20), with reflexives, appear
to be acceptable, too:9
(20)
So eine Bewunderung-für-sich-selbsti-Attitüde macht Rüdigeri nicht
sympathischer.
‘Such an admiration-for-himself attitude does not make Rüdiger more
symphatic.’
Ackema and Neeleman stress that their theory allows for the head being
matched by a phrase. This is the case with a special type of phrasal compound
9
This example has been coined following Ackema and Neeleman (2004, p. 125, footnote. 11) who
argue that examples like Zo’n [[bewondering voor zichzelf] achtig] gevoel maakt niemand sympathieker meaning ,Such a feeling resembling admiration for oneself makes no one any more
sympathetic‘ are counterexamples for the claim that there is binding into phrasal non-heads. I do
not see why this example should rule out the positive example Harry heeft een [[bewondering voor
zichzelf] achtig] gevoel also given by Ackema and Neeleman. For further examples, see Lawrenz
(2006, p. 74).
123
How marginal are phrasal compounds?
245
found in Dutch. The phrasal heads cannot be analysed as compounds ,,since the
adjective they contain can be inflected and they have phrasal rather than
compound stress.‘‘ (Ackema and Neeleman 2004, p. 125) Data like these are
particularly interesting because here the intuitions about the features that are to
be matched are clearer than with the non-head position (Ad Neeleman, p.c.).
Note in addition that only NPs are inserted into the head position of the phrasal
compound.10
(21)
N
X
N
NP
AP
námaak
‚imitation
(22)
mobiele
mobile
N
telefòon
phone‘
a. [namaak [mobiele telefoon]] (imitation mobile phone)
b. [rot [luie stoel]] (rotten comfy chair)
c. zo’n [zenuwen [elektrische viool]] (such-a nerves electric violin ,
the type of electric violin that gets you on your nerves‘)
d. dat [kanker [Juinenese accent]] (that cancer Juinen accent ,that
bloody Juinen accent‘)
e. [wereld [rode wijn]] (world red wine ,superb red wine‘)
For Ackema and Neeleman, the moral is obvious: ,,This observation appears to
further disqualify the building block theory of insertion. It is unlikely that
phrases can project words. In X-bar theoretical terms this would require a
decrease in bar level. Data like these can only be accommodated by a theory
that allows for insertion in morphological terminals.‘‘ (Ackema and Neeleman
2004, p. 124)
A morphological construction like those in (22) is ungrammatical in
German, z.B. dieser *Scheiße-kölsche-Akzent (compare 22e) or der *Welt-roteWein (compare 22f). However, Lawrenz (2006, pp. 50–52) draws attention to
10
A further example given by Ackema and Neeleman is
[ex [aanstormend talent]] (‘ex up-and-coming talent’). I agree with the observation of one anonymous reviewer that this looks, because of the prefix ex-, like a phrasal derivation.
123
246
J. Meibauer
rare cases like eine de-facto-[große-Koalition] (‘a de facto grand coalition’) and
ihre Lieblings-[dumme-Talkshow] (‘her favourite silly talk show’] that have a
comparable structure. To sum up: While these data may support the (categorial) feature checking approach to insertion, the problem with the features to be
checked in the canonical cases with CP, PP or VP in first position, still remains.
Moreover, an explanation for the special binding properties of phrasal compounds has to be found.
3 Expressivity and generalized implicature: a morphological experiment
To my knowledge, the reason for the coinage of phrasal compounds has not got
any attention in the literature, except for occasional remarks on playfulness, etc.
However, a complete approach to phrasal compounds should offer an explanation for their markedness. This holds for Ackema and Neeleman’s approach,
too. On the one hand, the very existence of phrasal compounds supports the
theory of generalized insertion; on the other hand, it is not explained within this
theory why phrasal compounds are marked in relation to the more common
word formation mechanisms of compounding. An attempt to find an explanation leads us to a domain not considered in Ackema and Neeleman’s
approach, namely morphopragmatics.
In a broad perspective, expressivity is a language property that has to do with
emotions or emotion-related evaluations. Several linguistic phenomena may fall
under this heading, among them intonation, swear words, interjections,
expressive sentence types, expressive speech acts (Foolen 1997, pp. 21–22), and,
closer to home, ‘‘evaluative morphology’’, as connected with melioration and
pejoration, diminution and augmentation, and intensification (Bauer 1997).
While it could be argued that some expressive elements, such as swear words
and interjections have a lexical basis, like evaluative affixes in general, other
expressive devices are of a structural kind. For example, the expressive meaning
of exclamatives has to do with the interplay of structural devices such as verb
position, wh-elements, and intonational patterns. (cf. Zanuttini and Portner
2003). I would like to argue that expressivity in phrasal compounds is of this
latter, structural kind. The intrusion of syntax into word formation may be
explained when pragmatic principles are taken into account.
Our starting point is the observation that, with N+N-compounds, contextual enrichment is the standard case. This has been shown in a number of
studies (e.g., Downing 1977; Meyer 1993; Ryder 1994). Every N+N-compound
displays an array of possible semantic relations between the non-head and the
head. Therefore, N+N-compounds are systematically underdetermined. Their
extension can only be determined when the context of utterance is taken into
consideration.
This phenomenon may be described within the theory of generalized conversational implicatures (or GCI, for short) that assumes three principles to be
operative in the constitution of presumptive meaning (cf. Meibauer 2006 for a
survey). The I-principle requiring that the speaker be economical while the
123
How marginal are phrasal compounds?
247
recipient should enrich the informational content is crucial here (Levinson 2000,
p. 114f.):
(23)
I-principle
Speaker’s maxim: the maxim of Minimization. ‘‘Say as little as
necessary’’; that is, produce the minimal linguistic information
sufficient to achieve your communicational ends (bearing Q in mind).
Recipient’s corollary: the Enrichment Rule. Amplify the informational
content of the speaker’s utterance, by finding the most specific
interpretation, up to what you judge to be the speaker’s m-intended
[=meaning-intended] point, unless the speaker has broken the
maxim of Minimization by using a marked or prolix expression. [...]
Take the coinage Fähnchensommer as an example. If presented in isolation, all
one can conclude from this N+N-compound is that it denotes a summer
(Sommer) that has something to do with little flags (Fähnchen). Whether it is
the summer 2006 where the Soccer World Cup has taken place in Germany,
whether it (only) denotes a summer where little flags were somehow relevant
(they were waved, they were sold, they were—in China—produced, etc.), all
these informations must be inferred from the context of utterance. It goes
without saying that further processes of lexicalization and institutionalization
may lead to a fixed meaning of the respective compound (Hohenhaus 2005).
In phrasal compounds, the non-head is a phrase. Surely, phrases are, due to
their complex syntactic and lexical structure, more explicit as well as more
informative than words. Hence someone who uses a phrasal compound
observes the Q-principle (Levinson 2000, p. 76):
(24)
Q-principle
Speaker’s maxim: Do not provide a statement that is informationally
weaker than your knowledge of the world allows, unless providing an
informationally stronger statement would contravene the I-principle.
Specifically, select the informationally strongest paradigmatic
alternate that is consistent with the facts.
Recipient’s corollary: Take it that the speaker made the strongest
statement consistent with what he knows [...].
If a speaker chooses a phrasal compound instead of an alternative N+Ncompound then, obviously, the observance of the Q-principle is more important
to him than the observance of the I-principle.
Take CP-phrasal compounds as an example. Why should they be more
informative than a comparable N+N-compound? The first reason is that
sentences have a set of entailments. Thus the basis for inferences is much bigger
than with words. Secondly, sentences contain propositions that may be truthconditionally evaluated. Recipients are in the position to evaluate the truth
123
248
J. Meibauer
value of a (declarative) CP contained in the phrasal compound. Thirdly, note
that sentences, when uttered, are the bearers of illocutions. Accordingly,
phrasal compounds may be partly interpreted in illocutionary terms. For
example, in the phrasal compound let-us-stay-friends platitude, the CP is related
to a directive illocution.
Furthermore, if a speaker knows that there is a lexicalized construction, e.g.
a title or a cliché, or a quotation that enhances informativity, then he should use
it. This exactly corresponds to the requirement ‘‘select the informationally
strongest paradigmatic alternate that is consistent with the facts’’ contained in
Levinson‘s Q-principle.
Why, then, are phrasal compounds expressive? The answer is that it is exactly
the conflict between the I-principle and the Q-principle that triggers the
expressive effect. Therefore, the following hypothesis is put forward:
(25)
Expressivity in CP phrasal compounds
Expressivity of phrasal compounds stems from a conflict between a
principle that requires enrichment of a minimal and underdetermined
structure in normal compounds (e.g. the I principle) and a principle
that requires maximal informativity (e.g. the Q principle) and leads
to the integration of a phrase into word structure.
In order to verify this hypothesis, four experiments were conducted. In Task I,
75 students with an average age of 23; 2 (59 males, 16 females) were asked to
evaluate a phrasal compound in comparison with several alternatives in two
dimensions, namely understandability and wittiness.
Understandability is a property that has to do with the conflict between the
Q-principle and the I-principle. The prediction is that understandability is
diminished, if the effort of enrichment is too big. If, on the other hand, a certain
construction is too explicit, this will go together with a reduction of wittiness.11
Wittiness has been chosen as a property that corresponds with expressivity
on word level. Let us shortly reconsider the statement of Zwicky and Pullum
here, according to whom ,,expressive morphology is associated with an
expressive, playful, poetic or simply ostentatious effect of some kind.‘‘ (Zwicky
and Pullum 1987, p. 335). ‘‘Playful’’ and ‘‘poetic’’ effects arise in certain contexts of use, e.g. in word play or lyrics. The same is true of ‘‘ostentatious’’
effects, ostentation being connected with a certain context of utterance. But
what should count as an inherently expressive complex word? When considering the word level, it seems that wittiness is indeed an important feature here.
Witty complex words, so I will assume, are those that are either deliberately
irregular, or are regular, but show special kinds of word formation processes.
The first case is exemplified by the German unkaputtbar (literally un-brokenable, meaning ‘undestroyable’), a word formation that is principally ruled out,
because the suffix -bar attaches solely to verbal stems. However, this irregular
11
Note that this is not necessarily so: In some contexts, overinformativity, redundancy, etc. may be
witty, too.
123
How marginal are phrasal compounds?
249
word formation, coined in the context of an advertising campaign and related
to newly introduced plastic bottles of an American soft-drinks producer,
became established (Hohenhaus 2005, p. 369. The second case, i.e. regular, but
nevertheless witty types of word formations—besides (some types of) phrasal
compounds —, are expletive infixations like un-fuckin-believable, abso-bloodylutely, that are, in the parlance of Ackema and Neeleman (2004, p. 131, footnote. 14), cases of insertion from morphology into morphology. Moreover,
phrasal derivations as in the German fad around 2000, where coinages such as
Bei-Mami-Wäscher (‘laundry-at-Mom’s-doer’) denoted wimpy or pedantic
persons or do-gooders (Hohenhaus 2005, pp. 369–370). Other witty types of
word-formations are shortenings as in SMS language, acronyms with an
ambiguous reading, reduplications such as nodnod, wavewave (Hohenhaus
2005, p. 370), and blends such as Ehrgeizhals (made up of Ehrgeiz ‘ambition’
plus Geizhals ‘skinflint’). An analysis of these types along the lines of the
present proposal (via the operation of pragmatic principles) is tempting, but
cannot be done here.12
It goes without saying that phrasal compounds are not jokes. However, there
is a parallel with jokes that appears to have to do with incongruity, a notion
that is fundamental for a general theory of humour (cf. Ritchie 2004, p. 46ff.).13
Incongruity on the word level means that it is unusual to combine a phrasal
meaning with a word meaning. When this happens, this is quite surprising in
view of the amount of already existing N+N-compounds on the one hand and
the ease of coining new ones on the other hand (roughly, their productivity).
The prediction was, then, that all the alternatives to the phrasal compound
would be considered as witty to a lesser degree. In addition, it was suspected
that the property of expressivity would be hard to evaluate in isolation, whereas
the evaluation of a witty text should pose no problem.
The material used in Task I was a short authentic text that contained an ad
hoc phrasal compound with a CP as non-head.
(26)
Während diese Zeilen entstehen, werden mehrere hundert laminierte
,,Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Kärtchen‘‘ hinter die Hubscheibenwischer alter
Mittelklasse-Mercedes geklemmt. Dabei würden deren Besitzer viel
lieber an den freundlichen jungen Mann verkaufen, der sich so rührend
um seine anderen alten Autos kümmert.
[Youngtimer 2/06, S. 55]
12
An anonymous reviewer asks whether there aren’t cases of expressive morphology that are not
witty but rather irritating or annoying. If this is the case, I suspect that this has to do with certain
(more or less normative) expectations of hearers or readers. From the point of the speaker or writer,
it appears to be wittiness what is aimed at. This holds for the case of shm-reduplication discussed in
Zwicky and Pullum (1987), too.
13
Ritchie (2004) points out that the assumption that humour has to do with incongruity and its
resolution is widely shared. The details vary, of course, with different theoretical approaches. The
gist of the idea may be illustrated with the following quote from J. Beattie put forward in 1776
(Ritchie 2004, p. 46): ,,Laughter arises from the view of two or more inconsistent, unsuitable, or
incongruous parts or circumstances, considered as united in one complex object or assemblage, or as
acquiring a sort of mutual relation from the peculiar manner in which the mind takes notice of
them.‘‘
123
250
J. Meibauer
‘While these lines are written, several hundreds of laminated
buy-your-car cards are stuck behind the lift windscreen wipers of old
middle class Mercedes. Yet their owners would prefer to buy their
cars to the friendly young man who is so very solicitous towards his
other old cars.’
Note that there is no conventional expression for the respective little cards. In
the context the writer has several stylistic alternatives, some morphological,
some syntactic.
(27)
a. Autokärtchen
car cardDIM
b. Kaufkärtchen
buyV/N cardDIM
c. Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Kärtchen
buy 1.PS.SG.-your-car cardDIM
d. Kärtchen ,,Kaufe Ihr Auto‘‘
cardDIM ,,buy 1..PS.SG. your car‘‘
e. Kärtchen mit der Aufschrift ,,Kaufe Ihr Auto‘‘
cardDIM with the writing ,,buy 1.PS.SG. your car‘‘
f. Kärtchen, auf denen ,,Kaufe Ihr Auto‘‘ steht
cardDIM on which ,,buy 1.PS.SG. your car‘‘ is written
The first three test items in (27a–c) are complex words, the last three in (27d–f)
are syntactic constructions. Autokärtchen and Kaufkärtchen are underdetermined in comparison with Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Kärtchen, but may denote the same
entity, when appropriately enriched in the respective context (which is not the
case here). The phrasal compound in (27c) is as explicit as the syntactic construction in (27d), the main difference being that (27c) has a right-hand morphological head, whereas (27d) shows a left-hand syntactic head. The remaining
test items are syntactically more complex, because they contain a PP-expansion
or a relative sentence. It follows, then, that the phrasal compound appears to be
a good compromise between explicitness on the one hand and simplicity
(in comparison to alternative syntactic constructions) on the other.
The testing procedure was as follows: The students were told that they
should imagine a situation in which it were their task to write a text that is
understandable and witty at the same time. They were then asked to evaluate
the text in (26) with regard to the original version (with the phrasal compound)
and its other five variants. An exemplar of such a little card was shortly presented to the students. They had to evaluate all test items on a five point scale
with 1 symbolizing a high degree of understandability/wittiness and 5 symbolizing a low degree. Students were asked to read all the texts in advance and
to make use of the full scale when judging the sentences. The sequences of texts
123
How marginal are phrasal compounds?
251
were varied in the test materials. The results can be seen in the following
Table 1:
Table 1 Task I. CP-phrasal compound and rivals in context. N=75 (F 59, M 16, Ø 23;2)
1,0
understandability
1,17
wittiness
1,07
1,25
1,5
1,84
2,0
2,16
2,5
3,0
3,5
3,51
4,0
3,95
4,5
4,45
3,55
4,08
4,4
4,55
5,0
Autokärtchen
Kaufkärtchen
Kärtchen "Kaufe Ihr
Auto"
Kärtchen mit der Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Kärtchen
Kärtchen, auf denen
"Kaufe Ihr Auto" steht Aufschrift "Kaufe Ihr
Auto"
Firstly, we consider the alternatives to the phrasal compound on word level:
The N+N-compound Autokärtchen receives the lowest value for understandability (4,45) and a relatively low value for wittiness (3,95). The V+N-compound Kaufkärtchen does better, since understandability gets 4,08 and wittiness
3,51. It may be asked here why Autokärtchen and Kaufkärtchen receive wittiness values higher than 5,0 at all. After all, regular N+N-coinages or V+Ncoinages should not per se considered as wittier than established ones. It cannot
be excluded, however, that for some speakers, ad hoc compounds are witty
simply because of their newness. This should be tested further.
Secondly, we consider the alternative syntactic constructions. The construction Kärtchen ,,Kaufe ihr Auto‘‘ appears to be quite understandable (2,16),
and is roughly considered as witty as Kaufkärtchen (3,55). The construction
Kärtchen, auf denen ,,Kaufe Ihr Auto‘‘ steht is relatively understandable (1,17),
but gets the lowest value for wittiness (4,55). Finally, the construction Kärtchen
mit der Aufschrift ,,Kaufe Ihr Auto‘‘ comes out on top (1,07), but gets a relatively bad wittiness value (4, 40).
The phrasal compound, as predicted, does brilliantly: It has a high understandability value (1, 25), and at the same time the highest wittiness value
(1, 84). In short, it is the optimal candidate in this context. The high understandability value in comparison with the N+N-compound and the V+Ncompound may have to do with the fact that with phrasal compounds, because
of the obvious difficulty to apply coindexation, interpretation of the compound
is delegated directly to the ,,body‘‘ (to use the terminology of Lieber 2004) than
123
252
J. Meibauer
Table 2 Task II. CP-phrasal compound and rivals in isolation. N=57 (F 40, M 17, Ø 25;0)
1,0
understandability
wittiness
1,5
1,50
2,0
1,47
2,05
2,28
2,5
2,79
3,0
3,44
3,5
3,81
4,0
4,12
4,26
4,49
4,5
4,58
5,0
Autokärtchen
Kaufkärtchen
Kärtchen "Kaufe Ihr
Auto"
Kärtchen, auf denen
"Kaufe Ihr Auto" steht
Kärtchen mit der
Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Kärtchen
Aufschrift "Kaufe Ihr
Auto"
with normal N+N-compounds where the nouns are coindexed and the ,,body‘‘
offers an array of meaning relations.14
These results are quite straightforward. However, it could be argued that
it is not the phrasal compound per se that is evaluated as witty but the
whole text.15 Therefore, another task was designed where the items had to
be evaluated in isolation. Again, an exemplar of the respective little card
was shown to the students, and they had to evaluate the given constructions
with respect to understandability and wittiness. The results are shown in
Table 2.
On the whole, the results are similar to those in Task I. The phrasal
compound in particular shows a good combination of understandability and
wittiness. That the values in Task II are lower on average in comparison with
Task I, corroborates the hypothesis that context contributes to the overall
interpretation in terms of understandability/wittiness. A closer look on the
data reveals interesting details. Kaufkärtchen is better understood than
Autokärtchen in the context condition (Task I), while the reverse is true when
the items are presented in isolation (Task II). It appears, then, that in Task I,
the act of buying/selling was more relevant to the interpreters, whereas in
Task II, the relation ,the little card has something to do with cars‘ was more
salient.
The prediction with lexicalized phrasal compounds is that they should be
understandable to a high degree (their meaning being directly derivable form
14
Following Lieber (2004), in the case of N+N-compounds the referential arguments of the head
and the non-head are coindexed, for example dog bed [+material ([i ])] [+material ([i ])]. It is
obvious that this will not work for phrasal compounds (that are neglected in Lieber 2004; cf. the
short discussion in Lieber 2005, p. 377).
15
I owe this observation to Björn Rothstein (p.c.).
123
How marginal are phrasal compounds?
253
their lexical entry) whereas their wittiness value should not be very high.16 The
reason is straightforward: What is already known, rarely counts as witty.
In order to test this prediction, a further task was designed. Six phrasal
compounds that appear to be more or less lexicalized were to be evaluated,
again in authentic contexts (Task III) and in isolation (Task IV). The test items
were the following:
(28)
a. Nach der als Medienspektakel inszenierten Inthronisierung hat der
Kandidat knapp 100 Tage, den Franzosen seinen ,,friedlichen Bruch‘‘
mit der Politik der alten Garde schmackhaft zu machen. Die Umfragen
sagen ein spannendes Ende des Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennens mit der
populären Sozialistin voraus.
(Wiesbadener Kurier, 15.02.07, S. 11)
,After the enthronement that has been orchestrated as a media event,
the candidate has not quite 100 days in order to make his ,,peaceful
break‘‘ with the old school politics sound appealing to the French.
The opinion polls predict an exciting end of the neck-and-neck race
with the popular socialist.‘
b. In Südafrika ist das vor allem die Northern Province, das Gebiet der
ehemaligen Homelands Venda, Lebowa und Gazankulu, wo das
Pro-Kopf-Einkommen bei etwa 2100 Rand (weniger als 580 Mark)
im Jahr liegt.
(ZEIT, 04.01.01, S. 28)
,In South Africa, this is above all the Northern Province, the territory
of the former homelands Venda, Lebowa and Gazankulu, where the
per capita income is about 2100 Rand (less than 580 German Mark
per annum.‘
c. Anders als in Amerika, wo Universitäten sich ihren guten Ruf mit
hohen Semestergebühren bezahlen lassen, erhalten deutsche
Hochschulen keine Geld-zurück-Garantie.
(ZEIT, 07.12.00, S. 83)
,Unlike in the United States where universities let their hight repute be
paid for with high tuition fees, German universities will receive no
money-back guarantee.‘
d. In Zwirners Programmgalerie downtown drängen sich inzwischen
immer mehr anderswo unzufrieden gewordene Künstler wie der Brite
Chris Ofili oder die latent kitschig malende Lisa Yuskavage. Zwirner
bietet ihnen ein Rundum-sorglos-Paket, hohe Preise und die Nähe zu
respektierten Kollegen. Kleinere Galerien können da nicht mehr
mithalten.
(ZEIT, 11.01.07, S. 40)
16
Thanks to Ingo Plag (p.c.) for this observation.
123
254
J. Meibauer
,In Zwirner’s program gallery downtown more and more artists having
got dissatisfied elsewhere push and shove, for example the Briton Chris
Ofili or the Lisa Yuskavage who latently paints in kitschy way.
Zwirner offers to them a totally-free-from-worries parcel, high prices
and the neighborhood of respected colleagues. Smaller galleries are
not able to compete under the circumstances.‘
e. Damals besuchten wir gerne mit den Kindern den
Trimm-dich-Pfad.17
,In those days we liked to visit with the children the fitness trail.‘
f. Weil sich das Unternehmen Werbung nicht leisten konnte, setzte es
vor allem auf Mund-zu-Mund-Propaganda.
(ZEIT, 15.11.01, S. 47)
,Because the enterprise could not afford advertising, it primarily
preferred word-of-mouth recommendation.‘
In the latest edition of the WAHRIG dictionary (Wahrig-Burfeind, ed. 2006)
there are entries for Mund-zu-Mund-Propaganda and Trimm-dich-Pfad. There
is no entry for Pro-Kopf-Einkommen, but for the related lexeme ProKopf-Verbrauch (,per capita consumption‘). A quick Google search yielded the
following results18: Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennen (218.000), Pro-Kopf-Einkommen
(247.000), Geld-zurück-Garantie (1.350.000), Rundum-sorglos-Paket (210.000),
Trimm-dich-Pfad (140.000), Mund-zu-Mund-Propaganda (137.000). I conclude from this that the items not recorded in WAHRIG are conventional
expressions.
Here are the results from Task III and IV (see Tables 3 and 4). On average
the values for understandability and wittiness are somewhat higher in Task III,
i.e. with the context. But all in all, the curves resemble each other. There is one
exception, namely Geld-zurück-Garantie that is more understandable in isolation (1,71) than in context (2,47). This may have to do with the problem of
how to interpret Geld-zurück-Garantie in this context: Is it to be understood
literally or metaphorically? In sum then, Task III and IV showed that lexicalized and conventional non-CP phrasal compounds are very understandable,
since they have a fixed, conventional meaning, and at the same are not very
witty. Concerning the wittiness value, compare the highest wittiness values in
every task: Task I: 1,84 (Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Kärtchen), Task II: 2,79 (Kaufe-IhrAuto-Kärtchen), Task III: 3,18 (Rundum-sorglos-Paket), Task IV: 3, 13
(Rundum-sorglos-Paket).19
17
This example has been invented.
18
Search conducted on March 9th, 2007.
19
The high wittiness value of Rundum-sorglos-Paket may have to do with semantic incongruity, i.e.
the very idea that there might exist a (simple) parcel that makes people totally free from worries.
123
How marginal are phrasal compounds?
255
Table 3 Task III. Lexicalized/conventional non-CP phrasal compounds in context. N=62 (F 50, M
12 Ø 25;6)
1,0
1,5
1,34
1,44
1,37
1,53
2,0
understandability
wittiness
2,31
2,47
2,5
3,0
3,18
3,5
3,63
3,84
4,0
4,03
4,31
4,5
4,69
5,0
Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennen
Pro-Kopf-Einkommen
Geld-zurück-Garantie Rundum-sorglos-Paket
Trimm-dich-Pfad
Mund-zu-MundPropaganda
Table 4 Task IV. Lexicalized/conventional non-CP phrasal compounds in isolation. N=63 (F 43, M
20 B 22;4)
1,0
1,23
1,5
1,53
understandability
wittiness
1,68
1,71
2,0
2,05
2,5
2,60
3,0
3,13
3,26
3,5
4,0
3,85
3,90
4,5
3,79
4,55
5,0
Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennen
Pro-Kopf-Einkommen
Geld-zurück-Garantie Rundum-sorglos-Paket
Trimm-dich-Pfad
Mund-zu-MundPropaganda
4 Discussion
The gist of this article is that phrasal compounds are by no means marginal from
a theoretical point of view, at least when the Generalized Insertion approach of
Ackema and Neeleman (2004) is taken seriously. Phrasal compounds nicely
illustrate the possibility of insertion from syntax into morphology. What this
123
256
J. Meibauer
approach cannot explain, however, is the markedness or expressivity of ad hoc
phrasal compounds. I propose to explain this expressivity on the basis of a
conflict between demands of the Q- and the I-principle, as defined within the
theory of Generalized Implicature put forward by Levinson (2000).
The reported four experiments yielded the following results:
•
•
Ad hoc CP phrasal compounds are understandable and witty to a high
degree. The context may support wittiness, but even in isolation, phrasal
compounds are considered wittier than their alternatives.
Lexicalized phrasal compounds are, because of their conventional meaning,
very understandable. At the same time, they are not considered to be very
witty, and even the context does not support wittiness very much.
We may ask whether there are other factors that favour wittiness of ad hoc
phrasal compounds, for example length, structural complexity, unusual syntax,
or special lexical make up. For example the (attested) phrasal compound in
(29a) is long (15 words), complex (matrix sentence plus embedded sentence) and
idiomatic. In (29b), we have an example with unusual syntax, i.e. coordination
of a verbal stem with a particle, and in (29c) there is a quotational insertion into
the proper name.
(29)
a. die Der-Berti-ist-die-blöde-Sau-die-man-von-links-nachrechts-durchs-Dorf-jagt-Platte.
,the [[CPthe-Berti-is-the-stupid-sow-that-is-chaced-through-thevillage-from-the-left-to-the-right] Nrecord]‘
b. Zap-und-weg-Fernsehzeiten
,zap-and-away TV-times‘
c. Dieter-,,Ich habe der Tusse keine gescheuert‘‘-Bohlen
,Dieter ,,I-didn‘t-hit-the-bitch‘‘ Bohlen‘
That the complexity of the left-hand member influences acceptability has
already been shown in Carroll (1976). Note however that in German, left-hand
members of N+N-compounds may be quite long and/or complex. The prediction is then that these types are not considered wittier per se. Understandability, on the other hand, may increase or decrease.
(30)
a. Autoankaufskärtchen
,car purchase cardDIM‘
b. Autohändlerankaufskärtchen
,car dealer sale cardDIM‘
c. Autohändlerschrottautoankaufskärtchen
,car dealer wrecked car purchase cardDIM‘
Another factor that may influence understandability/wittiness is the status of the
non-head as lexicalized or nonlexicalized. The prediction is that nonlexicalized
123
How marginal are phrasal compounds?
257
phrasal non-heads are wittier than the lexicalized ones, but that both types of
phrasal non-heads are wittier than normal lexical (=non-phrasal) non-heads.
This should be further tested.
My attempt at explaining the virtues of the phrasal compound draws on the
interaction of the Q- and the I-principle on word level. I have refrained from
invoking the M-principle or speculating on blocking effects. The M-Principle
roughly expresses the idea that ,,marked messages indicate marked situations‘‘.20 For example, in the utterance This is a box for matches there arises the
M-induced implicature ,This is a (nonprototypical) box specially made for
containing matches‘ because of the use of (marked) box of matches instead of
unmarked matchbox. In the case of ad hoc phrasal compounds, however, there
is no established complex word that could serve as an item with which the
speaker would use to describe a normal, stereotypical situation, as the speaker’s
maxim requires. The principle seems to work (if it is useful at all — see Traugott
2004 for a recent critique) only with conventional word formations.
Generally, there exist two approaches to blocking, namely blocking on word
level (e.g. gave blocks *gived and thief blocks *stealer) and so-called Poser
blocking where a word blocks a syntactic construction, e.g. smarter blocks
*more smart (cf. Poser 1992; Embick and Marantz 2007, unpublished draft).
Again, I do not see that, e.g., a N+N-compound can block a phrasal compound, or that a phrasal compound can block a syntactic construction. As I
have tried to show, the motives for choosing one of the alternatives are to be
sought in the dimensions of understandability and wittiness, wherever these
notions ultimately are grounded in.
The relation between morphology and pragmatics is usually discussed under
the heading of ,,morphopragmatics‘‘, a linguistic domain that seems to lead a
Cinderella-like existence. Despite genuine morphopragmatic studies such as
Kubo (2002), the scope of morphopragmatics is controversial. For example,
Kiefer (1998, p. 272) argues that ,,morphology is relevant pragmatically in so
far as word structure (affixes, clitics) can be taken as an indication of the speech
situation and/or the speech event.‘‘21 Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1997,
p. 2), on the other hand, argue explicitly ,,against the claim that pragmatic
meanings can be completely derived from semantic meanings with the help of
general pragmatic principles.’’ They favour ‘‘the position whereby a morphopragmatically relevant rule possesses some non-semantic, autonomous pragmatic feature in its meaning description.‘‘ (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1997,
p. 2) A case in point would be the feature [+fictive] being necessary in the
20
Cf. the more elaborate version given below (Levinson 2000, pp. 136–137):
M-principle
Speaker’s maxim: Indicate an abnormal, nonstereotypical situation by using marked expressions
that contrast with those you would use to describe the corresponding normal, stereotypical
situation.
Recipient’s corollary: What is said in an abnormal way indicates an abnormal situation, or marked
messages indicate marked situations, [...].
21
The speech situation includes time, location, social setting and participant roles, the speech event
includes strategies, plans, goals and intentions of the actors.
123
258
J. Meibauer
analysis of Italian diminutives. Accordingly, Kiefer (1998, p. 277) states that
‘‘morphopragmatics is concerned with the pragmatic effects of ad hoc compounds’’, whereas Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1997, p. 4) claim that ,,in
contrast to derivation and inflection, compounding is scarcely relevant for
morphopragmatics.‘‘
In this paper I argued that phrasal compounds are word-syntactic entities
whose raison d’être may be explained on the basis of pragmatic principles. It
follows that a modular system must have access to those pragmatic principles.
Morphopragmatics is then a discipline that may help to explain at least some
morphological phenomena, for example those that have to do with marginality
or productivity.
Acknowledgements
This is a thorougly revised version of a talk given at the Workshop on
Marginal Morphology, University of Stuttgart, July 21th, 2006. I am very grateful for comments by
Eva Gressnich, Daniel Gutzmann, Ingo Plag, Björn Rothstein, Carmen Scherer, Carola Trips, and
two anonymous reviewers that helped to improve this paper.
References
Ackema, P., & Neeleman, A. (2004). Beyond morphology. Interface conditions on word formation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ackema, P., & Neeleman, A. (2007). Morphology „ Syntax. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.),
The oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 325–352). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baayen, H., & Renouf, A. (1996). Chronicling The Times: productive lexical innovations in an
English Newspaper. Language, 72, 69–96.
Bauer, L. (1997). Evaluative morphology: in search of universals. Studies in Language, 21, 533–575.
Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Booij, G. (2002). The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, H. (1998). Morphology and syntax. In A. Spencer, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The handbook of
morphology (pp. 151–190). Oxford: Blackwell.
Botha, R. P. (1981). A base rule theory of Afrikaans synthetic compounding. In M. Moortgat, &
H. van der Hulst (Eds.), The scope of lexical rules (pp. 1–77). Dordrecht: Foris.
Bresnan, J. W., & Mchombo, S. A. (1995). The lexical integrity principle. Evidence from Bantu.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 181–254.
Carroll, J. M. (1979). Complex compounds: phrasal embeddings in lexical structures. Linguistics,
17, 863–877.
Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53, 810–842.
Dressler, W. U. (2000). Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology. In U. Doleschal, &
A. M. Thornton (Eds.), Extragrammatical and marginal morphology (pp. 1–10). München:
Lincom Europa.
Dressler, W. U., & Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1997). Morphopragmatics. In J. Verschueren,
J.-O. Östmann, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Foolen, A. (1997). The expressive function of language: Towards a cognitive semantic approach. In
S. Niemeier, & R. Dirven (Eds.), The language of emotions: conceptualization, expression, and
theoretical foundation (pp. 15–31). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Gallmann, P. (1990). Kategoriell komplexe Wortformen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Hohenhaus, P. (2005). Lexicalization and institutionalization. In P. Štekauer, & R. Lieber (Eds.),
Handbook of word-formation (pp. 349–373). Dordrecht: Springer.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kiefer, F. (1998). Morphology and pragmatics. In A. Spencer, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 272–279). Oxford: Blackwell.
Kubo, S. (2002). Illocutionary morphology and speech acts. In D. Vanderveken, & S. Kubo (Eds.),
Essays in speech act theory (pp. 209–224). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
123
How marginal are phrasal compounds?
259
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.
Lawrenz, B. (2006). Moderne deutsche Wortbildung. Phrasale Wortbildung im Deutschen:
Linguistische Untersuchung und didaktische Behandlung. Hamburg: Kovaè.
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lieber, R. (2005). English word-formation processes. In P. Štekauer, & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook
of word-formation (pp. 375–427). Dordrecht: Springer.
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.
Meibauer, J. (2006). Implicature. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics
(2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 568–580). Oxford: Elsevier.
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.
Plag, I. (1999). Morphological productivity. Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin/
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Poser, W. J. (1992). Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In I. Sag, & A. Szabolsci
(Eds.), Lexixal matters (pp. 111–130). Stanford: CSLI.
Ritchie, G. (2004). The linguistic analysis of jokes. London/New York: Routledge.
Ruszkiewicz, P. (1997). Morphology in generative grammar. From morpheme-based grammar to
lexical morphology and beyond. Gdánsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdánskiego.
Ryder, M. E. (1994). Ordered chaos. The interpretation of english noun-noun compounds. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Scalise, S., & Guevara, E. (2005). The lexicalist approach to word formation and the notion of the
lexicon. In P. Štekauer, & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation. (pp. 147–188).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Scherer, C. (2005). Wortbildungswandel und Produktivität. Eine empirische Studie zur nominalen er-Derivation im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Spencer, A. (2005). Word-formation and syntax. In P. Štekauer, & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of
word-formation (pp. 73–97). Dordrecht: Springer.
Sproat, R. (1993). Review article: Morphological non-separation revisited: a review of R. Lieber’s
Deconstructing Morphology. Yearbook of Morphology, 1992, 235–258.
Stump, G. T. (1993). How peculiar is evaluative morphology? Journal of Linguistics, 29, 1–36.
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.
Wahrig-Burfeind, R. (Ed.). (2006). WAHRIG Deutsches Wörterbuch. 8. Aufl. Gütersloh/München:
Wissen Media Verlag.
Wiese, R. (1996). Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 27,
183–193.
Zanuttini, R., & Portner, P. (2003). Exclamative clauses: At the syntax—semantics-interface.
Language, 79, 39–81.
Zwicky, A. M., & Pullum, G. K. (1987). Plain morphology and expressive morphology. In J. Aske,
N. Beery, L. Michaelis, & H. Filip (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirteenth annual Meeting of the
Berkeley linguistic society (pp. 330–340). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
123