meibauer (2007b)

Abstract For several reasons, phrasal compounds like I-told-you-so attitude area typical case of a marginal type of word-formation: (i) integration of a phraseinto 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 themixed model of Ackema and Neeleman (2004) that allows for insertion fromphrasal syntax into word syntax (Generalized Insertion) it is shown that phrasalcompounds are by no means marginal from a purely theoretical point of view.However, the expressivity of marginal compounds has to be explained. Drawingon experimental data, it is shown that ad hoc phrasal compounds are under-standable and witty to a high degree. These results are explained within thePresumptive Meanings approach of Levinson (2000) that develops the notion ofGeneralized Conversational Implicature (GCI). It is shown that the expressivityof ad hoc phrasal compounds stems from a word-level conflict between observingthe I-principle (that favours the enrichment of underdetermined structures) on theone hand, and the Q-principle (that requires maximal information) on the other.

Keywords Phrasal compounds Æ Marginal morphology Æ Word syntax ÆMorphopragmatics Æ Implicatures

1 Introduction

As a first approximation, one might say that marginal word formation issomehow distinct from regular word formation. Another way of expressing the

J. Meibauer (&)German Department, Johannes Gutenberg-Universitat Mainz, 55099 Mainz, Germanye-mail: [email protected]

123

Morphology (2007) 17:233–259DOI 10.1007/s11525-008-9118-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

How marginal are phrasal compounds?

Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q-interaction

Jorg Meibauer

Received: 28 May 2007/Accepted: 28 January 2008/Published online: 2 February 2008� Springer ScienceþBusiness Media B.V. 2008

same idea is to conceive marginal word formation as something that isperipheral to the grammatical system of word formation. Following Dressler(2000), marginal morphology covers morphological phenomena that eithertransgress the external boundaries of the morphological module or the internalboundaries between morphological submodules.1 Clitics and Umlaut are, forexample, morpho-phonological phenomena, i.e. the boundary between mor-phology and phonology is touched. In the case of the comparative, the infini-tive, and the participle, the boundary between inflection and word formation istouched.

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 underthe heading of marginal morphology, too. Furthermore, lack of productivity isanother feature that is typical of marginal morphology (Dressler 2000, p. 7).

Although this gives a very sketchy picture, we may define a marginal type ofword 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 thatphrasal compounds, understood as types of word formation of the type YP+X,with YP modifying X semantically, transgress the boundaries of modules. Thecrucial question is, of course, what that latter characterisation amounts to. Wewill discuss a certain modular view, the mixed approach of Ackema andNeeleman (2004), in the course of our paper.

Phrasal compounds certainly are not evaluative, at least if evaluative mor-phology is understood as in Bauer (1997), where it is restricted to diminutionand augmentation and certain effects of melioration and pejoration, as well asconcomitant properties of intensification, politeness, and modesty. Whileevaluative morphology may have expressive properties, it is nevertheless part ofthe ,,central morphology in an adult’s morphological system‘‘ (Bauer 1997,p. 563). Expressivity, so Bauer reasons, may be not so much a property of thesystem, but a property of use.

1 Note that Dressler (2000) draws a distinction between marginal morphology and extra-grammatical morphology, the latter being divided into metamorphology (i.e., deliberate reflexionand production of morphology), premorphology (i.e., early morphology in language acquisition)and paramorphology (e.g., clipping, blends, reduplication, back formation, etc.). Paramorphologicalprocesses are not subject of a separate morphological component, they basically are an interfacephenomenon.

234 J. Meibauer

123

What is, then, expressive morphology? Here is one classical definition:

(2) Expressive morphology

,,Expressive morphology is associated with an expressive, playful, poeticor 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 theobvious disadvantage of being partly circular. I will argue that ad hoc phrasalcompounds 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 isthe assumption put forward by Harald Baayen and collaborators that the statusof 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 areHapaxes, it may be ventured that phrasal compounds are productive. However,phrasal compounds seem to be marked in relation to their more common sis-ters, the N+N-compounds. The pattern of phrasal compounding is principallyavailable for the language user, but it appears to be not very profitable, i.e. thereare constraints for the exploitation of that pattern. Furthermore, the amount oflexicalized phrasal compounds is very restricted (cf. Bauer 2001).

To sum up: There is some initial evidence for the impression that phrasalcompounds are marginal. However, I will show that phrasal compounds are notso marginal as it seems at first sight. At least in a mixed approach such as the oneof Ackema and Neeleman (2004), they are totally regular. Their expressiveproperties, so I will argue, may be derived with reference to pragmatic principlesbeing operative on word level; four morphological experiments are discussedwhich support this claim. Thus, an explanation for the apparent markedness ofphrasal compounds is proposed. Finally, it is concluded that a system such asAckema 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‘

How marginal are phrasal compounds? 235

123

(4) 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-premiere trip‘

f. die [[Langer-lebenVP]-Diat],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 vorOrt, while (5b) shows the noun Vorort:

(5) a. Vor-’Ort-Tarif (PP+N-phrasal compound)before-place tariff,local tariff‘

b. ’Vorort-Tarif (N+N-compound)suburb tariff,suburban tariff‘

The question arises whether there are any constraints for the left-hand memberof the compound (i.e., the non-head).

We will focus here on three constraints for the left-hand member of thephrasal 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. Right-headedness is a typical feature of German compounds, and generally found inthe 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.

236 J. Meibauer

123

(6) 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 [funf-Stufen]-integriertesA/Part Filtersystem,a five-steps integrated filtering system’

In German, there appears to be one exception, namely adjectives with a non-head that cannot be understood as a complement of the head, e.g. Blut-und-Boden-mystisch in (6f). Moreover, we find deverbal adjectives (participles)as heads, as in (6g).3 Lawrenz (1996, p. 7) comments that phrasal compoundswith an adjectival head are quite rare in comparison with their nominal headcounterparts. Because our focus is on the latter type, I will not go into a moredetailed discussion here.

Thirdly, consider the ,No DP!‘-constraint. As Lawrenz (1996, 2006) hasshown, only NPs are allowed as a non-head:

(7) a. ein/der *[die-graue-Schlafe]-Effekta/the [the-grey-temple] effect,effect (on women) caused by grey temples (of men)‘

b. ein/der *[eine-graue-Schlafe]-Effekt

c. ein/der *[die grauen-Schlafen]-Effekt

d. ein/der [Ø graue-Schlafen]-Effekt

Usually, this is explained by the assumption that the non-heads must not bereferential. However, where the non-head is a fixed expression, DPs are pos-sible, e.g.:

(8) a. dieFEM [der-schone-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 andNeeleman 2004, p. 129 who assume that an explanation for the DP-constraintwill be found ,,in possible semantics of words and phrases‘‘).

3 This example is taken from Lawrenz (2006, p. 7).


123

2.2 No phrase constraint and quotational hypothesis

After having reviewed some of the data, let us now turn to theoretical aspects ofphrasal compounds. Phrasal compounds, this is for sure, are a sort of mor-phological provocation. They run against the No phrase constraint (a self-violating name, as Spencer 2005, p. 83 notes) originally proposed by Botha(1981), as rendered in (9):

(9) No phrase constraintNo phrase may appear within complex words.

It is clear that (9) is immediately relevant for one of the most intriguingquestions in theoretical morphology, namely where word formation can belocated in the system.

A useful taxonomy of basic approaches to that question has been put for-ward by Borer (1998). She draws a distinction between linear (derivational),syntactic, and mixed models. Linear models accept the validity of the LexicalIntegrity Hypothesis, a principle that has the ‘‘effect of preventing syntacticrules from looking into and operating on the internal structure of words’’, asLieber and Scalise (2007, p. 1) put it. Linear models thus assume that the outputof the word formation component is the input for the syntactic component. Ifthat is correct, phrasal compounds simply should not occur. But they do.Syntactic models assume that word formations may be described with syntacticmeans. There is no autonomous component of word formation, and thus theproblem with phrasal compounds does not arise in the first place. Mixed modelsadmit the interaction between syntax and word formation in so far as syntacticprocesses 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. Borer1998; Scalise and Guevara 2005). Lieber (1988, 1992) argued that such a modelcannot explain why phrases appear within complex words, concluding from thisthat Strong Lexicalism is wrong, and that morphology is syntax indeed; thiswent together with the assumption of an universal X-bar-scheme being valid forboth syntax and morphology. Several criticisms were put forward against thisapproach, e.g. the modification of the (syntactic) X-bar-scheme so that it couldhandle word formations, and the fact that selection cannot be described in anuniform manner (cf. Sproat 1993; Ruszkiewicz 1997; Borer 1998).

Wiese (1996), in an attempt to rescue Lexicalism, argued persuasively thatthe non-heads of phrasal compounds are quotations (cf. Bresnan andMchombo 1995):

(10) Quotational hypothesisNon-heads of phrasal compounds are quotations.

Because they are quotations, they are not really used, but only mentioned. Andtherefore, phrasal compounds are no real challenge for Strong Lexicalism.

238 J. Meibauer

123

Intrusions into words such as material from other languages, signs or gesturesare 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 quo-tation marks showing the quotational character of the non-head:

(12)

Note that the left constituent is no longer an XP: it has been convertedsomehow 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 [NSaure Gurken] (nominalisation)fi [N[NSauregurken][Nzeit] (composition)

pickled cucumbers time,silly season‘

The basic observation is that nearly any string of elements (,,beliebigerSprachausschnitt‘‘) may be converted into a neuter noun. If this noun entersinto composition, the phenomenon of the phrasal compounds dissolves intothin air. However, this approach, appealing as it is, faces several problems:First of all, the notion of ,,beliebiger Sprachausschnitt‘‘ is not properly de-fined, because it is not a lexical, phrasal or functional category. Second, therule (13a) overgenerates, because the non-heads of phrasal compounds arealways XPs. Thirdly, this approach draws a strong parallel between phrasalcompounds and N+N-compounds, and this blurs the distinction betweenthem.

X0

Y0 X0

„NP“


123

Let us come back to Wiese’s quotational approach. This approach was clearenough, but was it right? A closer inspection of German data reveals that thenon-heads are either lexicalized or not lexicalized (cf. Meibauer 2003). Fol-lowing Jackendoff (1997), it is assumed that the non-heads in (14) are elementsof the lexicon.

(14) a. (Idioms) Leck-mich-am-Arsch-Bullen,kiss-my-ass cops‘

b. (Cliches) Hier-kriegt-man-alles-was-man-braucht-Seminar,here-you-get-all-you-need seminar‘

c. (Titles) Romeo-und-Julia-Gefuhl,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. (Quantityexpressions)

630-Mark-Gesetz,630-Mark law‘

If these non-heads are elements of the lexicon, they may be inserted into wordstructures. This should pose no problem, neither for derivational nor for lexi-calist 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 exampleswhere a quotational approach seems right, i.e. there exists an original phrasalutterance that is quoted (be it lexicalized or not). But these cases are rathermarginal.

I conclude from the foregoing discussion, as far as phrasal compoundsare concerned, that a model is called for that allows for intermodular

240 J. Meibauer

123

access. This is also the point of Lieber and Scalise’s (2007) recent review ofthe Lexical Integrity Hypothesis. They propose the Limited Access Principlesaying that ‘‘Morphological Merge can select on a language specific basis tomerge with a phrasal/sentential unit’’, and ‘‘there is no Syntactic Mergebelow the word level’’ (Lieber and Scalise 2007, p. 21). Hence, the idea thatsyntax and morpology are separate (or ‘‘are normally blind to each other’’,as Lieber and Scalise 2007, p. 21 put it) is upheld, but intermodular accessis limited.

In the remainder of the paper, I concentrate on the mixed approach ofAckema and Neeleman (2004, 2007), because it allows for insertion of syntacticmaterial into morphological material, captures insertion directly from thelexicon, and is not forced to assume a quotational view. Furthermore, becauseit has a strong modular architecture, it is promising in its potential to deter-mine an interface to pragmatics, a point I will come back to in the finaldiscussion.

2.3 Generalized insertion

In this section, I will give a sketch of Ackema and Neeleman’s (2004) account ofphrasal compounds, and I will point out some problems that arise within intheir approach.4 Ackema and Neeleman make a distinction between lexiconand syntax. The lexicon is conceived of as a list of syntactic, morphological andphonological irregularities. Phrasal Syntax and Word Syntax are independentstructure-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 therepresentations it connects. More specifically, insertion is an irreduciblerelation of feature matching between a node of a representation andanother node of representation; it is unselective with respect to the kind ofrepresentation (syntax or morphology) and the kind of node (terminalor non-terminal); finally, it is conditioned by inclusiveness, the principle ofinclusiveness stating that all features of a node must be traceable back tolexical entries.

4 For more general objections, see Scalise and Lieber (2007, pp. 15–16) who point out that Ackemaand Neeleman’s notions of competition and insertion are not restrictive enough. Specifically, ‘‘thealignment of semantic irregularity with morphological derivation and semantic regularity withsyntactic derivation is an arbitrary move on A&N’s part, without which the notion of competitionwould not work.’’ (Scalise and Lieber 2007, p. 16).


123

(16) Generalized insertion and the modular organization of the grammar(Ackema and Neeleman 2004, p. 130)

From the six types of insertion that are possible in this model, we concentrateon the insertion from phrasal syntax into word syntax (for a treatment ofinsertion from phrasal syntax into phrasal syntax—as in the case of paren-theticals—see Meibauer and Steinbach 2007).5

Ackema and Neeleman (2004) give the structure under (17a) for a NP+X-phrasal compound. The arrow indicates insertion. Its rival, the ‘‘buildingblock’’ 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 morphologicalobjects as building blocks in the syntactic representations.’’ However, as theyargue, lexical items are not literally ‘‘inserted’’ into terminals, but certain fea-tures of the lexical entry are matched against terminal nodes.

(17)

LEXICON

SYNTAX

I N S E R T I O N C O M P E T I T I O N

Phrasal Syntax

phrasal syntactic structure

Word Syntax

word syntactic structure

(a) Matching theory (b) “Building block” theory

N

NP N

A N

N

N

NP

AP

N

N

5 The six types are: (i) Lexicon fi Phrasal Syntax (listed words), (ii) Lexicon fi Word Syntax (adhoc complex words), (iii) Phrasal Syntax fi Word Syntax, (phrasal compounds) (iv) WordSyntax fi Phrasal Syntax (ad hoc complex words), (v) Phrasal Syntax fi Phrasal Syntax(parentheticals), (vi) Word Syntax fi Word Syntax (expletive insertion).

242 J. Meibauer

123

Which are the features that may play a role in the process of feature matchingindicated by the arrow in (17a)? I guess that Ackema and Neeleman think ofcategorial features. Thus, in (17a) the feature [+nominal] may be matched. Butthis 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 thecase of PP-, VP-, and CP-phrasal compounds. There is no feature that allowsfor 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 ismore plausible here, if it simply assumes that the respective ,,building block‘‘ isinserted without any feature checking mechanism.7

In line with standard approaches to lexical integrity, Ackema and Neelemanassume that phrasal compounds do not allow for binding and movement(=identificational functions), but they allow for thematic functions andnegative polarity (=nonidentificational functions).

(18) Properties of phrasal compounds (Ackema and Neeleman 2004)

Phrasal compound Identificational Nonidentificational

Licensing *Movement Thematic

Nonlicensing *Binding Negative polarity

Ackema and Neeleman define a function as identificational, ,,if its satisfactionimplies that the antecedent and the terminal in which the function originates areequated in certain respects.‘‘ (Ackema and Neeleman 2004, p. 111). A functionis nonlicensing, if there is no other element that motivates or requires a certainrelation. More specifically, ,,satisfaction of a binding function (a nonlicensingfunction) has the effect that the antecedent and the terminal share a singlereference [...].‘‘ (Ackema and Neeleman 2004, p. 111). Anaphorical interpre-tation of the whole word or anaphorical binding within that word should bepossible.

However, there are cases of anaphorical binding into the non-heads ofphrasal compounds (Lawrenz 1996; Meibauer 2003):8

(19) a. Damals wurde die Gotti-ist-tot-Thematik in allen Zeitungendiskutiert, aber wir glaubten nicht daran, dass eri tot ist.,In those days the god-is-dead subject was discussed in allnewspapers, but we did not believe that he was dead.’

6 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’sapproach. But, as I tried to show, the idea that left-hand members of phrasal compounds areessentially of the category N, seems problematic, too. Thus, the empirical ‘‘provocation’’ of phrasalcompounds is still with us.8 As an anonymous reviewer remarked, (19b, c) are not necessarily anaphorical, because the phrasecould expressing a general attitude. However, an anaphorical reading appears possible.


123

b. Doch mit der Ichi-geb-Gas-ichi-will-Spaß-Politik des liberalenWirbelwindsi allein durfte der Kampf um Platz drei nicht zu gewinnensein. (Wiesbadener Kurier, 38/2000),Though with the I-step-on-the-accelerator-I-want-fun politics of theliberal 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-dafur-Fieber‘‘. (Stern,30.11.2000),Recently, a new disease takes hold of VIPs: The I-let-them-take-photos-and-I-take-the-money fever.

d. Die Rote-Augeni-Reduktion ist durchaus wunschenswert, weil dieFotografierten damiti wie Zombies aussehen.,The red-eyes reduction is desirable because the photographedpersons look like zombies with them.‘

e. Das Verdrangte-Aggressioneni-Syndrom wurde immer wiedergeleugnet, aber plotzlich kommen siei dann doch hoch. (MargaReis, p.c.),The suppressed-agressions syndrome was repeatedly denied, butsuddenly they come back again.‘

f. Ich nehme Zwischen-den-Mahlzeiteni-Imbisse ein, weil mich danni

haufig ein Hungergefuhl uberkommt. (Lawrenz 1996, p. 8),I take between-the-meals snacks, because then I often get a hungryfeeling.‘

This shows, then, that phrasal compounds do not behave like normal words,because they are more transparent for anaphorical binding. Arguably, theanaphorical relation comes about through some process of accommodation,possibly of a pragmatic nature. However, cases like (20), with reflexives, appearto be acceptable, too:9

(20) So eine Bewunderung-fur-sich-selbsti-Attitude macht Rudigeri nichtsympathischer.‘Such an admiration-for-himself attitude does not make Rudiger moresymphatic.’

Ackema and Neeleman stress that their theory allows for the head beingmatched 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) whoargue that examples like Zo’n [[bewondering voor zichzelf] achtig] gevoel maakt niemand sym-pathieker meaning ,Such a feeling resembling admiration for oneself makes no one any moresympathetic‘ are counterexamples for the claim that there is binding into phrasal non-heads. I donot see why this example should rule out the positive example Harry heeft een [[bewondering voorzichzelf] achtig] gevoel also given by Ackema and Neeleman. For further examples, see Lawrenz(2006, p. 74).

244 J. Meibauer

123

found in Dutch. The phrasal heads cannot be analysed as compounds ,,since theadjective they contain can be inflected and they have phrasal rather thancompound stress.‘‘ (Ackema and Neeleman 2004, p. 125) Data like these areparticularly interesting because here the intuitions about the features that are tobe 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 phrasalcompound.10

(21)

(22) 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 ,thatbloody Juinen accent‘)

e. [wereld [rode wijn]] (world red wine ,superb red wine‘)

For Ackema and Neeleman, the moral is obvious: ,,This observation appears tofurther disqualify the building block theory of insertion. It is unlikely thatphrases can project words. In X-bar theoretical terms this would require adecrease in bar level. Data like these can only be accommodated by a theorythat allows for insertion in morphological terminals.‘‘ (Ackema and Neeleman2004, p. 124)

A morphological construction like those in (22) is ungrammatical inGerman, z.B. dieser *Scheiße-kolsche-Akzent (compare 22e) or der *Welt-rote-Wein (compare 22f). However, Lawrenz (2006, pp. 50–52) draws attention to

N

X

AP N

námaak mobiele telefòon ‚imitation mobile phone‘

N

NP

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 anony-mous reviewer that this looks, because of the prefix ex-, like a phrasal derivation.


123

rare cases like eine de-facto-[große-Koalition] (‘a de facto grand coalition’) andihre Lieblings-[dumme-Talkshow] (‘her favourite silly talk show’] that have acomparable structure. To sum up: While these data may support the (catego-rial) feature checking approach to insertion, the problem with the features to bechecked in the canonical cases with CP, PP or VP in first position, still remains.Moreover, an explanation for the special binding properties of phrasal com-pounds 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 gotany attention in the literature, except for occasional remarks on playfulness, etc.However, a complete approach to phrasal compounds should offer an expla-nation for their markedness. This holds for Ackema and Neeleman’s approach,too. On the one hand, the very existence of phrasal compounds supports thetheory of generalized insertion; on the other hand, it is not explained within thistheory why phrasal compounds are marked in relation to the more commonword formation mechanisms of compounding. An attempt to find an expla-nation leads us to a domain not considered in Ackema and Neeleman’sapproach, namely morphopragmatics.

In a broad perspective, expressivity is a language property that has to do withemotions or emotion-related evaluations. Several linguistic phenomena may fallunder 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 andpejoration, diminution and augmentation, and intensification (Bauer 1997).While it could be argued that some expressive elements, such as swear wordsand interjections have a lexical basis, like evaluative affixes in general, otherexpressive devices are of a structural kind. For example, the expressive meaningof exclamatives has to do with the interplay of structural devices such as verbposition, wh-elements, and intonational patterns. (cf. Zanuttini and Portner2003). I would like to argue that expressivity in phrasal compounds is of thislatter, structural kind. The intrusion of syntax into word formation may beexplained when pragmatic principles are taken into account.

Our starting point is the observation that, with N+N-compounds, contex-tual enrichment is the standard case. This has been shown in a number ofstudies (e.g., Downing 1977; Meyer 1993; Ryder 1994). Every N+N-compounddisplays an array of possible semantic relations between the non-head and thehead. Therefore, N+N-compounds are systematically underdetermined. Theirextension can only be determined when the context of utterance is taken intoconsideration.

This phenomenon may be described within the theory of generalized con-versational implicatures (or GCI, for short) that assumes three principles to beoperative in the constitution of presumptive meaning (cf. Meibauer 2006 for asurvey). The I-principle requiring that the speaker be economical while the

246 J. Meibauer

123

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 asnecessary’’; that is, produce the minimal linguistic informationsufficient to achieve your communicational ends (bearing Q in mind).

Recipient’s corollary: the Enrichment Rule. Amplify the informationalcontent of the speaker’s utterance, by finding the most specificinterpretation, up to what you judge to be the speaker’s m-intended[=meaning-intended] point, unless the speaker has broken themaxim of Minimization by using a marked or prolix expression. [...]

Take the coinage Fahnchensommer as an example. If presented in isolation, allone can conclude from this N+N-compound is that it denotes a summer(Sommer) that has something to do with little flags (Fahnchen). Whether it isthe 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.), allthese informations must be inferred from the context of utterance. It goeswithout saying that further processes of lexicalization and institutionalizationmay lead to a fixed meaning of the respective compound (Hohenhaus 2005).

In phrasal compounds, the non-head is a phrase. Surely, phrases are, due totheir complex syntactic and lexical structure, more explicit as well as moreinformative than words. Hence someone who uses a phrasal compoundobserves the Q-principle (Levinson 2000, p. 76):

(24) Q-principle

Speaker’s maxim: Do not provide a statement that is informationallyweaker than your knowledge of the world allows, unless providing aninformationally stronger statement would contravene the I-principle.Specifically, select the informationally strongest paradigmaticalternate that is consistent with the facts.

Recipient’s corollary: Take it that the speaker made the strongeststatement consistent with what he knows [...].

If a speaker chooses a phrasal compound instead of an alternative N+N-compound then, obviously, the observance of the Q-principle is more importantto him than the observance of the I-principle.

Take CP-phrasal compounds as an example. Why should they be moreinformative than a comparable N+N-compound? The first reason is thatsentences have a set of entailments. Thus the basis for inferences is much biggerthan with words. Secondly, sentences contain propositions that may be truth-conditionally evaluated. Recipients are in the position to evaluate the truth


123

value of a (declarative) CP contained in the phrasal compound. Thirdly, notethat sentences, when uttered, are the bearers of illocutions. Accordingly,phrasal compounds may be partly interpreted in illocutionary terms. Forexample, in the phrasal compound let-us-stay-friends platitude, the CP is relatedto a directive illocution.

Furthermore, if a speaker knows that there is a lexicalized construction, e.g.a title or a cliche, or a quotation that enhances informativity, then he should useit. This exactly corresponds to the requirement ‘‘select the informationallystrongest paradigmatic alternate that is consistent with the facts’’ contained inLevinson‘s Q-principle.

Why, then, are phrasal compounds expressive? The answer is that it is exactlythe conflict between the I-principle and the Q-principle that triggers theexpressive effect. Therefore, the following hypothesis is put forward:

(25) Expressivity in CP phrasal compounds

Expressivity of phrasal compounds stems from a conflict between aprinciple that requires enrichment of a minimal and underdeterminedstructure in normal compounds (e.g. the I principle) and a principlethat requires maximal informativity (e.g. the Q principle) and leadsto 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 toevaluate a phrasal compound in comparison with several alternatives in twodimensions, namely understandability and wittiness.

Understandability is a property that has to do with the conflict between theQ-principle and the I-principle. The prediction is that understandability isdiminished, if the effort of enrichment is too big. If, on the other hand, a certainconstruction is too explicit, this will go together with a reduction of wittiness.11

Wittiness has been chosen as a property that corresponds with expressivityon word level. Let us shortly reconsider the statement of Zwicky and Pullumhere, according to whom ,,expressive morphology is associated with anexpressive, playful, poetic or simply ostentatious effect of some kind.‘‘ (Zwickyand Pullum 1987, p. 335). ‘‘Playful’’ and ‘‘poetic’’ effects arise in certain con-texts 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. Butwhat should count as an inherently expressive complex word? When conside-ring 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 deliberatelyirregular, or are regular, but show special kinds of word formation processes.The first case is exemplified by the German unkaputtbar (literally un-broken-able, 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 bewitty, too.

248 J. Meibauer

123

word formation, coined in the context of an advertising campaign and relatedto newly introduced plastic bottles of an American soft-drinks producer,became established (Hohenhaus 2005, p. 369. The second case, i.e. regular, butnevertheless witty types of word formations—besides (some types of) phrasalcompounds —, are expletive infixations like un-fuckin-believable, abso-bloody-lutely, that are, in the parlance of Ackema and Neeleman (2004, p. 131, foot-note. 14), cases of insertion from morphology into morphology. Moreover,phrasal derivations as in the German fad around 2000, where coinages such asBei-Mami-Wascher (‘laundry-at-Mom’s-doer’) denoted wimpy or pedanticpersons or do-gooders (Hohenhaus 2005, pp. 369–370). Other witty types ofword-formations are shortenings as in SMS language, acronyms with anambiguous reading, reduplications such as nodnod, wavewave (Hohenhaus2005, p. 370), and blends such as Ehrgeizhals (made up of Ehrgeiz ‘ambition’plus Geizhals ‘skinflint’). An analysis of these types along the lines of thepresent proposal (via the operation of pragmatic principles) is tempting, butcannot be done here.12

It goes without saying that phrasal compounds are not jokes. However, thereis a parallel with jokes that appears to have to do with incongruity, a notionthat 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 phrasalmeaning with a word meaning. When this happens, this is quite surprising inview of the amount of already existing N+N-compounds on the one hand andthe ease of coining new ones on the other hand (roughly, their productivity).The prediction was, then, that all the alternatives to the phrasal compoundwould be considered as witty to a lesser degree. In addition, it was suspectedthat the property of expressivity would be hard to evaluate in isolation, whereasthe evaluation of a witty text should pose no problem.

The material used in Task I was a short authentic text that contained an adhoc phrasal compound with a CP as non-head.

(26) Wahrend diese Zeilen entstehen, werden mehrere hundert laminierte,,Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Kartchen‘‘ hinter die Hubscheibenwischer alterMittelklasse-Mercedes geklemmt. Dabei wurden deren Besitzer viellieber an den freundlichen jungen Mann verkaufen, der sich so ruhrendum seine anderen alten Autos kummert.[Youngtimer 2/06, S. 55]

12 An anonymous reviewer asks whether there aren’t cases of expressive morphology that are notwitty 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 inZwicky and Pullum (1987), too.13 Ritchie (2004) points out that the assumption that humour has to do with incongruity and itsresolution is widely shared. The details vary, of course, with different theoretical approaches. Thegist 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, orincongruous parts or circumstances, considered as united in one complex object or assemblage, or asacquiring a sort of mutual relation from the peculiar manner in which the mind takes notice ofthem.‘‘


123

‘While these lines are written, several hundreds of laminatedbuy-your-car cards are stuck behind the lift windscreen wipers of oldmiddle class Mercedes. Yet their owners would prefer to buy theircars to the friendly young man who is so very solicitous towards hisother old cars.’

Note that there is no conventional expression for the respective little cards. Inthe context the writer has several stylistic alternatives, some morphological,some syntactic.

(27) a. Autokartchencar cardDIM

b. KaufkartchenbuyV/N cardDIM

c. Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Kartchenbuy 1.PS.SG.-your-car cardDIM

d. Kartchen ,,Kaufe Ihr Auto‘‘cardDIM ,,buy 1..PS.SG. your car‘‘

e. Kartchen mit der Aufschrift ,,Kaufe Ihr Auto‘‘cardDIM with the writing ,,buy 1.PS.SG. your car‘‘

f. Kartchen, auf denen ,,Kaufe Ihr Auto‘‘ stehtcardDIM 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. Autokartchen and Kaufkartchen are underdeter-mined in comparison with Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Kartchen, but may denote the sameentity, when appropriately enriched in the respective context (which is not thecase here). The phrasal compound in (27c) is as explicit as the syntactic con-struction in (27d), the main difference being that (27c) has a right-hand mor-phological head, whereas (27d) shows a left-hand syntactic head. The remainingtest items are syntactically more complex, because they contain a PP-expansionor a relative sentence. It follows, then, that the phrasal compound appears to bea 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 theyshould imagine a situation in which it were their task to write a text that isunderstandable and witty at the same time. They were then asked to evaluatethe 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 pre-sented to the students. They had to evaluate all test items on a five point scalewith 1 symbolizing a high degree of understandability/wittiness and 5 sym-bolizing a low degree. Students were asked to read all the texts in advance andto make use of the full scale when judging the sentences. The sequences of texts

250 J. Meibauer

123

were varied in the test materials. The results can be seen in the followingTable 1:

Firstly, we consider the alternatives to the phrasal compound on word level:The N+N-compound Autokartchen receives the lowest value for understand-ability (4,45) and a relatively low value for wittiness (3,95). The V+N-com-pound Kaufkartchen does better, since understandability gets 4,08 and wittiness3,51. It may be asked here why Autokartchen and Kaufkartchen receive witti-ness values higher than 5,0 at all. After all, regular N+N-coinages or V+N-coinages should not per se considered as wittier than established ones. It cannotbe excluded, however, that for some speakers, ad hoc compounds are wittysimply because of their newness. This should be tested further.

Secondly, we consider the alternative syntactic constructions. The con-struction Kartchen ,,Kaufe ihr Auto‘‘ appears to be quite understandable (2,16),and is roughly considered as witty as Kaufkartchen (3,55). The constructionKartchen, auf denen ,,Kaufe Ihr Auto‘‘ steht is relatively understandable (1,17),but gets the lowest value for wittiness (4,55). Finally, the construction Kartchenmit der Aufschrift ,,Kaufe Ihr Auto‘‘ comes out on top (1,07), but gets a rela-tively bad wittiness value (4, 40).

The phrasal compound, as predicted, does brilliantly: It has a high under-standability 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 under-standability value in comparison with the N+N-compound and the V+N-compound may have to do with the fact that with phrasal compounds, becauseof the obvious difficulty to apply coindexation, interpretation of the compoundis delegated directly to the ,,body‘‘ (to use the terminology of Lieber 2004) than

4,45

4,08

2,16

1,171,07

1,25

3,95

3,51 3,55

4,554,4

1,84

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

Autokärtchen Kärtchen, auf denen"Kaufe Ihr Auto" steht

Kärtchen mit derAufschrift "Kaufe Ihr

Auto"

Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Kärtchen

understandability wittiness

Kaufkärtchen

Auto"

Kärtchen "Kaufe Ihr

Table 1 Task I. CP-phrasal compound and rivals in context. N=75 (F 59, M 16, Ø 23;2)


123

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 thatit is not the phrasal compound per se that is evaluated as witty but thewhole text.15 Therefore, another task was designed where the items had tobe evaluated in isolation. Again, an exemplar of the respective little cardwas shown to the students, and they had to evaluate the given constructionswith respect to understandability and wittiness. The results are shown inTable 2.

On the whole, the results are similar to those in Task I. The phrasalcompound in particular shows a good combination of understandability andwittiness. That the values in Task II are lower on average in comparison withTask I, corroborates the hypothesis that context contributes to the overallinterpretation in terms of understandability/wittiness. A closer look on thedata reveals interesting details. Kaufkartchen is better understood thanAutokartchen in the context condition (Task I), while the reverse is true whenthe 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 inTask II, the relation ,the little card has something to do with cars‘ was moresalient.

The prediction with lexicalized phrasal compounds is that they should beunderstandable to a high degree (their meaning being directly derivable form

3,81

4,26

2,05

1,50 1,47

2,28

3,81

3,44

4,12

4,494,58

2,79

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


Autokärtchen Kärtchen, auf denen"Kaufe Ihr Auto" steht

Kärtchen mit derAufschrift "Kaufe Ihr

Auto"

Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-KärtchenKaufkärtchen

Auto"

Kärtchen "Kaufe Ihr

Table 2 Task II. CP-phrasal compound and rivals in isolation. N=57 (F 40, M 17, Ø 25;0)

14 Following Lieber (2004), in the case of N+N-compounds the referential arguments of the headand the non-head are coindexed, for example dog bed [+material ([i ])] [+material ([i ])]. It isobvious that this will not work for phrasal compounds (that are neglected in Lieber 2004; cf. theshort discussion in Lieber 2005, p. 377).15 I owe this observation to Bjorn Rothstein (p.c.).

252 J. Meibauer

123

their lexical entry) whereas their wittiness value should not be very high.16 Thereason is straightforward: What is already known, rarely counts as witty.

In order to test this prediction, a further task was designed. Six phrasalcompounds 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 itemswere the following:

(28) a. Nach der als Medienspektakel inszenierten Inthronisierung hat derKandidat knapp 100 Tage, den Franzosen seinen ,,friedlichen Bruch‘‘mit der Politik der alten Garde schmackhaft zu machen. Die Umfragensagen ein spannendes Ende des Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennens mit derpopularen 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 ,,peacefulbreak‘‘ with the old school politics sound appealing to the French.The opinion polls predict an exciting end of the neck-and-neck racewith the popular socialist.‘

b. In Sudafrika ist das vor allem die Northern Province, das Gebiet derehemaligen Homelands Venda, Lebowa und Gazankulu, wo dasPro-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 territoryof the former homelands Venda, Lebowa and Gazankulu, where theper capita income is about 2100 Rand (less than 580 German Markper annum.‘

c. Anders als in Amerika, wo Universitaten sich ihren guten Ruf mithohen Semestergebuhren bezahlen lassen, erhalten deutscheHochschulen keine Geld-zuruck-Garantie.(ZEIT, 07.12.00, S. 83),Unlike in the United States where universities let their hight repute bepaid for with high tuition fees, German universities will receive nomoney-back guarantee.‘

d. In Zwirners Programmgalerie downtown drangen sich inzwischenimmer mehr anderswo unzufrieden gewordene Kunstler wie der BriteChris Ofili oder die latent kitschig malende Lisa Yuskavage. Zwirnerbietet ihnen ein Rundum-sorglos-Paket, hohe Preise und die Nahe zurespektierten Kollegen. Kleinere Galerien konnen da nicht mehrmithalten.(ZEIT, 11.01.07, S. 40)

16 Thanks to Ingo Plag (p.c.) for this observation.


123

,In Zwirner’s program gallery downtown more and more artists havinggot dissatisfied elsewhere push and shove, for example the Briton ChrisOfili or the Lisa Yuskavage who latently paints in kitschy way.Zwirner offers to them a totally-free-from-worries parcel, high pricesand the neighborhood of respected colleagues. Smaller galleries arenot able to compete under the circumstances.‘

e. Damals besuchten wir gerne mit den Kindern denTrimm-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 esvor allem auf Mund-zu-Mund-Propaganda.(ZEIT, 15.11.01, S. 47),Because the enterprise could not afford advertising, it primarilypreferred 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. Thereis no entry for Pro-Kopf-Einkommen, but for the related lexeme Pro-Kopf-Verbrauch (,per capita consumption‘). A quick Google search yielded thefollowing results18: Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennen (218.000), Pro-Kopf-Einkommen(247.000), Geld-zuruck-Garantie (1.350.000), Rundum-sorglos-Paket (210.000),Trimm-dich-Pfad (140.000), Mund-zu-Mund-Propaganda (137.000). I con-clude from this that the items not recorded in WAHRIG are conventionalexpressions.

Here are the results from Task III and IV (see Tables 3 and 4). On averagethe 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 oneexception, namely Geld-zuruck-Garantie that is more understandable in iso-lation (1,71) than in context (2,47). This may have to do with the problem ofhow to interpret Geld-zuruck-Garantie in this context: Is it to be understoodliterally or metaphorically? In sum then, Task III and IV showed that lexical-ized and conventional non-CP phrasal compounds are very understandable,since they have a fixed, conventional meaning, and at the same are not verywitty. Concerning the wittiness value, compare the highest wittiness values inevery task: Task I: 1,84 (Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Kartchen), Task II: 2,79 (Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Kartchen), 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.

254 J. Meibauer

123

4 Discussion

The gist of this article is that phrasal compounds are by no means marginal froma theoretical point of view, at least when the Generalized Insertion approach ofAckema and Neeleman (2004) is taken seriously. Phrasal compounds nicelyillustrate the possibility of insertion from syntax into morphology. What this

1,23

1,531,71

2,60

2,05

1,68

3,90

4,55

3,263,13

3,853,79

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0


Mund-zu-Mund-Propaganda

Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennen Pro-Kopf-Einkommen Geld-zurück-Garantie Rundum-sorglos-Paket Trimm-dich-Pfad

Table 4 Task IV. Lexicalized/conventional non-CP phrasal compounds in isolation. N=63 (F 43, M20 B 22;4)

1,441,34

2,472,31

1,531,37

4,31

4,69

3,63

3,18

3,84

4,03

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

Mund-zu-Mund-Propaganda


Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennen Pro-Kopf-Einkommen Geld-zurück-Garantie Rundum-sorglos-Paket Trimm-dich-Pfad

Table 3 Task III. Lexicalized/conventional non-CP phrasal compounds in context. N=62 (F 50, M12 Ø 25;6)


123

approach cannot explain, however, is the markedness or expressivity of ad hocphrasal compounds. I propose to explain this expressivity on the basis of aconflict between demands of the Q- and the I-principle, as defined within thetheory 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 highdegree. The context may support wittiness, but even in isolation, phrasalcompounds 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 verywitty, and even the context does not support wittiness very much.

We may ask whether there are other factors that favour wittiness of ad hocphrasal 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) andidiomatic. In (29b), we have an example with unusual syntax, i.e. coordinationof a verbal stem with a particle, and in (29c) there is a quotational insertion intothe proper name.

(29) a. die Der-Berti-ist-die-blode-Sau-die-man-von-links-nach-rechts-durchs-Dorf-jagt-Platte.,the [[CPthe-Berti-is-the-stupid-sow-that-is-chaced-through-the-village-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 hasalready been shown in Carroll (1976). Note however that in German, left-handmembers of N+N-compounds may be quite long and/or complex. The pre-diction is then that these types are not considered wittier per se. Understand-ability, on the other hand, may increase or decrease.

(30) a. Autoankaufskartchen,car purchase cardDIM‘

b. Autohandlerankaufskartchen,car dealer sale cardDIM‘

c. Autohandlerschrottautoankaufskartchen,car dealer wrecked car purchase cardDIM‘

Another factor that may influence understandability/wittiness is the status of thenon-head as lexicalized or nonlexicalized. The prediction is that nonlexicalized

256 J. Meibauer

123

phrasal non-heads are wittier than the lexicalized ones, but that both types ofphrasal 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 theinteraction of the Q- and the I-principle on word level. I have refrained frominvoking the M-principle or speculating on blocking effects. The M-Principleroughly expresses the idea that ,,marked messages indicate marked situa-tions‘‘.20 For example, in the utterance This is a box for matches there arises theM-induced implicature ,This is a (nonprototypical) box specially made forcontaining matches‘ because of the use of (marked) box of matches instead ofunmarked matchbox. In the case of ad hoc phrasal compounds, however, thereis no established complex word that could serve as an item with which thespeaker would use to describe a normal, stereotypical situation, as the speaker’smaxim requires. The principle seems to work (if it is useful at all — see Traugott2004 for a recent critique) only with conventional word formations.

Generally, there exist two approaches to blocking, namely blocking on wordlevel (e.g. gave blocks *gived and thief blocks *stealer) and so-called Poserblocking 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 com-pound, or that a phrasal compound can block a syntactic construction. As Ihave tried to show, the motives for choosing one of the alternatives are to besought in the dimensions of understandability and wittiness, wherever thesenotions ultimately are grounded in.

The relation between morphology and pragmatics is usually discussed underthe heading of ,,morphopragmatics‘‘, a linguistic domain that seems to lead aCinderella-like existence. Despite genuine morphopragmatic studies such asKubo (2002), the scope of morphopragmatics is controversial. For example,Kiefer (1998, p. 272) argues that ,,morphology is relevant pragmatically in sofar as word structure (affixes, clitics) can be taken as an indication of the speechsituation and/or the speech event.‘‘21 Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1997,p. 2), on the other hand, argue explicitly ,,against the claim that pragmaticmeanings can be completely derived from semantic meanings with the help ofgeneral pragmatic principles.’’ They favour ‘‘the position whereby a morpho-pragmatically relevant rule possesses some non-semantic, autonomous prag-matic 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-principleSpeaker’s maxim: Indicate an abnormal, nonstereotypical situation by using marked expressionsthat contrast with those you would use to describe the corresponding normal, stereotypicalsituation.

Recipient’s corollary: What is said in an abnormal way indicates an abnormal situation, or markedmessages indicate marked situations, [...].

21 The speech situation includes time, location, social setting and participant roles, the speech eventincludes strategies, plans, goals and intentions of the actors.


123

analysis of Italian diminutives. Accordingly, Kiefer (1998, p. 277) states that‘‘morphopragmatics is concerned with the pragmatic effects of ad hoc com-pounds’’, whereas Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1997, p. 4) claim that ,,incontrast to derivation and inflection, compounding is scarcely relevant formorphopragmatics.‘‘

In this paper I argued that phrasal compounds are word-syntactic entitieswhose raison d’etre may be explained on the basis of pragmatic principles. Itfollows that a modular system must have access to those pragmatic principles.Morphopragmatics is then a discipline that may help to explain at least somemorphological phenomena, for example those that have to do with marginalityor productivity.

Acknowledgements This is a thorougly revised version of a talk given at the Workshop onMarginal Morphology, University of Stuttgart, July 21th, 2006. I am very grateful for comments byEva Gressnich, Daniel Gutzmann, Ingo Plag, Bjorn Rothstein, Carmen Scherer, Carola Trips, andtwo 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 anEnglish 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). Munchen:Lincom Europa.

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

Foolen, A. (1997). The expressive function of language: Towards a cognitive semantic approach. InS. Niemeier, & R. Dirven (Eds.), The language of emotions: conceptualization, expression, andtheoretical foundation (pp. 15–31). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Gallmann, P. (1990). Kategoriell komplexe Wortformen. Tubingen: Niemeyer.Hohenhaus, P. (2005). Lexicalization and institutionalization. In P. Stekauer, & 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 hand-

book 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.

258 J. Meibauer

123

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

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

Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicat-ure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lieber, R. (1988). Phrasal compounds and the morphology—syntax-interface. Chicago LinguisticSociety 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. Stekauer, & 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 morphologymeeting (MMM5). Frejus 15–18 September 2005, University of Bologna, 2007. URL:http://mmm.lingue.unibo.it/

Meibauer, J. (2003). Phrasenkomposita zwischen Wortsyntax und Lexikon. Zeitschrift fur Sprach-wissenschaft, 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 com-pounds. Talk given to the 29th DGfS Annual Meeting, Siegen, 2007.

Meyer, R. (1993). Compound comprehension in isolation and in context. The contribution ofconceptual and discourse knowledge to the comprehension of German novel noun-nouncompounds. Tubingen: 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. Gdansk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego.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. Stekauer, & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation. (pp. 147–188).Dordrecht: Springer.

Scherer, C. (2005). Wortbildungswandel und Produktivitat. Eine empirische Studie zur nominalen -er-Derivation im Deutschen. Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Spencer, A. (2005). Word-formation and syntax. In P. Stekauer, & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook ofword-formation (pp. 73–97). Dordrecht: Springer.

Sproat, R. (1993). Review article: Morphological non-separation revisited: a review of R. Lieber’sDeconstructing 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 prag-

matics. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5, 1–25.Wahrig-Burfeind, R. (Ed.). (2006). WAHRIG Deutsches Worterbuch. 8. Aufl. Gutersloh/Munchen:

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 theBerkeley linguistic society (pp. 330–340). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.


123

http://mmm.lingue.unibo.it/

meibauer (2007b)

Documents