Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 9:1 (2017) ► pp.1–40

Between VP and NN

On the constructional types of German -er compounds

| Università di Torino
| Georgetown University

This paper is concerned with the classification and analysis of different types of German synthetic compounds headed by deverbal agent nouns in -er, such as Romanleser ‘novel-reader’ or Gedankenleser ‘mind-reader’, where the non-head is seen to saturate an argument of the head lexeme while adhering to the semantic interpretation found in corresponding VPs (e.g. the distinct senses of read in the previous examples). In contrast to several previous approaches, which attempt to explain the relationship between VPs and compounds using a unified mechanism of incorporation or derivation, we argue that different compounding patterns require different analyses and that the respective constructions are to some extent independent of each other. While some compounds are modelled after frequent, familiar VPs and take account of the usage profile of syntactic phrases, other productive sets of compounds extend independently lexicalized schemas with fixed compound heads. To support our analysis we undertake the largest empirical survey of these formations to date, using a broad coverage Web corpus. We suggest several categories of verb-object lexeme pairs to account for our data and formulate an analysis of the facts within the framework of Construction Morphology.

Keywords: word-formation, synthetic compound, agent noun, incorporation, back-derivation, syntax, productivity, Construction Morphology, lexicon, corpus linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous approaches
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Data and motivation
    • 3.2Identifying and segmenting synthetic compounds
    • 3.3Identifying verbal objects
    • 3.4Classifying verbal and compounding lexeme pairs
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Group 1
    • 4.2Group 2
    • 4.3Group 3
    • 4.4Interim conclusion
  • 5.Synthetic compounds and productivity
    • 5.1Identifying and measuring productivity
    • 5.2Do more VP objects mean more SC non-heads?
    • 5.3How are novel SCs generated?
  • 6.Synthetic compounds and phrases as interrelated schemas
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 20 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.9.1.01gae
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y.
(2007) Typological distinctions in word-formation. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. 2nd edition. Vol. 31 (pp. 1–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., & Schäfer, F.
(2010) On the syntax of episodic vs. dispositional -er nominals. In A. Alexiadou & M. Rathert (Eds.), The syntax of nominalizations across languages and frameworks (Interface Explorations 23) (pp. 9–38). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H.
(1993) On frequency, transparency and productivity. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992 (pp. 181–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Word frequency distributions. (Text, Speech and Language Technologies 18). Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook, Vol. 21 (pp. 899–919). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Kuperman, V., & Bertram, R.
(2010) Frequency effects in compound processing. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311) (pp. 257–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M.
(1988) Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic (Constructional Approaches to Language 8). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., & Zanchetta, E.
(2009) The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, 43(3), 209–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barz, I.
(1995) Komposita im Großwörterbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache. In I. Pohl & H. Ehrhardt (Eds.), Wort und Wortschatz. Beiträge zur Lexikographie (pp. 13–24). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bauer, L.
(2001) Morphological productivity (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. E.
(1988) The relation between inheritance and argument structure: Deverbal -er-nouns in Dutch. In M. Everaert, A. Evers, R. Huybregts, & M. Trommelen (Eds.), Morphology and modularity. In honour of Henk Schultink (pp. 57–74). Dordrecht: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2015) The nominalization of Dutch particle verbs: Schema unification and second order schemas. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 201, 285–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Botha, R. P.
(1984) Morphological mechanisms: Lexicalist analyses of synthetic compounding. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Christ, O.
(1994) A modular and flexible architecture for an integrated corpus query system. Proceedings of Complex, 941, 23–32. Budapest.Google Scholar
de Jong, N. H., Feldmand, L. B., Schreuder, R., Pastizzo, M., & Baayen, R. H.
(2002) The processing and representation of Dutch and English compounds: Peripheral morphological and central orthographic effects. Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 555–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downing, P. A.
(1977) On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53(4), 810–842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erk, K.
(2012) Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: A survey. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(10), 635–653. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evert, S., & Lüdeling, A.
(2001) Measuring morphological productivity: Is automatic preprocessing sufficient? In P. Rayson, A. Wilson, T. McEnery, A. Hardie, & S. Khoja (Eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001 (pp. 167–175). Lancaster.Google Scholar
Gaeta, L.
(2010) Synthetic compounds with special reference to German. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (pp. 219–235). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Restrictions in word formation. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe, Vol. 21 (pp. 858–874). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, L., & Ricca, D.
(2006) Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics, 44(1), 57–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Composita solvantur: Compounds as lexical units or morphological objects? Italian Journal of Linguistics / Rivista di Linguistica, 21(1), 35–70.Google Scholar
(2015) Productivity. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe, Vol. 21 (pp. 841–858). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Constructionist approaches to language. In Th. Hoffmann & Gr. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heringer, H. J.
(1984) Wortbildung: Sinn aus dem Chaos. Deutsche Sprache, 121, 1–13.Google Scholar
Kawahara, D., & Kurohashi, S.
(2005) PP-attachment disambiguation boosted by a gigantic volume of unambiguous examples. In R. Dale, K. -F. Wong, J. Su, & O. Y. Kwong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP-05) (pp. 188–198). Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Kohvakka, H., & Lenk, H.
(2007) ‘Streiter für Gerechtigkeit’ und ‘Teilnehmer am Meinungsstreit’? Zur Valenz von Nomina agentis im Deutschen und Finnischen. In H. Lenk, & M. Walter (Eds.), Wahlverwandtschaften. Valenzen – Verben – Varietäten. Festschrift für Klaus Welke zum 70. Geburtstag (pp. 195–218). Hildesheim, Zurich & New York: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Kürschner, W.
(1974) Zur syntaktischen Beschreibung deutscher Nominalkomposita. Auf der Grundlage generativer Transformationsgrammatiken. (Linguistische Arbeiten 18). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lees, R. B.
(1960) The grammar of English nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leser, M.
(1990) Das Problem der ‘Zusammenbildungen’: eine Lexikalistische Studie. Trier: WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Lieber, R.
(1981) On the organization of the lexicon. PhD Thesis, University of New Hamsphire.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, A., Evert, S., & Baroni, M.
(2007) Using web data for linguistic purposes. In M. Hundt, N. Nesselhauf, & C. Biewer (Eds.), Corpus linguistics and the web. (Language and Computers-Studies in Practical Linguistics 59) (pp. 7–24). Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, F.
(2009) Phrasal lexemes, compounds and phrases: A constructionist perspective. Word Structure, 2(2), 254–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayerthaler, W.
(1981) Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
Nübling, D., & Szczepaniak, R.
(2011)  Merkmal(s?)analyse, Seminar(s?)arbeit und Essen(s?)ausgabe: Zweifelsfälle der Verfugung als Indikatoren für Sprachwandel. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 30(1), 45–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Linking elements in German origin, change, functionalization. Morphology, 231, 67–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I.
(1999) Morphological productivity. Structural constraints in English derivation (Topics in English Linguistics 28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rainer, F.
(2003) Studying restrictions on patterns of word-formation by means of the Internet. Italian Journal of Linguistics / Rivista di Linguistica, 15(1), 131–139.Google Scholar
Roeper, T.
(2005) Chomsky’s remarks and the transformationalist hypothesis. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), The handbook of word-formation (pp. 125–146). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Säily, T.
(2011) Variation in morphological productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and methodological considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 7(1), 119–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiller, A., Teufel, S., Stöckert, C., & Thielen, C.
(1999) Guidelines für das Tagging deutscher Textcorpora mit STTS. Technical report, Universität Stuttgart, Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung & Universität Tübingen, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Schlücker, B.
(2012) Die deutsche Kompositionsfreudigkeit. Übersicht und Einführung. In L. Gaeta & B. Schlücker (Eds.), Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache. Strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte (Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen 46) (pp. 1–25). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.
(1994) Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In Proceedings of the Conference on New Methods in Language Processing (pp. 44–49). Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
Sharoff, S.
(2010) In the garden and in the jungle. Comparing genres in the BNC and Internet. In Genres on the web. Computational models and empirical studies (pp. 149–166). Springer.Google Scholar
Siebert, S.
(1999) Wortbildung und Grammatik. Syntaktische Restriktionen in der Struktur komplexer Wörter (Linguitische Arbeiten 408). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ten Hacken, P.
(2009) Early generative approaches. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics) (pp. 54–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wulff, S.
(2008) Rethinking idiomaticity: A usage-based approach. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U.
(1998) On the development of incorporating structures in German. In R. M. Hogg & L. van Bergen (Eds.), Historical linguistics 1995, Vol. 21: Germanic linguistics (pp. 331–344). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeldes, A.
(2012) Productivity in argument selection. From morphology to syntax (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 260). Berlin & Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Audring, Jenny
2022. Advances in Morphological Theory: Construction Morphology and Relational Morphology. Annual Review of Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo
Gaeta, Livio & Marco Angster
2019. Stripping paradigmatic relations out of the syntax. Morphology 29:2 ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo
Hübener, Carlotta J.
2023. The morphologization of German noun-participle combinations. A diachronic case study. Morphology 33:3 ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Mattiello, Elisa
2024. A contrastive analysis of English deverbal -er synthetic compounds and their Italian equivalents. Languages in Contrast DOI logo
Mattiello, Elisa & Wolfgang U. Dressler
2022. Dualism and superposition in the analysis of English synthetic compounds ending in-er. Linguistics 60:2 ► pp. 395 ff. DOI logo
Schäfer, Roland & Ulrike Sayatz
2024. Between syntax and morphology: German noun+verb units. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.