Cover not available
Article published In:
Meaning in Interaction: Studies in memory of Jack Bilmes
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Elwys De Stefani
[Interactional Linguistics 3:1/2] 2023
► pp. 67–92

Ad-hoc-compounds in spoken German

(When) do we need compositionality?

ORCID logo | Leibniz Institute for the German Language, Mannheim
Occasionalisms, i.e., non-lexicalized ad-hoc-expressions that are coined for a specific occasion, are a recurrent phenomenon in verbal interactions. Even though recipients have not heard those novel word formations before, they can still understand them. This paper reports on a study from an Interactional Linguistics perspective which explores ad-hoc-expressions in spoken German, such as streichelmichbärchenpärchen (‘stroke-me-little-bear-couple’) and windeldroge (‘diaper-drug’). It draws on an analysis of 934 ad-hoc-compounds in a corpus of German interaction. These typically do not cause a problem of understanding, because their meaning is inferable due to different resources that help recipients understand unfamiliar expressions: a specific word formation with a high degree of compositionality, cues or anchoring in the prior context or common ground. While a compositional word formation is not always necessary to sufficiently understand meaning in interaction due to other resources, opaque word formation has its limits when it comes to understanding the meaning of an expression especially when recipients cannot rely on other resources to understand the expression.
Keywords: morphology, word formation, ad-hoc-expressions, repair, Conversation Analysis (CA), Interactional Linguistics (IL)
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Morphology and word formation in Interactional Linguistics
  • 3.Ad-hoc-expressions, compositionality and meaning
  • 4.Data and methods
  • 5.Ad-hoc-compounds in spoken German: Repair or no repair?
    • 5.1Word formation
    • 5.2Contextual cues and anchors in prior context
    • 5.3Common ground
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.22007.hel
References (54)
References
Antaki, C., Biazzi, M., Nissen, A., & Wagner, J. (2008). Accounting for moral judgments in academic talk: The case of a conversation analysis data session. Text & Talk, 28 1, 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1983). A decade of morphology and word formation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 12 1, 355–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bilmes, J. (2011). Occasioned semantics. A systematic approach to meaning in talk. Human Studies 34 (2), 129–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bushnell, C. (2012). Talking the talk: The interactional construction of community and identity at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan. Human Studies, 35 1, 583–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22 (6), 1482–1493.Google Scholar
Carter, R. (2004). Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1977). Bridging. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp. 411–420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Gerrig, Richard J. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66(4), 764–805. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Consten, M., Knees, M., & Schwarz-Friesel, M. (2007). The function of complex anaphors in texts. In Monika Schwarz-Friesel, Manfred Consten & Mareile Knees (Eds.), Anaphors in Text: Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference (pp. 81–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T. (2005). Compositionality and the pragmatics of conceptual combination. In E. Machery, M. Werning, & G. Schurz (Eds.), The compositionality of meaning and content. Volume II: Applications to Linguistics, Psychology, and Neuroscience (pp. 203–216). Frankfurt am Main: Ontos. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2005). Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. In A. Hakulinen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation (pp. 289–317). Benjamins: Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Notionalizations: The transformation of descriptions into categorizations. In A. Deppermann (Ed.), Formulation, Generalization, and Abstraction in Interaction. Human Studies, 34 (2), 155–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Interaktionale Semantik. In J. Hagemann, & S. Staffeldt (Eds.), Semantiktheorien II (pp. 235–278). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. & De Stefani, E. (2019). Defining in talk-in-interaction: Recipient-design through negative definitional components. Journal of Pragmatics, 140 1, 140–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Schmidt, A. (2021). How shared meanings and uses emerge over an interactional history: Wabi Sabi in a series of theater rehearsals. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54 (2): 203–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Stefani, W. (2020). ‘Nel senso (che)’ in Italian conversation: Turn-taking, turn-maintaining and turn-yielding. In Y. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström, & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action (pp. 25–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donalies, E. (2005). Die Wortbildung im Deutschen. Ein Überblick. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of Englisch compound nouns. Language 53 (4), 810–842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (1997): „Open“ Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28 (1), 69–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, G. (2005): The Goldilocks Scenario: Is noun-noun compounding compositional? In E. Machery, M. Werning & G. Schurz (Eds.). The compositionality of meaning and content. Volume II: Applications to Linguistics, Psychology, and Neuroscience (pp. 217–228). Frankfurt am Main: Ontos. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. A., Hayashi, M. & Jasperson, R. (1996). Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. In E. Ochs, Elinor, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 185–237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gagné, C. L. & Spalding, T. L. (2015). Noun-noun compounds. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Langua-ges of Europe. Volume 2 1 (pp. 1144–1159). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulou, A. (2015). Small stories research. Methods – Analysis – Outreach. In A. De Fina, & A. Georgakopoulou (Eds.), Handbook of narrative analysis (pp. 255–271). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1978): Definiteness and indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Helmer, H. & Zinken, J. (2019). Das Heißt (“That Means”) for Formulations and Du Meinst (“You Mean”) for Repair? Interpretations of Prior Speakers’ Turns in German. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52 (2): 159–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helmer, H. (2020). How do speakers define the meaning of expressions? The case of German x heißt y (“x means y”). Discourse Processes, 57 (3): 278–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Okkasionalismen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Bedeutungserklärungen zwischen Notwendigkeit und interaktiver Ressource. Deutsche Sprache, 2/2022, 97–123Google Scholar
Hein, K. (2017). Modeling the properties of German phrasal compounds within a usage-based constructional approach. In C. Trips, & J. Kornfilt (Eds.), Further investigations into the nature of phrasal compounding (pp. 119–149). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Hohenhaus, P. (1996). Ad-hoc-Wortbildung. Terminologie, Typologie und Theorie kreativer Wortbildung im Englischen. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
(2007). How to do (even more) things with nonce words (other than naming). In J. Munat (Ed.), Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts (pp. 15–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ikoma, M. & Werner, A. (2007). Prosodie der Modalpartikel schon: Wahrnehmung verschiedener Interpretationen. In E.-M. Thüne, & F. Ortu (Eds.), Gesprochene Sprache – Partikeln (pp. 129–139). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2011). Grammar for adjusting assumptions: The Estonian enclitic -gi/-ki in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 1, 2879–2896. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K. H. (2015). Other-initiated repair in English. Open Linguistics, 1 (1), 164–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, C. & Mandelbaum, J. (2013). Word Selection and Social Identities in Talk-in-Interaction. Communication Monograph, 80 (2), 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klos, V. (2011). Komposition und Kompositionalität. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der semantischen Dekodierung von Substantivkomposita. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marzo, D. (2015). Motivation, compositionality, idiomatization. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Volume 2 (pp. 984–1001). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nguyen, H. T. (2012). Social interaction and competence development: Learning the sequential organization of a communicative practice. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1 1, 127–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olsen, S. (2015). Composition. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Volume 1 (364–386). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. W. (2022). Suffixation and sequentiality. Notes on the study of morphology in interaction. Interactional Linguistcs, 2 (1), 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (2015). Word creation. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word Formation: An international Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Volume 1 (pp. 485–500). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryder, M. E. (1994). Ordered Chaos. The Interpretation of English Noun-Noun Compounds. Berkeley: University of California Press.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 (pp. 1–25). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, T. (2016): Good practices in the compilation of FOLK, the Research and Teaching Corpus of Spoken German. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21 (3), 396–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M. (2004). Listen: Sequenzielle und prosodische Struktur einer kommunikativen Praktik – ein,e Untersuchung im Rahmen der Interaktionalen Linguistik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 23 1, 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Deppermann, A., Gilles, P., Günthner, S., Hartung, M. & Kern, F. et al. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT2. Translated and adapted for English by E. Couper-Kuhlen and D. Barth-Weingarten. Gesprächsforschung –Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 12 1, 1–51.Google Scholar
Sikveland, R. O., & Stokoe, E. (2020). Should police negotiators ask to “talk” or “speak” to persons in crisis? Word selection and overcoming resistance to dialogue proposals. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53 (3), 324–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simmler, F. (1998). Morphologie des Deutschen. Flexionsund Wortbildungsmorphologie. Berlin: Weidler.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2017). Managing Compliance in Violin Instruction: The Case of the Finnish Clitic Particles –pa and –pAs in Imperatives and Hortatives. In M.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp. 357–380). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stumpf, S. (2018). Textsortenorientierte Wortbildungsforschung. Desiderate, Perspektiven und Beispielanalysen. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung, 2 (1), 165–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021a): Occasional word formations in written and spoken German. Neologica, 15 1, 151–169.Google Scholar
(2021b). Passe-partout-Komposita im gesprochenen Deutsch. Konstruktionsgrammatische und interaktionslinguistische Zugänge im Rahmen einer pragmatischen Wortbildung. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 49 (1), 33–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, T. (2014). Funktion und Bedeutung von Wortneubildungen in telefonischen Beratungsgesprächen. In S. Michel, & J. Tóth (Eds.), Wortbildungssemantik zwischen Langue und Parole. Semantische Produktionsund Verarbeitungsprozesse komplexer Wörter (pp. 205–226). Stuttgart: ibidem.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Deppermann, Arnulf & Elwys De Stefani
2023. Meaning in interaction. Interactional Linguistics 3:1-2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Koole, Tom
2023. Meaning as referential work. Interactional Linguistics 3:1-2 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 september 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.