Cover not available
Part of
Extravagant Morphology: Studies in rule-bending, pattern-extending and theory-challenging morphology
Edited by Matthias Eitelmann and Dagmar Haumann
[Studies in Language Companion Series 223] 2022
► pp. 19–50

What’s extravagant about be-sandal-ed feet?

Morphology, semantics and pragmatics of German pseudo-participles

 | University of Bern
 | University of Düsseldorf
Extravagance can be conceived of as a (more or less) deliberate deviation from established norms that evokes surprise or attention. In this paper, we present an empirical case study of a rare but quite remarkable morphological pattern, namely German pseudo-participles – forms that look like past participles but lack a verbal counterpart, e.g., be-brill-t ‘be-glassed’ (derived from the noun Brille ‘glasses’).
In our study, we investigate the extravagance of the pattern using data from the webcorpus DECOW16A. We combine a detailed qualitative analysis of singleton coinages with various explorative quantitative approaches, taking into account the complexity of the formations and their anchoring in the context. In addition, we examine metalinguistic indicators of extravagance such as double quotes and meta-comments. We argue that German pseudo-participles are a prime example of an “extravagant” phenomenon at the interface of morphology and pragmatics, and as such can be instructive for our understanding of extravagant morphology on a general level, especially with regard to the role of surprise in generating extravagant effects.
Keywords: pseudo-participles, creativity, web corpora, givenness, stereotypes
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Extravagance and pseudo-participles
  • 3.Corpus and method of data collection
  • 4.Indicators of extravagance
    • 4.1Metalinguistic comments
    • 4.2Further extravagant expressions in the context
    • 4.3Quotation marks
  • 5.Sources of extravagance
    • 5.1Morphological mismatch and complexity
    • 5.2“Condensing” function
    • 5.3Semantic categories
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Data availability
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.223.02kem
References (35)
References
Avis, Franz-Josef d’ & Finkbeiner, Rita. 2019. Was ist Expressivität? In Expressivität im Deutschen, Franz-Josef d’Avis & Rita Finkbeiner (eds), 1–22. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Corpus Linguistics in Morphology: Morphological Productivity. In Corpus Linguistics, Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds), 899–919. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barcelona, Antonio. 2015. Metonymy. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds), 143–167. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baroni, Marco & Evert, Stefan. 2005. Testing the extrapolation quality of word frequency models. Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2005. ([URL], last checked 05/05/2021).Google Scholar
Baumann, Stefan & Riester, Arndt. 2012. Referential and lexical givenness: Semantic, prosodic and cognitive aspects. In Prosody and Meaning, Gorka Elordieta & Pilar Prieto i Vives (eds), 119–161. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13(2): 145–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Wolf Z. 1992. Pseudopartizipien im deutschen Sprachgebrauch. Ein Nachschlage- und Übungsbuch. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
Bredel, Ursula. 2008. Die Interpunktion des Deutschen. Ein kompositionelles System zur Online-Steuerung des Lesens. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dammel, Antje & Kempf, Luise. 2018. Paradigmatic Relationships in German Action Noun Formation. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung / Journal of Word Formation (ZWJW) 2018 (2): 55–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Wit, Astrid, Petré, Peter & Brisard, Frank. 2020. Standing out with the progressive. Journal of Linguistics (56/3), 479–514. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Evert, Stefan & Baroni, Marco. 2007. zipfR: Word frequency distributions in R. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Posters and Demonstrations Sessions, Sophia Ananiadou (ed), 29–32. Prague: Association for Computational Linguistics. ([URL], last checked 05/06/2021). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, Rita & Meibauer, Jörg. 2016. Boris “Ich bin drin” Becker (‘Boris ‘I am in’ Becker’). Syntax, semantics and pragmatics of a special naming construction. Lingua (2016/181): 36–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischer, Wolfgang & Barz, Irmhild. 2012. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 4th revised edition, in collaboration with Marianne Schröder. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, Livio & Ricca, Davide. 2006. Productivity in Italian word-formation. Linguistics 44(1): 57–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grandi, Nicola & Körtvélyessy, Livia. 2015. Introduction: Why Evaluative Morphology? In Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology, Nicola Grandi & Livia Körtvélyessy (eds), 3–20. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Stefan. 2018. Derivational morphology in flux: a case study of word-formation change in German. Cognitive Linguistics 29(1): 77–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6): 1043–1068. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Hein, Katrin. 2017. Modeling the Properties of German Phrasal Compounds within a Usage-Based Constructional Approach. In Further investigations into the nature of phrasal compounding, Carola Trips & Jaklin Kornflit (eds), 119–148. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Hüning, Matthias & Schlücker, Barbara. 2010. Konvergenz und Divergenz in der Wortbildung. Komposition im Niederländischen und Deutschen. In Kontrastive germanistische Linguistik, Antje Dammel, Sebastian Kürschner & Damaris Nübling (eds), 783–825. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Fillmore, Charles J. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1): 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1994. Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. Translated by Brigitte Nerlich. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kempf, Luise. 2016. Adjektivsuffixe in Konkurrenz. Wortbildungswandel vom Frühneuhochdeutschen zum Neuhochdeutschen. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempf, Luise & Hartmann, Stefan. 2018. Schema unification and morphological productivity: A diachronic perspective. In The construction of words. Advances in Construction Morphology, Geert Booij (ed), 441–474 (Studies in Morphology 4). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klockow, Reinhard. 1980. Linguistik der Gänsefüßchen. Untersuchungen zum Gebrauch der Anführungszeichen im gegenwärtigen Deutsch. Frankfurt a. M.: Haag und Herchen.Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2007. Syngrapheme als pragmatische Indikatoren: Anführung und Auslassung. In Von der Pragmatik zur Grammatik, Sandra Döring & Jochen Geilfuß-Wolfgang (eds), 21–37. Leipzig: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
. 2013. Expressive Compounds in German. Word Structure 6(1): 21–42. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2017. The extravagant progressive: an experimental corpus study on the history of emphatic be V-ing. English Language and Linguistics 21(2): 227–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, Roland. 2015. Processing and querying large corpora with the COW14 architecture. In Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora (CMLC-3), Piotr Bański, Hanno Biber, Evelyn Breiteneder, Marc Kupietz, Harald Lüngen & Andreas Witt (eds), 28–34. [URL].Google Scholar
Schäfer, Roland & Bildhauer, Felix. 2012. Building Large Corpora from the Web Using a New Efficient Tool Chain. In Proceedings of LREC 2012, Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Terry Declerck, Mehmet Uğur Doğan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds), 486–493.Google Scholar
Scherer, Carmen. 2019. Expressivität in der Wortbildung. Ein Überblick. In Expressivität im Deutschen, Franz-Josef d’Avis & Rita Finkbeiner (eds), 49–74. Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 318. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Günther, Franziska. 2016. Toward a unified socio-cognitive framework for salience in language. Frontiers in Psychology 7.1110, 1–4. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Van Haeringen, Conrad B. 1949. Participia praeverbalia. De Nieuwe Taalgids 42: 187–191.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1987. Plain Morphology and Expressive Morphology. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1987): 330–340. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Ivorra Ordines, Pedro & Belén López Meirama
2024.  Vete a freír cristales . Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
Norde, Muriel & Graeme Trousdale
2024. Creativity, paradigms and morphological constructions: evidence from Dutch pseudoparticiples. Linguistics DOI logo
Ordines, Pedro Ivorra
2023.  Por mí como si te operas. Constructional idioms of rejection from a constructionist approach. Yearbook of Phraseology 14:1 ► pp. 89 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 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.