Chapter published in:
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
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.223.02kem
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, Marco & Evert, Stefan
2005 Testing the extrapolation quality of word frequency models. Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2005. (https://​www​.birmingham​.ac​.uk​/research​/activity​/corpus​/publications​/conference​-archives​/2005​-conf​-e​-journal​.aspx, 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan
1984 Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13(2): 145–204. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Wit, Astrid, Petré, Peter & Brisard, Frank
2020 Standing out with the progressive. Journal of Linguistics (56/3), 479–514. Crossref.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. (https://​www​.aclweb​.org​/anthology​/P07​-2, last checked 05/06/2021). CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fleischer, Wolfgang & Barz, Irmhild
2012 Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 4th revised edition, in collaboration with Marianne Schröder. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, Livio & Ricca, Davide
2006 Productivity in Italian word-formation. Linguistics 44(1): 57–89. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1999 Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6): 1043–1068. Crossref.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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. Crossref.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. CrossrefGoogle 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. https://​ids​-pub​.bsz​-bw​.de​/frontdoor​/index​/index​/docId​/3826.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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Günther, Franziska
2016 Toward a unified socio-cognitive framework for salience in language. Frontiers in Psychology 7.1110, 1–4. Crossref.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. Crossref.Google Scholar