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. 73–100

Diggers-out, leaf clearer-uppers and stayer-onner-for-nowers

On creativity and extravagance in English -er nominalisations

To this day, the English -er suffix prototypically derives agent nouns from verbs (rideV → rider – ‘someone who Vs’). Over the course of a millennium, the -er suffix construction has consistently extended its range of application, and from the 20th century onwards, it has further gained in variablity in that it allows for multiple attachment of -er, such as in looker-onner or stayer-onner-for-nower. The repetition of -er is accompanied by an increase in expressiveness. Additionally, internet attestations suggest there are several other English suffixes that can be repeated in the same manner as -er, consider -y in runny-outy red felt pen and -ed in kicked-upped. The systematicity of this morphosyntactic phenomenon suggests that some speakers of English occasionally choose to flout some rules to create structurally unusual, expressive, and extravagant complex words.

Keywords: morphosyntax, derivation, repetition, templates, variation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Creativity and extravagance in morphology
    • 2.1Creativity
      • 2.1.1Intent
      • 2.1.2Prescriptive criticism
    • 2.2Expressiveness
    • 2.3Extravagance
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Derivatives involving -er suffix repetition
    • 4.1-er doubling in nominalisations of particle verbs and prepositional verbs
    • 4.2Retriplication of -er
    • 4.3-er doubling in nominalisations of verbs and prepositional phrases
    • 4.4Excessive or abundant -er suffixation
  • 5.Suffix repetition beyond -er
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.223.04len
References
Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad
2004 Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word-Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark
1976 Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Furhop, Nana
2002 Restricting suffix combinations in German and English: Closing suffixes and the Monosuffix Constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20(3): 251–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
1983 English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo
2013 The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander
2018 Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist (Picasso): Linguistic aberrancy from a constructional perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3): 277–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert
2010 Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert
2010 Doubler-upper nouns. A challenge for usage-based models of language? In Cognitive Perspectives on Word-Formation, Alexander Onysko & Sascha Michel (eds), 335–374. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapman, Don
2008 Fixer-uppers and passers-by: Nominalization of verb-particle constructions. In Studies in the History of Language IV: Empirical and Analytical Advances in the Studies of Language Change, Susan M. Fitzmaurice & Sascha Michel (eds), 265–299. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David
2006 Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, David
2008 Patterns and productivity. In Studies in the History of the English Language VI: Empirical and Analytical Advances in the Study of English Language Change, Susan M. Fitzmaurice & Donka Minkova (eds), 207–230. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Richard M. W.
2014 Making New Words. Morphological Derivation in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farrel, Patrick
2005 English verb-preposition constructions: constituency and order. Language 81(1): 96–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortin, Antonio
2012 The Morphology and Semantics of Expressive Affixes. Oxford: University of Oxford. [URL].Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
2016 Tuning in to the verb-particle construction in English. In Approaches to Complex Predicates, Léa Nash & Pollet Samvelian (eds), 110–141. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
2019 Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Good, Jeff
2016 The Linguistic Typology of Templates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1999 Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(7): 1043–1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2013 Constructional Change in English. Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas
2018 Creativity and Construction Grammar: Cognitive and psychological issues. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3): 259–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 Construction Grammar and creativity: Evolution, psychology, and cognitive science. Cognitive Semiotics. 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Mair, Christian
1999 ’Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres. The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(2): 221–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1973 The base rules for prepositional phrases. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 345–356. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1942 A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munsgard.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Michaelis, Laura A.
(2020) Syntactic Constructions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klégr, Aleš & Čermak, Jan
2010 Neologisms of the ‘on-the-pattern-of’ type: analogy as a word-formation process? In The Prague Structure and Theories of Structure, Martin Procháska, Markéta Malá & Pavlína Šaldová (eds), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
1969 A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. London, Longman.Google Scholar
Lensch, Anke
2018 Fixer-uppers: Reduplication in the derivation of phrasal verbs. In Exact Repetition in Grammar and Discourse, Rita Finkbeiner & Ulrike Freywald (eds), 158–181. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou, Blom, Corrien, Booij, Geert, Elenbaas, Marian & van Kemenade, Ans
2012 Morphosyntactic Change: A Comparative Study of Particles and Prefixes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1977 Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matinello, Elisa
2013 Extra-Grammatical Morphology in English. Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives, and Related Phenomena. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew
2004 Sum: English Affix Reduplication. The Linguist List 15.1929.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary D.
2014 Lexicogenesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary
2021 online edition.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Thornburg, Linda
2001 A conceptional analysis of English -er nominals. In Applied Coginitive Linguistics in Language Pedagogy, Martin Pütz, Susanne Niemeier & René Driven (eds), 149–200. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher
2013 Conventional implicature and expressive content. In Semantics. An international Handbook of natural language meaning, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), Volume 3, 598-621 .Berlin; Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter
2003 Cognitive complexity and ‘horror aequi’ as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds), 205–249. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryder, Mary Ellen
1999 Bankers and Blue-chippers. Of -er nominalizations in Present-day English. English Language and Linguistics 3(2): 269–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 Complex -er nominals: Where grammaticalization and lexicalization meet? In Between Grammar and Lexicon, Ellen Contini-Morava & Yishai Tobin (eds), 291–332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey
2016 Two ideas of creativity. In Evidence, Experiment and Argument in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language, Martin Hinton (ed), 15–26. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth
1984 Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT-Press.Google Scholar
The Times 2017 The Times Style Guide. Glasgow: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Thim, Stefan
2012 Phrasal Verbs: The English Verb-Particle Construction and Its History. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme
2013 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uhrig, Peter
2020 Creative intentions – The fine line between ‘creative’ and ‘wrong’. Cognitive Semiotics. 1–19.Google Scholar
Walker, James
2009 Double -er suffixation in English. Morphological, phonological and sociolinguistic reflections. Lexis – Journal in English Lexicology HS 1: 5–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wentworth, Harold
1936 On adding the suffix of agency, -ER, to adverbs. American Speech 11: 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin
1981 On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word”. Linguistic Inquiry 12(2): 369–370.Google Scholar
Zeschel, Arne
2012 Incipient Productivity: A Construction-Based Approach to Linguistic Creativity. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Ivorra Ordines, Pedro & Belén López Meirama
2024.  Vete a freír cristales . Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
Lensch, Anke
2023. English and German derivation revisited. Constructions and Frames 15:2 ► pp. 234 ff. 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 20 march 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.