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 (ride V → 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 1 other publications

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 6 december 2023. 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.