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. 233–254

Wild words

The case of morphologically embedded general extenders

| University of Bologna
| University of Bologna
In this paper we analyse the formal and functional ‘extravagance’ of general extenders embedded within morphological schemas, either at the end of coordinate compounds, or as constituents of complex words, especially at the end of lists of complex words formed according to the same schema. After discussing two case studies from Italian (eccetera ‘etcetera’ and tutto ‘everything/all’), we conclude that complex words containing general extenders are ‘wild words’, namely ‘contextuals’ (Clark & Clark 1979) that are created to meet specific communicative needs and are meant not to be stored. As such, they serve as a strategy to create ‘ad hoc categories’ (Mauri & Sansò 2018a). The relationship of ‘wild words’ with lists is also explored and deemed crucial both for their semantic interpretation and for explaining their collocation within morphological structures.
Keywords: ad hoc categories, contextuals, lists, general extenders, pragmatics, word formation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.General extenders and lists
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1Case study 1: eccetera ‘etcetera’
    • 3.2Case study 2: tutto ‘everything/all’
    • 3.3Summing up
  • 4.Theoretical discussion
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.223.10mas
References (40)
References
Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco. 2010. Coordinating compounds. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(9): 863–873. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barotto, Alessandra & Mauri, Caterina. 2018. Constructing lists to construct categories. Italian Journal of Linguistics 30(1): 95–134.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1983. Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition 11(3): 211–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 1990. Un modèle d’analyse syntaxique “en grilles” pour les productions orales. Anuario de Psicología 47: 11–28.Google Scholar
Bonvino, Elisabetta, Cortés Velásquez, Diego & Fiorenza, Elisa. 2018. “Sopratavola soprammobile come dite voi”: Lists in L1 and L2. Italian Journal of Linguistics 30(1): 201–230.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2009. Lexical integrity as a formal universal: a constructionist view. In Universals of Language Today, Sergio Scalise, Elisabetta Magni & Antonietta Bisetto (eds), 83–100. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Channell, Joanna. 1994. Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana L. 1997. A Grammar of Meithei. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2007. Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(2): 155–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Eve V. & Clark, Herbert H. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55(4): 767–811. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Mauro, Tullio, Mancini, Federico, Vedovelli, Massimo & Voghera, Miriam. 1993. Lessico di frequenza dell’italiano parlato. Milano: Etaslibri.Google Scholar
Dines, Elizabeth R. 1980. Variation in discourse: ‘And stuff like that’. Language in Society 9(1): 13–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubois, Sylvie. 1992. Extension particles etc. Language Variation and Change 4(2): 179–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiorentini, Ilaria. 2018. Eccetera eccetera e così via di seguito. I general extenders dell’italiano contemporaneo. In CLUB Working Papers in Linguistics 2, Francesca Masini & Fabio Tamburini (eds), 20–39. Bologna: AMS Acta – Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goria, Eugenio & Masini, Francesca (2021). Category-building lists between grammar and interaction: a constructionist view. In Building Categories in Interaction (Studies in Language Companion Series, 220), Caterina Mauri, Eugenio Goria & Ilaria Fiorentini, (eds). 73–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6): 1043–1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme (eds). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1990. List construction as a task and resource. In Interactional Competence, George Psathas (ed), 63–92. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Kahane, Sylvain & Pietrandrea, Paola. 2012. Types d’entassement en français. In Actes du 3e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française (CMLF 2012), 1809–1828.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Baisa, Vít, Bušta, Jan, Jakubíček, Miloš, Kovář, Vojtěch, Michelfeit, Jan, Rychlý, Pavel & Suchomel, Vít. 2014. The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography 1(1): 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1959. Studies in irreversible binomials. Lingua 8: 113–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, Francesca. 2009. Phrasal lexemes, compounds and phrases: A constructionist perspective. Word Structure 2(2): 254–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, Francesca & Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco. 2018. Listing between lexicon and syntax: Focus on frame-naming lists. Italian Journal of Linguistics 30(1): 135–172.Google Scholar
Masini, Francesca & Audring, Jenny. 2019. Construction Morphology. In The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory, Jenny Audring & Francesca Masini (eds), 365–389. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Masini, Francesca, Mauri, Caterina & Pietrandrea, Paola. 2018. List constructions: Towards a unified account. Italian Journal of Linguistics 30(1): 49–94.Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina & Sansò, Andrea. 2017. Strategie linguistiche per la costruzione online di categorie: un quadro tipologico. In Tipologia e ‘dintorni’. Il metodo tipologico alla intersezione di piani d’analisi, Giuseppe Brincat & Sandro Caruana (eds), 209–232. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
. 2018a. Linguistic strategies for ad hoc categorization: Theoretical assessment and cross-linguistic variation. Folia Linguistica Historica 39(1): 1–35.Google Scholar
. 2018b. Un approccio tipologico ai general extenders. In Tipologia, acquisizione, grammaticalizzazione. Typology, Acquisition, Grammaticalization Studies, Marina Chini & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 63–72. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina, Goria, Eugenio & Fiorentini, Ilaria. 2019. Non-exhaustive lists in spoken language. Constructions and Frames 11(2): 290–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montermini, Fabio. 2008. Il lato sinistro della morfologia. La prefissazione in italiano e nelle lingue del mondo. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann. 1999. Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff Like That: General Extenders in English Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. And stuff und so: Investigating pragmatics expressions in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11): 1845–1864. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2007. Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics 39(3): 483–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2005. Co-compounds and Natural Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1987. Plain morphology and expressive morphology. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis & Hana Filip (eds), 330–340. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar