Cover not available
Part of
Paradigms in Word Formation: Theory and applications
Edited by Alba E. Ruz, Cristina Fernández-Alcaina and Cristina Lara-Clares
[Studies in Language Companion Series 225] 2022
► pp. 69–98

Chapter 4
Fact-checking on compound verbs in English

| Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”
| University of Granada

The creation of compound verbs remains among the most contested phenomena of English word formation and the studies targeting these units have normally portrayed them as inconsistent or almost anomalous. This perception, together with the heterogeneous origins and the contested status of compound verbs, might explain why two central questions remain unanswered: (i) are these genuine compounds? and (ii) how can they be analyzed in a uniform manner? This paper tackles English verbal compounding with two hypotheses in mind: (i) that it is crucial to differentiate between a product- and a process-oriented approach to the phenomenon, and (ii) that a paradigm-based analysis acknowledging the role of analogy and the weight of metonymy proves highly beneficial.

Keywords: analogy, compounding, metonymy, paradigms, verbs
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What does genuine mean in genuine compound verbs?
    • 2.1On verbal compounds
    • 2.2Genuineness of compound verbs in English
  • 3.What is actually behind compound verbs in English
    • 3.1Basics of paradigmatic approaches to word formation
    • 3.2The nature of paradigms in compounding
    • 3.3The role of metonymy in compound verbs
  • 4.Compound verbs in English
  • 5.Should verbal compounding be regarded as a productive process for genuine compound verbs to continue arising?
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 September 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.225.04bag
References (100)
Aarts, Bas
2011 Oxford Modern English Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad
2004 Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edn.
2000 Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R.
1982 Where’s morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13: 571–612.Google Scholar
Arndt-Lappe, Sabine
2015 Word-formation and analogy. In Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Vol. 2, Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds), 822–841. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bagasheva, Alexandra
2015 Paradigmatic word-formation, metonymy and compound verbs in English and Bulgarian. In Morphology and Semantics – MMM9 On-line Proceedings, Jenny Audring, Nikos Koutsoukos, Francesca Masini & Ida Raffaelli (eds), 1–11. [URL]> (21 October 2020).
2020 Paradigmaticity in compounding. In Paradigmatic Relations in Word Formation, Jesús Fernández-Domínguez, Alexandra Bagasheva & Cristina Lara-Clares (eds), 21–48. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence & Hale, Christopher
1993 Components of conceptual representation: From feature lists to recursive frames. In Categories and Concepts: Theoretical Views and Inductive Data Analysis, Iven Van Mechelen, James Hampton, Ryszard S. Michalski & Peter Theuns (eds), 97–144. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
1983 English Word-formation. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Derivational paradigms. In Yearbook of Morphology 1996, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 243–256. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Dvandva. Word Structure 1(1): 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Compounds and Compounding. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 Notions of paradigm and their value in word-formation. Word Structure 12(2): 153–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie & Huddleston, Rodney
2002 Lexical word-formation. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), 1621–1721. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo
2013 The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, Thomas
1993 Back-formation, cross-formation, and ‘bracketing paradoxes’ in paradigmatic morphology. In Yearbook of Morphology 1993, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 1–25. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckner, Clay, Blythe, Richard, Bybee, Joan, Christiansen, Morten H., William Croft, William, Ellis, Nick C., Holland, John, Ke, Jinyun, Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Schoenemann, Tom (The “Five Graces Group”
) 2009 Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. In Language as a Complex Adaptive System, Nick C. Ellis & Diane Larsen-Freeman (eds), 1–26. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, Melanie
2013 The English Noun Noun Construct: Its Prosody and Structure. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Booij, Geert
1993 Against split morphology. In Yearbook of Morphology 1993, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 27–50. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Construction Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2016 Construction morphology. In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, Andrew Hippisley & Gregory Stump (eds), 424–448. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, Mudgan, Joachim & Skopeteas, Stravos
(eds) 2004 Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. 2. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, Mario
2017 Metonymy and Word-Formation: Their Interaction and Complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brukette, Allison & Kretzschmar, William
2018 Exploring Linguistic Science: Language Use, Complexity, and Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew
2002 An Introduction to English Morphology: Words and Their Structure. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Collins English Dictionary, 5th edn.
2015 Glasgow: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th edn.
2003 Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark
2008– The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). [URL]> (30 March 2021).
Di Sciullo, Anna M. & Williams, Edwin
1987 On the Definition of Word. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Díaz-Negrillo, Ana
2020 Neoclassical word formation in English: A paradigm-based account of -scope formations. In Paradigmatic Relations in Word Formation, Jesús Fernández-Domínguez, Alexandra Bagasheva & Cristina Lara-Clares (eds), 213–261. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donalies, Elke
2004 Grammatik des Deutschen im europäischen Vergleich. Kombinatorische Begriffsbildung: Substantivkomposition. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar
Downing, Angela & Locke, Philip
2006 English Grammar: A University Course, 2nd edn. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U.
2005 Word-formation in natural morphology. In Handbook of Word-Formation, Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber (eds), 267–284. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erdmann, Peter
2009 Compound verbs. In One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English, Günter Rohdenburg & Julia Schlüter (eds), 38–59. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Patrick
2001 Functional shift as category underspecification. English Language & Linguistics 5: 109–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Domínguez, Jesús
2020 Remarks on the semantics and paradigmaticity of NN compounds. The Mental Lexicon 15(1): 79–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
2006 Frame semantics. In Cognitive Linguistics. Basic Readings, Dirk Geeraerts (ed), 373–400. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
FrameNet
2021 <[URL]> (27 March 2021).
Frank, Roslyn
2015a A complex adaptive systems approach to language, cultural schemas and serial metonymy: Charting the cognitive innovations of ‘fingers’ and ‘claws’ in Basque. In Metaphor and Metonymy across Time and Cultures. Perspectives on the Sociohistorical Linguistics of Figurative Language, Javier E. Díaz Vera (ed), 65–95. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015b A future agenda for research on language and culture. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture, Farzad Sharifian (ed), 493–513. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gagné, Christina L. & Spalding, Thomas L.
2015 Semantics, concepts, and meta-cognition: Attributing properties and meanings to complex concepts. In Semantics of Complex Words, Laurie Bauer, Livia Körtvélyessy & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 9–27. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W.
1999 Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In Metonymy in Language and Thought [Human Cognitive Processing 4], Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds), 61–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
2010 Verbs, constructions, and semantic frames. In Lexical Semantics, Syntax and Event Structure, Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (eds), 39–58. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1990 Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guerssel, Mohand
1983 A lexical approach to word formation in English. Linguistic Analysis 12: 183–243.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A.
1956 How we noun-incorporate in English. American Speech 31(2): 83–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2002 Understanding Morphology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.
2004 The discourse basis for lexical categories in Universal Grammar. In Fuzzy Grammar: A Reader, Bas Aarts, David Denison, Evelien Keizer & Gergana Popova (eds), 247–291. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Horecký, Ján, Buzássyová, Klára & Bosák, Ján
1989 Dynamika slovnej zásoby súčasnej slovenčiny. Bratislava: Veda.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
2002 Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura
2011 Metonymy in word formation. Cognitive Linguistics 22(2): 359–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter
1986 Problems in the morphological analysis of complex lexical items. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 36: 93–107. [URL]
Klingebiel, Kathryn
1989 Noun+Verb Compounding in Western Romance. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter
1999 Frame and contiguity: On the cognitive bases of metonymy and certain types of word-formation. In Metonymy in Language and Thought [Human Cognitive Processing 4], Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds), 139–167. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Metonymy: Unity in diversity. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2(2): 201–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamberty, Angela
2014 Why We Don’t Cardrive or Bookread, but Slavedrive and Lipread. A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach to Verbal Compounds and Pseudo-Compounds in English. Darmstadt: Büchner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamberty, Angela & Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2013 Verbal compounding in English: A challenge for usage-based models of word-formation? Anglia 131(4): 591–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lexico
2021 <[URL]> (10 March 2021).
Libben, Gary
2006 Why study compound processing? An overview of the issues. In The Representation and Processing of Compound Words, Gary Libben & Gonia Jarema (eds), 1–22. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Compounding and cognition. ICCS Proceedings, 27–29 July 2008, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
2012 Morphological assessment in bilingual aphasia: Compounding and the language nexus. In Aspects of Multilingual Aphasia, Martin R. Gitterman, Mira Goral, & Loraine K. Obler (eds), 51–88. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 The nature of compounds: A psychocentric perspective. Cognitive Neuropsychology 31(1–2): 8–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 Words as action: Consequences for the monolingual and bilingual lexicon. In The Description, Measurement and Pedagogy of Words, Alexandra Tsedryk & Christine Doe (eds), 14–33. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle
1981 On the Organization of the Lexicon. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
2005 English word-formation processes. Observations, issues, and thoughts on future research. In Handbook of Word Formation, Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber (eds), 375–427. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 IE, Germanic: English. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 357–370. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle & Scalise, Sergio
2006 The Lexical Integrity Hypothesis in a new theoretical universe. Lingue e Linguaggio 5: 7–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol
(eds) 2009 The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, Hans
1969 The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, 2nd edn. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H.
1972 Inflectional Morphology. A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B.
2002 Verb Classification in Australian Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edn.
2009 Springfield MA: Merriam-Webster.Google Scholar
Mohanan, Karuvannur P.
1986 The Theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Nagano, Akiko
2007 Marchand’s analysis of back-formation revisited: Back-formation as a type of conversion. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 54(1): 33–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pennanen, Esko V.
1966 Contributions to the Study of Back-Formation in English. Tampere: Yhteiskunnallinen Korkeakoulu.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo, Kunter, Gero, Lappe, Sabine & Braun, Maria
2008 The role of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalization in compound stress assignment in English. Language 84(4): 760–794. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
PONS Online Dictionary
2021 <[URL]> (30 March 2021).
Postal, Paul
1969 Anaphoric islands. Chicago Linguistic Society 5: 205–239.Google Scholar
Quinlan, Philip & Dyson, Ben
2008 Cognitive Psychology. Edinburgh: Pearson.Google Scholar
Radimský, Jan
2019 A paradigmatic account of lexical innovation: The role of repeated components in French N+N compounds. In Morphology and Semantics – MMM12 Online Proceedings, Jenny Audring, Nikos Koutsoukos & Christina Manouilidou (eds), 77–91. [URL]> (6 November 2020).
2020 A paradigmatic approach to compounding. In Paradigmatic Relations in Word Formation, Jesús Fernández-Domínguez, Alexandra Bagasheva & Cristina Lara-Clares (eds), 164–185. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rainer, Franz
2003 Typology, diachrony, and universals of semantic change in word-formation: A Romanist’s look at the polysemy of agent nouns. In Morphology and Linguistic Typology. On-line Proceedings of the Fourth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM4), Geert Booij, Emiliano Guevara, Angela Ralli, Salvatore Sgroi & Sergio Scalise (eds). [URL]> (21 September 2020).
Renner, Vincent
2008 On the semantics of English coordinate compounds. English Studies 89(5): 606–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2011 Metonymy and cognitive operations. In Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics [Human Cognitive Processing 28], Réka Benczes, Antonio Barcelona & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds), 103–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scalise, Sergio & Bisetto, Antonietta
2009 The classification of compounds. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 49–82. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scalise, Sergio & Vogel, Irene
2010 (eds). Cross-Disciplinary Issues in Compounding [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2011 English Morphology and Word-Formation. An Introduction. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol
2014 Derivational paradigms. In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 354–369. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol & Lieber, Rochelle
(eds) 2005 Handbook of Word Formation. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szymanek, Bogdan
2005 The latest trends in English word- formation. In Handbook of Word-Formation, Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber (eds), 428–448. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Daily Telegraph
(March 15 2002) <[URL]> (20 January 2019).
The Guardian
(February 13 1999) <[URL]> (24 January 2019).
The New Yorker
(October 12 2009) <[URL]> (15 February 2019).
Ungerer, Friedrich
2007 Word-formation. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts & Huberts Cuyckens (eds), 650–676. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly
2016 Features and affix-hop. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 63(1): 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Marle, Jaap
1985 On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1996 The unity of morphology: On the intervowenness of the derivational and inflectional dimension of the word. In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 67–82. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wald, Benji & Besserman, Lawrence
2002 The emergence of the verb-verb compound in twentieth century English and twentieth century linguistics. In Studies in the History of the English Language: A Millennial Perspective, Donka Minkova & Robert Stockwell (eds), 417–447. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Word Spy
2021 <[URL]> (15 November 2020).
Cited by (1)

Cited by 1 other publications

Fábregas, Antonio
2022. Chapter 11. Structural and lexical aspects of the morphology of English participles. In Paradigms in Word Formation [Studies in Language Companion Series, 225], ► pp. 285 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.