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)
References
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 one other publication

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.