On “R” in phrasal compounds – a contextualist approach
-
Jörg Meibauer
Abstract
In phrasal compounds of the type XP+Y, one can assume a relation “R” that holds between the head and the non-head just as in ordinary N+N compounds. The paper discusses the question how “R” should be understood. Three recent approaches, i.e., construction morphology, parallel architecture view, and indexicalism are discussed. It is argued that all approaches lack a pragmatic component which is necessary for modeling pragmatic inferencing with respect to phrasal compounds. Thus, an “unspecific meaning” approach to the semantics of phrasal compounds, together with contextualist views on pragmatic enrichment, is a serious alternative to the approaches discussed.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Jürgen Pafel and Carola Trips for critical comments on an earlier version of this article, and to Björn Technau for checking my English. For the remaining mistakes and shortcomings, the usual ‘All shame on me!’ disclaimer applies.
References
Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman. 2004. Beyond morphology: Interface conditions on word-formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267286.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Allan, Keith & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.) 2012. The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139022453Suche in Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1979. On the need for pragmatics in the study of nominal compounding. Journal of Pragmatics 3. 45–50.10.1016/0378-2166(79)90003-1Suche in Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2009. Compounding and construction morphology. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 201–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010a. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010b. Construction morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1). 1–13.Suche in Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. forthcoming. Morphology in construction grammar. In Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Suche in Google Scholar
Borg, Emma. 2012. Pursuing semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Brendel, Elke, Jörg Meibauer & Markus Steinbach. 2011. Exploring the meaning of quotation. In Elke Brendel, Jörg Meibauer & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Understanding quotation, 1–33. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110240085Suche in Google Scholar
Cappelen, Herman & Ernie Lepore. 2005. Insensitive semantics: A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470755792Suche in Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470754603Suche in Google Scholar
Downing, Pamela. 1977. On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language 53. 810–842.10.2307/412913Suche in Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi. 1994. Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German, and other languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110877052Suche in Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, Rita & Jörg Meibauer. forthcoming. Indexicalism. In Konstanze Jungbluth & Federica da Milano (eds.), Manual of deixis in Romance languages. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Suche in Google Scholar
Fleischer, Wolfgang & Irmhild Barz. 42012. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Günther, Hartmut. 1981. N+N: Untersuchungen zur Produktivität eines deutschen Wortbildungstyps. In Leonhard Lipka & Hartmut Günther (eds.), Wortbildung, 258–280. Darmstadt: WBG.Suche in Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel & Erik Stei. 2011. Quotation marks and kinds of meaning. Arguments in favor of a pragmatic account. In Elke Brendel, Jörg Meibauer & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Understanding quotation, 161–193. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110240085.161Suche in Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2010. Anaphora, pragmatics of. In Louise Cummings (ed.), The pragmatics encyclopedia, 9–13. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2012a. The Oxford dictionary of pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2012b. Introduction: What is pragmatics? In Yan Huang (ed.), The Oxford dictionary of pragmatics, 1–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697960.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2008. Wozu Konstruktionen? Linguistische Berichte 213. 3–44.10.46771/2366077500213_1Suche in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2009. Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual semantics. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 105–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2010. The ecology of English noun-noun compounds. In Ray Jackendoff (ed.), Meaning and the lexicon, 413–451. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Lawrenz, Birgit (1996): Der Zwischen-den-Mahlzeiten-Imbiß und der Herren-der-Welt-Größenwahn: Aspekte der Struktur und Bildungsweisen von Phrasenkomposita im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 24. 1–15.10.1515/zfgl.1996.24.1.1Suche in Google Scholar
Lawrenz, Birgit. 2006. Moderne deutsche Wortbildung. Phrasale Wortbildung im Deutschen: Linguistische Untersuchung und sprachdidaktische Behandlung.Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.Suche in Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. 1960. The grammar of English nominalization. The Hague: Mouton.Suche in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1988. Phrasal compounds and the morphology-syntax-interface. Chicago Linguistic Society 24, Part II: Parasession on agreement in grammatical theory, 202–222.Suche in Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2009. A lexical semantic approach to compounding. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 78–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle & Sergio Scalise. 2007. The lexical integrity hypothesis in a new theoretical universe. In Geert Booij et al. (eds.), On-line proceedings of the fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM 5), Fréjus 15–18 September 2005, University of Bologna, 2007, 1–24. [URL http://mmm.lingue.unibo.it/]Suche in Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle & Pavol Štekauer (eds.) 2009. The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.) 2011. Semantics. An international handbook of natural language meaning. Vls. 1–3. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Suche in Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2003. Phrasenkomposita zwischen Wortsyntax und Lexikon. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 22(2). 153–188.10.1515/zfsw.2003.22.2.153Suche in Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2007. How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q-nteraction. Morphology 17. 233–259.10.1007/s11525-008-9118-1Suche in Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2012. What is a context? Theoretical and empirical evidence. In Rita Finkbeiner, Jörg Meibauer & Petra B. Schumacher (eds.), What is a context? Linguistic approaches and challenges, 9–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.196.04meiSuche in Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2013. Expressive compounds in German. Word Structure 6(1). 21–42.10.3366/word.2013.0034Suche in Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2014. Word-formation and contextualism. International Review of Pragmatics 6(1). 103–126.10.1163/18773109-00601006Suche in Google Scholar
Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia & Wolfgang U. Dressler. 2011. Morphopragmatics. In Louise Cummings (ed.), The pragmatics encyclopedia, 278–280. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Motsch, Wolfgang. 2004. Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen. 2. Aufl. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110906059Suche in Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 2012. The semantics of compounds. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics. An international handbook of natural language meaning. Vol. 2., 2120–2151. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Suche in Google Scholar
Pafel, Jürgen. 2011. Two dogmas on quotation. In Elke Brendel, Jörg Meibauer & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Understanding quotation, 249–276. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110240085.249Suche in Google Scholar
Pafel, Jürgen. this issue. Are phrasal compounds a challenge to lexical integrity?Suche in Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615382Suche in Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2010. Truth-conditional pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Schlücker, Barbara. 2013. Non-classifying compounds in German. Folia Linguistica 47(2). 449–480.10.1515/flin.2013.017Suche in Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2011. What’s in a compound? Journal of Linguistics 47(2). 481–507.10.1017/S0022226710000411Suche in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar
Trips, Carola. 2012. Empirical and theoretical aspects of phrasal compounds: against the “syntax explains it all” attitude. In Angela Ralli et al. (eds.), On-line proceedings of the Mediterranean Morphology Meeting 8, Cagliari, 2011, Morphology and the architecture of grammar, 322–346.Suche in Google Scholar
Trips, Carola. 2013. The relevance of phrasal compounds for the architecture of grammar. Unpublished manuscript.Suche in Google Scholar
Trips, Carola. 2014. How to account for the expressive nature of phrasal compounds in a conceptual-semantic framework. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 11(1). 33–61.Suche in Google Scholar
Trips, Carola. forthcoming. An analysis of phrasal compounds in the model of parallel architecture. In Pius ten Hacken (ed.), The semantics of compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory. 2004. Equatives and deferred reference. Language 80. 262–289.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331639.003.0004Suche in Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, Richard Sproat & Gail McKoon. 1991. A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language 67. 439–474.10.1353/lan.1991.0003Suche in Google Scholar
Weiskopf, Daniel A. 2007. Compound nominals, context, and compositionality. Synthese 156. 161–204.10.1007/s11229-005-3489-1Suche in Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 183–252.Suche in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- On “R” in phrasal compounds – a contextualist approach
- Phrasal compounds are compatible with Lexical Integrity
- Typological aspects of phrasal compounds in English, German, Turkish and Turkic
- Phrasal vs. morphological compounds: Insights from Modern Greek and Turkish
- Phrasal compounds in Turkish: Distinguishing citations from quotations
- Do Romance languages have phrasal compounds? A look at Italian
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- On “R” in phrasal compounds – a contextualist approach
- Phrasal compounds are compatible with Lexical Integrity
- Typological aspects of phrasal compounds in English, German, Turkish and Turkic
- Phrasal vs. morphological compounds: Insights from Modern Greek and Turkish
- Phrasal compounds in Turkish: Distinguishing citations from quotations
- Do Romance languages have phrasal compounds? A look at Italian
