Morphology (2007) 17:233259 DOI 10.

1007/s11525-008-9118-1 ORIGINAL PAPER

How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q-interaction

Jorg Meibauer

Received: 28 May 2007/Accepted: 28 January 2008/Published online: 2 February 2008 Springer ScienceBusiness Media B.V. 2008

Abstract For several reasons, phrasal compounds like I-told-you-so attitude are a typical case of a marginal type of word-formation: (i) integration of a phrase into the word should not be allowed (violation of the No Phrase Constraint), (ii) lexical integrity is weakened (violation of the Principle of Lexical Integrity), (iii) they display an expressive avour typical of marginal morphology. Using the mixed model of Ackema and Neeleman (2004) that allows for insertion from phrasal syntax into word syntax (Generalized Insertion) it is shown that phrasal compounds are by no means marginal from a purely theoretical point of view. However, the expressivity of marginal compounds has to be explained. Drawing on experimental data, it is shown that ad hoc phrasal compounds are understandable and witty to a high degree. These results are explained within the Presumptive Meanings approach of Levinson (2000) that develops the notion of Generalized Conversational Implicature (GCI). It is shown that the expressivity of ad hoc phrasal compounds stems from a word-level conict between observing the I-principle (that favours the enrichment of underdetermined structures) on the one hand, and the Q-principle (that requires maximal information) on the other. Keywords Phrasal compounds Marginal morphology Word syntax Morphopragmatics Implicatures

1 Introduction As a rst approximation, one might say that marginal word formation is somehow distinct from regular word formation. Another way of expressing the

J. Meibauer (&) German Department, Johannes Gutenberg-Universitat Mainz, 55099 Mainz, Germany e-mail: meibauer@uni-mainz.de

123

234

J. Meibauer

same idea is to conceive marginal word formation as something that is peripheral to the grammatical system of word formation. Following Dressler (2000), marginal morphology covers morphological phenomena that either transgress the external boundaries of the morphological module or the internal boundaries between morphological submodules.1 Clitics and Umlaut are, for example, morpho-phonological phenomena, i.e. the boundary between morphology and phonology is touched. In the case of the comparative, the innitive, and the participle, the boundary between inection and word formation is touched. Some morphopragmatic phenomena like diminution and augmentation (,,evaluative morphology, cf. Stump 1993; Bauer 1997), as well as ,,affective or ,,expressive morphology (cf. Zwicky and Pullum 1987) possibly fall under the heading of marginal morphology, too. Furthermore, lack of productivity is another feature that is typical of marginal morphology (Dressler 2000, p. 7). Although this gives a very sketchy picture, we may dene a marginal type of word formation as in (1): (1) Marginal word formation A certain type of word formation (possibly) is marginal, if it transgresses the boundaries of modules, is evaluative or expressive, and lacks productivity. Let us shortly comment on each of these points. It goes without saying that phrasal compounds, understood as types of word formation of the type YP+X, with YP modifying X semantically, transgress the boundaries of modules. The crucial question is, of course, what that latter characterisation amounts to. We will discuss a certain modular view, the mixed approach of Ackema and Neeleman (2004), in the course of our paper. Phrasal compounds certainly are not evaluative, at least if evaluative morphology is understood as in Bauer (1997), where it is restricted to diminution and augmentation and certain effects of melioration and pejoration, as well as concomitant properties of intensication, politeness, and modesty. While evaluative morphology may have expressive properties, it is nevertheless part of the ,,central morphology in an adults morphological system (Bauer 1997, p. 563). Expressivity, so Bauer reasons, may be not so much a property of the system, but a property of use.

1 Note that Dressler (2000) draws a distinction between marginal morphology and extragrammatical morphology, the latter being divided into metamorphology (i.e., deliberate reexion and production of morphology), premorphology (i.e., early morphology in language acquisition) and paramorphology (e.g., clipping, blends, reduplication, back formation, etc.). Paramorphological processes are not subject of a separate morphological component, they basically are an interface phenomenon.

123

How marginal are phrasal compounds?

235

What is, then, expressive morphology? Here is one classical denition: (2) Expressive morphology ,,Expressive morphology is associated with an expressive, playful, poetic or simply ostentatious effect of some kind. (Zwicky and Pullum 1987, p. 335) This denition gives a certain hint at what expressive morphology is, but has the obvious disadvantage of being partly circular. I will argue that ad hoc phrasal compounds are expressive indeed, expressivity being dened in a specic manner. The notion of productivity has recently been the subject of several studies (cf., among others, Plag 1999; Bauer 2001; Scherer 2005). One important view is the assumption put forward by Harald Baayen and collaborators that the status of an item as a Hapax legomenon can be seen as an indication of productivity (cf. Baayen and Renouf 1996). Since in most texts phrasal compounds are Hapaxes, it may be ventured that phrasal compounds are productive. However, phrasal compounds seem to be marked in relation to their more common sisters, the N+N-compounds. The pattern of phrasal compounding is principally available for the language user, but it appears to be not very protable, i.e. there are constraints for the exploitation of that pattern. Furthermore, the amount of lexicalized phrasal compounds is very restricted (cf. Bauer 2001). To sum up: There is some initial evidence for the impression that phrasal compounds are marginal. However, I will show that phrasal compounds are not so marginal as it seems at rst sight. At least in a mixed approach such as the one of Ackema and Neeleman (2004), they are totally regular. Their expressive properties, so I will argue, may be derived with reference to pragmatic principles being operative on word level; four morphological experiments are discussed which support this claim. Thus, an explanation for the apparent markedness of phrasal compounds is proposed. Finally, it is concluded that a system such as Ackema and Neelemans, is in need for interaction with pragmatics. 2 Phrasal compounds and generalized insertion 2.1 Properties of phrasal compounds Phrasal compounds exist in several languages. Typical Examples in English, Afrikaans, and Dutch are given in (3) (cf. Booij 2002, Scalise and Guevara 2005, p. 178, Lieber (2005), p. 377), and German examples in (4) (cf. Meibauer 2003): (3) a. Engl. a [[oor-of-a-birdcage] taste] an [[ate-too-much] headache]

b. Afrik. [[God is dod] theologie] ,god-is-dead theology c. Du. [[lach of ik schiet] humor] ,laugh-or-I-shoot humour

123

236

J. Meibauer

(4)

a. die [[Rote-SockenNP]-Kampagne] ,the red-socks campaign b. der [[Zehn-TageNP]-Urlaub] ,the ten-days holydays c. die [[Affe-auf-SchleifsteinNP]-Position] ,the ape-on-grindstone position d. der [[Vater-und-SohnNP]-Konikt] ,the father-and-son conict e. die [[Vor-PremierenPP]-Fahrt] ` ,the before-premiere trip f. die [[Langer-lebenVP]-Diat] ,the longer-live diet g. der [[Muss-das-denn-seinCP]-Blick] ,the must-that-[MP]-be gaze

As can be seen in (4), all of the major phrasal categories may function as YP. The left-hand members of the compound display the normal stress pattern (Wiese 1996). Thus we have pairs as in (5), where (5a) displays the phrase vor Ort, while (5b) shows the noun Vorort: (5) a. Vor-Ort-Tarif (PP+N-phrasal compound) before-place tariff ,local tariff b. Vorort-Tarif suburb tariff ,suburban tariff (N+N-compound)

The question arises whether there are any constraints for the left-hand member of the compound (i.e., the non-head). We will focus here on three constraints for the left-hand member of the phrasal compound (see Lieber 1988) that are discussed in the literature: phrasal compounds are right-headed, heads are nominal, NP only (i.e., no DP).

The rst constraint is borne out, at least when considering German data. Rightheadedness is a typical feature of German compounds, and generally found in the Germanic languages. The second constraint is somewhat more problematic. Following Lieber (1982, 210 pp.), non-nominal heads as in (6ac) are generally excluded. Adjectival heads, however, are said to be marginally acceptable.2
2

And indeed, an anonymous reviewer nds (6c) acceptable.

123

How marginal are phrasal compounds?

237

(6)

a. *[competition-of-the-month] inP b. *[Charles-and-Di] watchV c. *[third-month-of-the-year] coldA d. *[der Mitte-des-Lebens]-inP the middle-of-the-life in e. *[Angelina-und-Brad]-sehenV; *[am Abend]-wartenV Angelina-and-Brad watch; in-the-evening wait f. *[auf-den-Sohn]-stolzA; [Blut-und-Boden]-mystischA ,of-the-son proud; blood-and-soil mystical g. ein [funf-Stufen]-integriertesA/Part Filtersystem ,a ve-steps integrated ltering system

In German, there appears to be one exception, namely adjectives with a nonhead that cannot be understood as a complement of the head, e.g. Blutund-Boden-mystisch in (6f). Moreover, we nd deverbal adjectives (participles) as heads, as in (6g).3 Lawrenz (1996, p. 7) comments that phrasal compounds with an adjectival head are quite rare in comparison with their nominal head counterparts. Because our focus is on the latter type, I will not go into a more detailed discussion here. Thirdly, consider the ,No DP!-constraint. As Lawrenz (1996, 2006) has shown, only NPs are allowed as a non-head: (7) a. ein/der *[die-graue-Schlafe]-Effekt a/the [the-grey-temple] effect ,effect (on women) caused by grey temples (of men) b. ein/der *[eine-graue-Schlafe]-Effekt c. ein/der *[die grauen-Schlafen]-Effekt d. ein/der [ graue-Schlafen]-Effekt Usually, this is explained by the assumption that the non-heads must not be referential. However, where the non-head is a xed expression, DPs are possible, e.g.: (8) a. dieFEM [der-schone-Rheingau]-LabereiFEM ,the [the-beautiful-Rheingau] talk b. dieFEM Ein-Kerl-wie-ich-VisagenFEM.PL (Wiese 1996) ,the a-guy-like-me faces Therefore, the constraint appears to be semantic in nature (cf. Ackema and Neeleman 2004, p. 129 who assume that an explanation for the DP-constraint will be found ,,in possible semantics of words and phrases).
3

This example is taken from Lawrenz (2006, p. 7).

123

238

J. Meibauer

2.2 No phrase constraint and quotational hypothesis After having reviewed some of the data, let us now turn to theoretical aspects of phrasal compounds. Phrasal compounds, this is for sure, are a sort of morphological provocation. They run against the No phrase constraint (a selfviolating name, as Spencer 2005, p. 83 notes) originally proposed by Botha (1981), as rendered in (9): (9) No phrase constraint No phrase may appear within complex words.

It is clear that (9) is immediately relevant for one of the most intriguing questions in theoretical morphology, namely where word formation can be located in the system. A useful taxonomy of basic approaches to that question has been put forward by Borer (1998). She draws a distinction between linear (derivational), syntactic, and mixed models. Linear models accept the validity of the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis, a principle that has the effect of preventing syntactic rules from looking into and operating on the internal structure of words, as Lieber and Scalise (2007, p. 1) put it. Linear models thus assume that the output of the word formation component is the input for the syntactic component. If that is correct, phrasal compounds simply should not occur. But they do. Syntactic models assume that word formations may be described with syntactic means. There is no autonomous component of word formation, and thus the problem with phrasal compounds does not arise in the rst place. Mixed models admit the interaction between syntax and word formation in so far as syntactic processes may have access to word formation and vice versa. One prominent linear (derivational) model is the Strong Lexicalist model, where Morphologyvia Lexical Insertionis the input for Syntax (cf. Borer 1998; Scalise and Guevara 2005). Lieber (1988, 1992) argued that such a model cannot explain why phrases appear within complex words, concluding from this that Strong Lexicalism is wrong, and that morphology is syntax indeed; this went together with the assumption of an universal X-bar-scheme being valid for both syntax and morphology. Several criticisms were put forward against this approach, e.g. the modication of the (syntactic) X-bar-scheme so that it could handle word formations, and the fact that selection cannot be described in an uniform manner (cf. Sproat 1993; Ruszkiewicz 1997; Borer 1998). Wiese (1996), in an attempt to rescue Lexicalism, argued persuasively that the non-heads of phrasal compounds are quotations (cf. Bresnan and Mchombo 1995): (10) Quotational hypothesis Non-heads of phrasal compounds are quotations.

Because they are quotations, they are not really used, but only mentioned. And therefore, phrasal compounds are no real challenge for Strong Lexicalism.

123

How marginal are phrasal compounds?

239

Intrusions into words such as material from other languages, signs or gestures are quite normal, but are excluded from the operation of the language modules. (11) a. die no-future-Jugendlichen ,the no-future kids b. this rien-ne-va-plus statement c. this [gesture for someone with big ears] attitude d. the @-sign Accordingly, Wiese (1996, p. 188) proposed the following structure, the quotation marks showing the quotational character of the non-head: (12)
Y0 X0 X0

NP

Note that the left constituent is no longer an XP: it has been converted somehow into a lexical category. Exactly how this happens remains mysterious. A tempting solution may be seen in the approach of Gallmann (1990) illustrated in (13): (13) a. [any string] N b. [NPsaure Gurken] sour cucumbers = pickled cucumbers [NSaure Gurken] [N[NSauregurken][Nzeit] pickled cucumbers time ,silly season (nominalisation) (composition)

The basic observation is that nearly any string of elements (,,beliebiger Sprachausschnitt) may be converted into a neuter noun. If this noun enters into composition, the phenomenon of the phrasal compounds dissolves into thin air. However, this approach, appealing as it is, faces several problems: First of all, the notion of ,,beliebiger Sprachausschnitt is not properly dened, because it is not a lexical, phrasal or functional category. Second, the rule (13a) overgenerates, because the non-heads of phrasal compounds are always XPs. Thirdly, this approach draws a strong parallel between phrasal compounds and N+N-compounds, and this blurs the distinction between them.

123

240

J. Meibauer

Let us come back to Wieses quotational approach. This approach was clear enough, but was it right? A closer inspection of German data reveals that the non-heads are either lexicalized or not lexicalized (cf. Meibauer 2003). Following Jackendoff (1997), it is assumed that the non-heads in (14) are elements of the lexicon. (14) a. (Idioms) b. (Cliches) c. (Titles) d. (Quotes) e. (Binomials) Leck-mich-am-Arsch-Bullen ,kiss-my-ass cops Hier-kriegt-man-alles-was-man-braucht-Seminar ,here-you-get-all-you-need seminar Romeo-und-Julia-Gefuhl ,Romeo-and-Juliet feeling Keine-Macht-den-Drogen-Schmarrn ,no-power-to-drugs bullshit Freund-oder-Feind-Philosophie ,friend-or-foe philosophy

f. (Loan phrases) Fast-Food-Kino ,fast-food cinema g. (Quantity expressions) 630-Mark-Gesetz ,630-Mark law

If these non-heads are elements of the lexicon, they may be inserted into word structures. This should pose no problem, neither for derivational nor for lexicalist approaches. Let us now consider non-lexicalized non-heads: (15) a. Irgendetwas-stimmt-mit-dem-Jungen-nicht-Blick ,something-is-wrong-with-the-boy look b. Teenager-nden-sich-und-ihre-Liebe-Prinzip ,teenagers-nd-themselves-and-their-love principle c. Zap-und-weg-Fernsehzeiten ,zap-and-away TV times d. 90-Tonnen-Steak ,90-tons steak These non-heads are freshly produced, they are not part of the lexicon. Therefore, the quotational approach fails. To be sure, there are some examples where a quotational approach seems right, i.e. there exists an original phrasal utterance that is quoted (be it lexicalized or not). But these cases are rather marginal. I conclude from the foregoing discussion, as far as phrasal compounds are concerned, that a model is called for that allows for intermodular

123

How marginal are phrasal compounds?

241

access. This is also the point of Lieber and Scalises (2007) recent review of the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis. They propose the Limited Access Principle saying that Morphological Merge can select on a language specic basis to merge with a phrasal/sentential unit, and there is no Syntactic Merge below the word level (Lieber and Scalise 2007, p. 21). Hence, the idea that syntax and morpology are separate (or are normally blind to each other, as Lieber and Scalise 2007, p. 21 put it) is upheld, but intermodular access is limited. In the remainder of the paper, I concentrate on the mixed approach of Ackema and Neeleman (2004, 2007), because it allows for insertion of syntactic material into morphological material, captures insertion directly from the lexicon, and is not forced to assume a quotational view. Furthermore, because it has a strong modular architecture, it is promising in its potential to determine an interface to pragmatics, a point I will come back to in the nal discussion. 2.3 Generalized insertion In this section, I will give a sketch of Ackema and Neelemans (2004) account of phrasal compounds, and I will point out some problems that arise within in their approach.4 Ackema and Neeleman make a distinction between lexicon and syntax. The lexicon is conceived of as a list of syntactic, morphological and phonological irregularities. Phrasal Syntax and Word Syntax are independent structure-generating systems that work in parallel and are fully symmetrical (Ackema and Neeleman 2004, p. 123). Ackema and Neeleman (2004) dene a very general process of insertion (i.e. generalized insertion) which is not sensitive to the nature of the representations it connects. More specically, insertion is an irreducible relation of feature matching between a node of a representation and another node of representation; it is unselective with respect to the kind of representation (syntax or morphology) and the kind of node (terminal or non-terminal); nally, it is conditioned by inclusiveness, the principle of inclusiveness stating that all features of a node must be traceable back to lexical entries.

4 For more general objections, see Scalise and Lieber (2007, pp. 1516) who point out that Ackema and Neelemans notions of competition and insertion are not restrictive enough. Specically, the alignment of semantic irregularity with morphological derivation and semantic regularity with syntactic derivation is an arbitrary move on A&Ns part, without which the notion of competition would not work. (Scalise and Lieber 2007, p. 16).

123

242

J. Meibauer

(16)

Generalized insertion and the modular organization of the grammar (Ackema and Neeleman 2004, p. 130)
LEXICON

SYNTAX Phrasal Syntax Word Syntax

phrasal syntactic structure INSERTION COMPETITION

word syntactic structure

From the six types of insertion that are possible in this model, we concentrate on the insertion from phrasal syntax into word syntax (for a treatment of insertion from phrasal syntax into phrasal syntaxas in the case of parentheticalssee Meibauer and Steinbach 2007).5 Ackema and Neeleman (2004) give the structure under (17a) for a NP+Xphrasal compound. The arrow indicates insertion. Its rival, the building block theory, has the obvious disadvantage to display syntax below zero, cf. (17b), in so far as the NP (a maximal projection) is a proper part of the N0. Note that a building block theory is, according to Ackema and Neeleman (2004, p. 90), every theory that views insertion as the use of morphological objects as building blocks in the syntactic representations. However, as they argue, lexical items are not literally inserted into terminals, but certain features of the lexical entry are matched against terminal nodes. (17)
(a) Matching theory
N

(b) Building block theory

N

NP

NP AP
5

A N

The six types are: (i) Lexicon Phrasal Syntax (listed words), (ii) Lexicon Word Syntax (ad hoc complex words), (iii) Phrasal Syntax Word Syntax, (phrasal compounds) (iv) Word Syntax Phrasal Syntax (ad hoc complex words), (v) Phrasal Syntax Phrasal Syntax (parentheticals), (vi) Word Syntax Word Syntax (expletive insertion).

123

How marginal are phrasal compounds?

243

Which are the features that may play a role in the process of feature matching indicated by the arrow in (17a)? I guess that Ackema and Neeleman think of categorial features. Thus, in (17a) the feature [+nominal] may be matched. But this presupposes that the phrasal compound is a genuine N+N-compound. Even if this is so, the question arises which features have to be checked in the case of PP-, VP-, and CP-phrasal compounds. There is no feature that allows for checking when the non-head is N and the inserted/checked phrase is a CP.6 Arguably, a ,,building block theory Ackema and Neeleman argue against is more plausible here, if it simply assumes that the respective ,,building block is inserted without any feature checking mechanism.7 In line with standard approaches to lexical integrity, Ackema and Neeleman assume that phrasal compounds do not allow for binding and movement (=identicational functions), but they allow for thematic functions and negative polarity (=nonidenticational functions). (18) Properties of phrasal compounds (Ackema and Neeleman 2004) Identicational *Movement *Binding Nonidenticational Thematic Negative polarity

Phrasal compound Licensing Nonlicensing

Ackema and Neeleman dene a function as identicational, ,,if its satisfaction implies that the antecedent and the terminal in which the function originates are equated in certain respects. (Ackema and Neeleman 2004, p. 111). A function is nonlicensing, if there is no other element that motivates or requires a certain relation. More specically, ,,satisfaction of a binding function (a nonlicensing function) has the effect that the antecedent and the terminal share a single reference [...]. (Ackema and Neeleman 2004, p. 111). Anaphorical interpretation of the whole word or anaphorical binding within that word should be possible. However, there are cases of anaphorical binding into the non-heads of phrasal compounds (Lawrenz 1996; Meibauer 2003):8 (19) a. Damals wurde die Gotti-ist-tot-Thematik in allen Zeitungen diskutiert, aber wir glaubten nicht daran, dass eri tot ist. ,In those days the god-is-dead subject was discussed in all newspapers, but we did not believe that he was dead.

6 7

A similar observation is made in Scalise and Lieber (2007, p. 15).

I do not see that there is any convincing solution to this problem within Ackema and Neelemans approach. But, as I tried to show, the idea that left-hand members of phrasal compounds are essentially of the category N, seems problematic, too. Thus, the empirical provocation of phrasal compounds is still with us.
8 As an anonymous reviewer remarked, (19b, c) are not necessarily anaphorical, because the phrase could expressing a general attitude. However, an anaphorical reading appears possible.

123

244

J. Meibauer

b. Doch mit der Ichi-geb-Gas-ichi-will-Spa-Politik des liberalen Wirbelwindsi allein durfte der Kampf um Platz drei nicht zu gewinnen sein. (Wiesbadener Kurier, 38/2000) ,Though with the I-step-on-the-accelerator-I-want-fun politics of the liberal whirlwind alone, the ght for place three is not likely to win. c. Seit geraumer Zeit grassiert unter Prominenteni eine neue Krankheit: Das ,,Ichi-lass-mich-fotograeren-und-kassier-dafur-Fieber. (Stern, 30.11.2000) ,Recently, a new disease takes hold of VIPs: The I-let-them-takephotos-and-I-take-the-money fever. d. Die Rote-Augeni-Reduktion ist durchaus wunschenswert, weil die Fotograerten damiti wie Zombies aussehen. ,The red-eyes reduction is desirable because the photographed persons look like zombies with them. e. Das Verdrangte-Aggressioneni-Syndrom wurde immer wieder geleugnet, aber plotzlich kommen siei dann doch hoch. (Marga Reis, p.c.) ,The suppressed-agressions syndrome was repeatedly denied, but suddenly they come back again. f. Ich nehme Zwischen-den-Mahlzeiteni-Imbisse ein, weil mich danni haug ein Hungergefuhl uberkommt. (Lawrenz 1996, p. 8) ,I take between-the-meals snacks, because then I often get a hungry feeling. This shows, then, that phrasal compounds do not behave like normal words, because they are more transparent for anaphorical binding. Arguably, the anaphorical relation comes about through some process of accommodation, possibly of a pragmatic nature. However, cases like (20), with reexives, appear to be acceptable, too:9 (20) So eine Bewunderung-fur-sich-selbsti-Attitude macht Rudigeri nicht sympathischer. Such an admiration-for-himself attitude does not make Rudiger more symphatic.

Ackema and Neeleman stress that their theory allows for the head being matched by a phrase. This is the case with a special type of phrasal compound
This example has been coined following Ackema and Neeleman (2004, p. 125, footnote. 11) who argue that examples like Zon [[bewondering voor zichzelf] achtig] gevoel maakt niemand sympathieker meaning ,Such a feeling resembling admiration for oneself makes no one any more sympathetic are counterexamples for the claim that there is binding into phrasal non-heads. I do not see why this example should rule out the positive example Harry heeft een [[bewondering voor zichzelf] achtig] gevoel also given by Ackema and Neeleman. For further examples, see Lawrenz (2006, p. 74).
9

123

How marginal are phrasal compounds?

245

found in Dutch. The phrasal heads cannot be analysed as compounds ,,since the adjective they contain can be inected and they have phrasal rather than compound stress. (Ackema and Neeleman 2004, p. 125) Data like these are particularly interesting because here the intuitions about the features that are to be matched are clearer than with the non-head position (Ad Neeleman, p.c.). Note in addition that only NPs are inserted into the head position of the phrasal compound.10 (21)
X N N NP AP N

nmaak imitation

mobiele mobile

telefon phone

(22)

a. [namaak [mobiele telefoon]] (imitation mobile phone) b. [rot [luie stoel]] (rotten comfy chair) c. zon [zenuwen [elektrische viool]] (such-a nerves electric violin , the type of electric violin that gets you on your nerves) d. dat [kanker [Juinenese accent]] (that cancer Juinen accent ,that bloody Juinen accent) e. [wereld [rode wijn]] (world red wine ,superb red wine)

For Ackema and Neeleman, the moral is obvious: ,,This observation appears to further disqualify the building block theory of insertion. It is unlikely that phrases can project words. In X-bar theoretical terms this would require a decrease in bar level. Data like these can only be accommodated by a theory that allows for insertion in morphological terminals. (Ackema and Neeleman 2004, p. 124) A morphological construction like those in (22) is ungrammatical in German, z.B. dieser *Scheie-kolsche-Akzent (compare 22e) or der *Welt-roteWein (compare 22f). However, Lawrenz (2006, pp. 5052) draws attention to

10 A further example given by Ackema and Neeleman is [ex [aanstormend talent]] (ex up-and-coming talent). I agree with the observation of one anonymous reviewer that this looks, because of the prex ex-, like a phrasal derivation.

123

246

J. Meibauer

rare cases like eine de-facto-[groe-Koalition] (a de facto grand coalition) and ihre Lieblings-[dumme-Talkshow] (her favourite silly talk show] that have a comparable structure. To sum up: While these data may support the (categorial) feature checking approach to insertion, the problem with the features to be checked in the canonical cases with CP, PP or VP in rst position, still remains. Moreover, an explanation for the special binding properties of phrasal compounds has to be found.

3 Expressivity and generalized implicature: a morphological experiment To my knowledge, the reason for the coinage of phrasal compounds has not got any attention in the literature, except for occasional remarks on playfulness, etc. However, a complete approach to phrasal compounds should offer an explanation for their markedness. This holds for Ackema and Neelemans approach, too. On the one hand, the very existence of phrasal compounds supports the theory of generalized insertion; on the other hand, it is not explained within this theory why phrasal compounds are marked in relation to the more common word formation mechanisms of compounding. An attempt to nd an explanation leads us to a domain not considered in Ackema and Neelemans approach, namely morphopragmatics. In a broad perspective, expressivity is a language property that has to do with emotions or emotion-related evaluations. Several linguistic phenomena may fall under this heading, among them intonation, swear words, interjections, expressive sentence types, expressive speech acts (Foolen 1997, pp. 2122), and, closer to home, evaluative morphology, as connected with melioration and pejoration, diminution and augmentation, and intensication (Bauer 1997). While it could be argued that some expressive elements, such as swear words and interjections have a lexical basis, like evaluative afxes in general, other expressive devices are of a structural kind. For example, the expressive meaning of exclamatives has to do with the interplay of structural devices such as verb position, wh-elements, and intonational patterns. (cf. Zanuttini and Portner 2003). I would like to argue that expressivity in phrasal compounds is of this latter, structural kind. The intrusion of syntax into word formation may be explained when pragmatic principles are taken into account. Our starting point is the observation that, with N+N-compounds, contextual enrichment is the standard case. This has been shown in a number of studies (e.g., Downing 1977; Meyer 1993; Ryder 1994). Every N+N-compound displays an array of possible semantic relations between the non-head and the head. Therefore, N+N-compounds are systematically underdetermined. Their extension can only be determined when the context of utterance is taken into consideration. This phenomenon may be described within the theory of generalized conversational implicatures (or GCI, for short) that assumes three principles to be operative in the constitution of presumptive meaning (cf. Meibauer 2006 for a survey). The I-principle requiring that the speaker be economical while the

123

How marginal are phrasal compounds?

247

recipient should enrich the informational content is crucial here (Levinson 2000, p. 114f.): (23) I-principle Speakers maxim: the maxim of Minimization. Say as little as necessary; that is, produce the minimal linguistic information sufcient to achieve your communicational ends (bearing Q in mind). Recipients corollary: the Enrichment Rule. Amplify the informational content of the speakers utterance, by nding the most specic interpretation, up to what you judge to be the speakers m-intended [=meaning-intended] point, unless the speaker has broken the maxim of Minimization by using a marked or prolix expression. [...] Take the coinage Fahnchensommer as an example. If presented in isolation, all one can conclude from this N+N-compound is that it denotes a summer (Sommer) that has something to do with little ags (Fahnchen). Whether it is the summer 2006 where the Soccer World Cup has taken place in Germany, whether it (only) denotes a summer where little ags were somehow relevant (they were waved, they were sold, they werein Chinaproduced, etc.), all these informations must be inferred from the context of utterance. It goes without saying that further processes of lexicalization and institutionalization may lead to a xed meaning of the respective compound (Hohenhaus 2005). In phrasal compounds, the non-head is a phrase. Surely, phrases are, due to their complex syntactic and lexical structure, more explicit as well as more informative than words. Hence someone who uses a phrasal compound observes the Q-principle (Levinson 2000, p. 76): (24) Q-principle Speakers maxim: Do not provide a statement that is informationally weaker than your knowledge of the world allows, unless providing an informationally stronger statement would contravene the I-principle. Specically, select the informationally strongest paradigmatic alternate that is consistent with the facts. Recipients corollary: Take it that the speaker made the strongest statement consistent with what he knows [...]. If a speaker chooses a phrasal compound instead of an alternative N+Ncompound then, obviously, the observance of the Q-principle is more important to him than the observance of the I-principle. Take CP-phrasal compounds as an example. Why should they be more informative than a comparable N+N-compound? The rst reason is that sentences have a set of entailments. Thus the basis for inferences is much bigger than with words. Secondly, sentences contain propositions that may be truthconditionally evaluated. Recipients are in the position to evaluate the truth

123

248

J. Meibauer

value of a (declarative) CP contained in the phrasal compound. Thirdly, note that sentences, when uttered, are the bearers of illocutions. Accordingly, phrasal compounds may be partly interpreted in illocutionary terms. For example, in the phrasal compound let-us-stay-friends platitude, the CP is related to a directive illocution. Furthermore, if a speaker knows that there is a lexicalized construction, e.g. a title or a cliche, or a quotation that enhances informativity, then he should use it. This exactly corresponds to the requirement select the informationally strongest paradigmatic alternate that is consistent with the facts contained in Levinsons Q-principle. Why, then, are phrasal compounds expressive? The answer is that it is exactly the conict between the I-principle and the Q-principle that triggers the expressive effect. Therefore, the following hypothesis is put forward: (25) Expressivity in CP phrasal compounds Expressivity of phrasal compounds stems from a conict between a principle that requires enrichment of a minimal and underdetermined structure in normal compounds (e.g. the I principle) and a principle that requires maximal informativity (e.g. the Q principle) and leads to the integration of a phrase into word structure. In order to verify this hypothesis, four experiments were conducted. In Task I, 75 students with an average age of 23; 2 (59 males, 16 females) were asked to evaluate a phrasal compound in comparison with several alternatives in two dimensions, namely understandability and wittiness. Understandability is a property that has to do with the conict between the Q-principle and the I-principle. The prediction is that understandability is diminished, if the effort of enrichment is too big. If, on the other hand, a certain construction is too explicit, this will go together with a reduction of wittiness.11 Wittiness has been chosen as a property that corresponds with expressivity on word level. Let us shortly reconsider the statement of Zwicky and Pullum here, according to whom ,,expressive morphology is associated with an expressive, playful, poetic or simply ostentatious effect of some kind. (Zwicky and Pullum 1987, p. 335). Playful and poetic effects arise in certain contexts of use, e.g. in word play or lyrics. The same is true of ostentatious effects, ostentation being connected with a certain context of utterance. But what should count as an inherently expressive complex word? When considering the word level, it seems that wittiness is indeed an important feature here. Witty complex words, so I will assume, are those that are either deliberately irregular, or are regular, but show special kinds of word formation processes. The rst case is exemplied by the German unkaputtbar (literally un-brokenable, meaning undestroyable), a word formation that is principally ruled out, because the sufx -bar attaches solely to verbal stems. However, this irregular
11 Note that this is not necessarily so: In some contexts, overinformativity, redundancy, etc. may be witty, too.

123

How marginal are phrasal compounds?

249

word formation, coined in the context of an advertising campaign and related to newly introduced plastic bottles of an American soft-drinks producer, became established (Hohenhaus 2005, p. 369. The second case, i.e. regular, but nevertheless witty types of word formationsbesides (some types of) phrasal compounds , are expletive inxations like un-fuckin-believable, abso-bloodylutely, that are, in the parlance of Ackema and Neeleman (2004, p. 131, footnote. 14), cases of insertion from morphology into morphology. Moreover, phrasal derivations as in the German fad around 2000, where coinages such as Bei-Mami-Wascher (laundry-at-Moms-doer) denoted wimpy or pedantic persons or do-gooders (Hohenhaus 2005, pp. 369370). Other witty types of word-formations are shortenings as in SMS language, acronyms with an ambiguous reading, reduplications such as nodnod, wavewave (Hohenhaus 2005, p. 370), and blends such as Ehrgeizhals (made up of Ehrgeiz ambition plus Geizhals skinint). An analysis of these types along the lines of the present proposal (via the operation of pragmatic principles) is tempting, but cannot be done here.12 It goes without saying that phrasal compounds are not jokes. However, there is a parallel with jokes that appears to have to do with incongruity, a notion that is fundamental for a general theory of humour (cf. Ritchie 2004, p. 46ff.).13 Incongruity on the word level means that it is unusual to combine a phrasal meaning with a word meaning. When this happens, this is quite surprising in view of the amount of already existing N+N-compounds on the one hand and the ease of coining new ones on the other hand (roughly, their productivity). The prediction was, then, that all the alternatives to the phrasal compound would be considered as witty to a lesser degree. In addition, it was suspected that the property of expressivity would be hard to evaluate in isolation, whereas the evaluation of a witty text should pose no problem. The material used in Task I was a short authentic text that contained an ad hoc phrasal compound with a CP as non-head. (26) Wahrend diese Zeilen entstehen, werden mehrere hundert laminierte ,,Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Kartchen hinter die Hubscheibenwischer alter Mittelklasse-Mercedes geklemmt. Dabei wurden deren Besitzer viel lieber an den freundlichen jungen Mann verkaufen, der sich so ruhrend um seine anderen alten Autos kummert. [Youngtimer 2/06, S. 55]

12 An anonymous reviewer asks whether there arent cases of expressive morphology that are not witty but rather irritating or annoying. If this is the case, I suspect that this has to do with certain (more or less normative) expectations of hearers or readers. From the point of the speaker or writer, it appears to be wittiness what is aimed at. This holds for the case of shm-reduplication discussed in Zwicky and Pullum (1987), too.

Ritchie (2004) points out that the assumption that humour has to do with incongruity and its resolution is widely shared. The details vary, of course, with different theoretical approaches. The gist of the idea may be illustrated with the following quote from J. Beattie put forward in 1776 (Ritchie 2004, p. 46): ,,Laughter arises from the view of two or more inconsistent, unsuitable, or incongruous parts or circumstances, considered as united in one complex object or assemblage, or as acquiring a sort of mutual relation from the peculiar manner in which the mind takes notice of them.

13

123

250

J. Meibauer

While these lines are written, several hundreds of laminated buy-your-car cards are stuck behind the lift windscreen wipers of old middle class Mercedes. Yet their owners would prefer to buy their cars to the friendly young man who is so very solicitous towards his other old cars. Note that there is no conventional expression for the respective little cards. In the context the writer has several stylistic alternatives, some morphological, some syntactic. (27) a. Autokartchen car cardDIM b. Kaufkartchen buyV/N cardDIM c. Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Kartchen buy 1.PS.SG.-your-car cardDIM d. Kartchen ,,Kaufe Ihr Auto cardDIM ,,buy 1..PS.SG. your car e. Kartchen mit der Aufschrift ,,Kaufe Ihr Auto cardDIM with the writing ,,buy 1.PS.SG. your car f. Kartchen, auf denen ,,Kaufe Ihr Auto steht cardDIM on which ,,buy 1.PS.SG. your car is written The rst three test items in (27ac) are complex words, the last three in (27df) are syntactic constructions. Autokartchen and Kaufkartchen are underdeter mined in comparison with Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Kartchen, but may denote the same entity, when appropriately enriched in the respective context (which is not the case here). The phrasal compound in (27c) is as explicit as the syntactic construction in (27d), the main difference being that (27c) has a right-hand morphological head, whereas (27d) shows a left-hand syntactic head. The remaining test items are syntactically more complex, because they contain a PP-expansion or a relative sentence. It follows, then, that the phrasal compound appears to be a good compromise between explicitness on the one hand and simplicity (in comparison to alternative syntactic constructions) on the other. The testing procedure was as follows: The students were told that they should imagine a situation in which it were their task to write a text that is understandable and witty at the same time. They were then asked to evaluate the text in (26) with regard to the original version (with the phrasal compound) and its other ve variants. An exemplar of such a little card was shortly presented to the students. They had to evaluate all test items on a ve point scale with 1 symbolizing a high degree of understandability/wittiness and 5 symbolizing a low degree. Students were asked to read all the texts in advance and to make use of the full scale when judging the sentences. The sequences of texts

123

How marginal are phrasal compounds?

251

were varied in the test materials. The results can be seen in the following Table 1:
Table 1 Task I. CP-phrasal compound and rivals in context. N=75 (F 59, M 16, 23;2)
1,0
understandability wittiness

1,17

1,07 1,25

1,5

1,84
2,0

2,16
2,5

3,0

3,5

3,51 3,95 4,08 4,45

3,55

4,0

4,5

4,4 4,55

5,0 Autokrtchen Kaufkrtchen Krtchen "Kaufe Ihr Auto" Krtchen mit der Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Krtchen Krtchen, auf denen "Kaufe Ihr Auto" steht Aufschrift "Kaufe Ihr Auto"

Firstly, we consider the alternatives to the phrasal compound on word level: The N+N-compound Autokartchen receives the lowest value for understandability (4,45) and a relatively low value for wittiness (3,95). The V+N-com pound Kaufkartchen does better, since understandability gets 4,08 and wittiness 3,51. It may be asked here why Autokartchen and Kaufkartchen receive wittiness values higher than 5,0 at all. After all, regular N+N-coinages or V+Ncoinages should not per se considered as wittier than established ones. It cannot be excluded, however, that for some speakers, ad hoc compounds are witty simply because of their newness. This should be tested further. Secondly, we consider the alternative syntactic constructions. The con struction Kartchen ,,Kaufe ihr Auto appears to be quite understandable (2,16), and is roughly considered as witty as Kaufkartchen (3,55). The construction Kartchen, auf denen ,,Kaufe Ihr Auto steht is relatively understandable (1,17), but gets the lowest value for wittiness (4,55). Finally, the construction Kartchen mit der Aufschrift ,,Kaufe Ihr Auto comes out on top (1,07), but gets a relatively bad wittiness value (4, 40). The phrasal compound, as predicted, does brilliantly: It has a high understandability value (1, 25), and at the same time the highest wittiness value (1, 84). In short, it is the optimal candidate in this context. The high understandability value in comparison with the N+N-compound and the V+Ncompound may have to do with the fact that with phrasal compounds, because of the obvious difculty to apply coindexation, interpretation of the compound is delegated directly to the ,,body (to use the terminology of Lieber 2004) than

123

252

J. Meibauer

Table 2 Task II. CP-phrasal compound and rivals in isolation. N=57 (F 40, M 17, 25;0)
1,0

understandability
1,5

wittiness

1,50

1,47

2,0

2,05 2,28

2,5

2,79
3,0

3,5

3,44 3,81

4,0

4,12 4,26
4,5

4,49

4,58

5,0

Autokrtchen

Kaufkrtchen

Krtchen "Kaufe Ihr Auto"

Krtchen, auf denen "Kaufe Ihr Auto" steht

Krtchen mit der Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Krtchen Aufschrift "Kaufe Ihr Auto"

with normal N+N-compounds where the nouns are coindexed and the ,,body offers an array of meaning relations.14 These results are quite straightforward. However, it could be argued that it is not the phrasal compound per se that is evaluated as witty but the whole text.15 Therefore, another task was designed where the items had to be evaluated in isolation. Again, an exemplar of the respective little card was shown to the students, and they had to evaluate the given constructions with respect to understandability and wittiness. The results are shown in Table 2. On the whole, the results are similar to those in Task I. The phrasal compound in particular shows a good combination of understandability and wittiness. That the values in Task II are lower on average in comparison with Task I, corroborates the hypothesis that context contributes to the overall interpretation in terms of understandability/wittiness. A closer look on the data reveals interesting details. Kaufkartchen is better understood than Autokartchen in the context condition (Task I), while the reverse is true when the items are presented in isolation (Task II). It appears, then, that in Task I, the act of buying/selling was more relevant to the interpreters, whereas in Task II, the relation ,the little card has something to do with cars was more salient. The prediction with lexicalized phrasal compounds is that they should be understandable to a high degree (their meaning being directly derivable form
Following Lieber (2004), in the case of N+N-compounds the referential arguments of the head and the non-head are coindexed, for example dog bed [+material ([i ])] [+material ([i ])]. It is obvious that this will not work for phrasal compounds (that are neglected in Lieber 2004; cf. the short discussion in Lieber 2005, p. 377).
15 14

I owe this observation to Bjorn Rothstein (p.c.).

123

How marginal are phrasal compounds?

253

their lexical entry) whereas their wittiness value should not be very high.16 The reason is straightforward: What is already known, rarely counts as witty. In order to test this prediction, a further task was designed. Six phrasal compounds that appear to be more or less lexicalized were to be evaluated, again in authentic contexts (Task III) and in isolation (Task IV). The test items were the following: (28) a. Nach der als Medienspektakel inszenierten Inthronisierung hat der Kandidat knapp 100 Tage, den Franzosen seinen ,,friedlichen Bruch mit der Politik der alten Garde schmackhaft zu machen. Die Umfragen sagen ein spannendes Ende des Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennens mit der popularen Sozialistin voraus. (Wiesbadener Kurier, 15.02.07, S. 11) ,After the enthronement that has been orchestrated as a media event, the candidate has not quite 100 days in order to make his ,,peaceful break with the old school politics sound appealing to the French. The opinion polls predict an exciting end of the neck-and-neck race with the popular socialist. b. In Sudafrika ist das vor allem die Northern Province, das Gebiet der ehemaligen Homelands Venda, Lebowa und Gazankulu, wo das Pro-Kopf-Einkommen bei etwa 2100 Rand (weniger als 580 Mark) im Jahr liegt. (ZEIT, 04.01.01, S. 28) ,In South Africa, this is above all the Northern Province, the territory of the former homelands Venda, Lebowa and Gazankulu, where the per capita income is about 2100 Rand (less than 580 German Mark per annum. c. Anders als in Amerika, wo Universitaten sich ihren guten Ruf mit hohen Semestergebuhren bezahlen lassen, erhalten deutsche Hochschulen keine Geld-zuruck-Garantie. (ZEIT, 07.12.00, S. 83) ,Unlike in the United States where universities let their hight repute be paid for with high tuition fees, German universities will receive no money-back guarantee. d. In Zwirners Programmgalerie downtown drangen sich inzwischen immer mehr anderswo unzufrieden gewordene Kunstler wie der Brite Chris Oli oder die latent kitschig malende Lisa Yuskavage. Zwirner bietet ihnen ein Rundum-sorglos-Paket, hohe Preise und die Nahe zu respektierten Kollegen. Kleinere Galerien konnen da nicht mehr mithalten. (ZEIT, 11.01.07, S. 40)

16

Thanks to Ingo Plag (p.c.) for this observation.

123

254

J. Meibauer

,In Zwirners program gallery downtown more and more artists having got dissatised elsewhere push and shove, for example the Briton Chris Oli or the Lisa Yuskavage who latently paints in kitschy way. Zwirner offers to them a totally-free-from-worries parcel, high prices and the neighborhood of respected colleagues. Smaller galleries are not able to compete under the circumstances. e. Damals besuchten wir gerne mit den Kindern den Trimm-dich-Pfad.17 ,In those days we liked to visit with the children the tness trail. f. Weil sich das Unternehmen Werbung nicht leisten konnte, setzte es vor allem auf Mund-zu-Mund-Propaganda. (ZEIT, 15.11.01, S. 47) ,Because the enterprise could not afford advertising, it primarily preferred word-of-mouth recommendation. In the latest edition of the WAHRIG dictionary (Wahrig-Burfeind, ed. 2006) there are entries for Mund-zu-Mund-Propaganda and Trimm-dich-Pfad. There is no entry for Pro-Kopf-Einkommen, but for the related lexeme ProKopf-Verbrauch (,per capita consumption). A quick Google search yielded the following results18: Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennen (218.000), Pro-Kopf-Einkommen ck-Garantie (1.350.000), Rundum-sorglos-Paket (210.000), (247.000), Geld-zuru Trimm-dich-Pfad (140.000), Mund-zu-Mund-Propaganda (137.000). I conclude from this that the items not recorded in WAHRIG are conventional expressions. Here are the results from Task III and IV (see Tables 3 and 4). On average the values for understandability and wittiness are somewhat higher in Task III, i.e. with the context. But all in all, the curves resemble each other. There is one exception, namely Geld-zuruck-Garantie that is more understandable in isolation (1,71) than in context (2,47). This may have to do with the problem of how to interpret Geld-zuruck-Garantie in this context: Is it to be understood literally or metaphorically? In sum then, Task III and IV showed that lexicalized and conventional non-CP phrasal compounds are very understandable, since they have a xed, conventional meaning, and at the same are not very witty. Concerning the wittiness value, compare the highest wittiness values in every task: Task I: 1,84 (Kaufe-Ihr-Auto-Kartchen), Task II: 2,79 (Kaufe-Ihr Auto-Kartchen), Task III: 3,18 (Rundum-sorglos-Paket), Task IV: 3, 13 (Rundum-sorglos-Paket).19

17 18 19

This example has been invented. Search conducted on March 9th, 2007.

The high wittiness value of Rundum-sorglos-Paket may have to do with semantic incongruity, i.e. the very idea that there might exist a (simple) parcel that makes people totally free from worries.

123

How marginal are phrasal compounds?

255

Table 3 Task III. Lexicalized/conventional non-CP phrasal compounds in context. N=62 (F 50, M 12 25;6)
1,0

1,5

1,44

1,34 1,53

1,37

2,0

understandability
2,5

wittiness

2,31 2,47

3,0

3,18
3,5

3,63 3,84
4,0

4,03 4,31

4,5

4,69
5,0 Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennen Pro-Kopf-Einkommen Geld-zurck-Garantie Rundum-sorglos-Paket Trimm-dich-Pfad Mund-zu-MundPropaganda

Table 4 Task IV. Lexicalized/conventional non-CP phrasal compounds in isolation. N=63 (F 43, M 20 B 22;4)
1,0

1,23
1,5
understandability

1,53
wittiness

1,71 2,05

1,68

2,0

2,5

2,60

3,0

3,13 3,26
3,5

4,0

3,90

3,85

3,79

4,5

4,55

5,0 Kopf-an-Kopf-Rennen Pro-Kopf-Einkommen Geld-zurck-Garantie Rundum-sorglos-Paket Trimm-dich-Pfad Mund-zu-MundPropaganda

4 Discussion The gist of this article is that phrasal compounds are by no means marginal from a theoretical point of view, at least when the Generalized Insertion approach of Ackema and Neeleman (2004) is taken seriously. Phrasal compounds nicely illustrate the possibility of insertion from syntax into morphology. What this

123

256

J. Meibauer

approach cannot explain, however, is the markedness or expressivity of ad hoc phrasal compounds. I propose to explain this expressivity on the basis of a conict between demands of the Q- and the I-principle, as dened within the theory of Generalized Implicature put forward by Levinson (2000). The reported four experiments yielded the following results: Ad hoc CP phrasal compounds are understandable and witty to a high degree. The context may support wittiness, but even in isolation, phrasal compounds are considered wittier than their alternatives. Lexicalized phrasal compounds are, because of their conventional meaning, very understandable. At the same time, they are not considered to be very witty, and even the context does not support wittiness very much.

We may ask whether there are other factors that favour wittiness of ad hoc phrasal compounds, for example length, structural complexity, unusual syntax, or special lexical make up. For example the (attested) phrasal compound in (29a) is long (15 words), complex (matrix sentence plus embedded sentence) and idiomatic. In (29b), we have an example with unusual syntax, i.e. coordination of a verbal stem with a particle, and in (29c) there is a quotational insertion into the proper name. (29) a. die Der-Berti-ist-die-blode-Sau-die-man-von-links-nach rechts-durchs-Dorf-jagt-Platte. ,the [[CPthe-Berti-is-the-stupid-sow-that-is-chaced-through-thevillage-from-the-left-to-the-right] Nrecord] b. Zap-und-weg-Fernsehzeiten ,zap-and-away TV-times c. Dieter-,,Ich habe der Tusse keine gescheuert-Bohlen ,Dieter ,,I-didnt-hit-the-bitch Bohlen That the complexity of the left-hand member inuences acceptability has already been shown in Carroll (1976). Note however that in German, left-hand members of N+N-compounds may be quite long and/or complex. The prediction is then that these types are not considered wittier per se. Understandability, on the other hand, may increase or decrease. (30) a. Autoankaufskartchen ,car purchase cardDIM b. Autohandlerankaufskartchen ,car dealer sale cardDIM c. Autohandlerschrottautoankaufskartchen ,car dealer wrecked car purchase cardDIM Another factor that may inuence understandability/wittiness is the status of the non-head as lexicalized or nonlexicalized. The prediction is that nonlexicalized

123

How marginal are phrasal compounds?

257

phrasal non-heads are wittier than the lexicalized ones, but that both types of phrasal non-heads are wittier than normal lexical (=non-phrasal) non-heads. This should be further tested. My attempt at explaining the virtues of the phrasal compound draws on the interaction of the Q- and the I-principle on word level. I have refrained from invoking the M-principle or speculating on blocking effects. The M-Principle roughly expresses the idea that ,,marked messages indicate marked situations.20 For example, in the utterance This is a box for matches there arises the M-induced implicature ,This is a (nonprototypical) box specially made for containing matches because of the use of (marked) box of matches instead of unmarked matchbox. In the case of ad hoc phrasal compounds, however, there is no established complex word that could serve as an item with which the speaker would use to describe a normal, stereotypical situation, as the speakers maxim requires. The principle seems to work (if it is useful at all see Traugott 2004 for a recent critique) only with conventional word formations. Generally, there exist two approaches to blocking, namely blocking on word level (e.g. gave blocks *gived and thief blocks *stealer) and so-called Poser blocking where a word blocks a syntactic construction, e.g. smarter blocks *more smart (cf. Poser 1992; Embick and Marantz 2007, unpublished draft). Again, I do not see that, e.g., a N+N-compound can block a phrasal compound, or that a phrasal compound can block a syntactic construction. As I have tried to show, the motives for choosing one of the alternatives are to be sought in the dimensions of understandability and wittiness, wherever these notions ultimately are grounded in. The relation between morphology and pragmatics is usually discussed under the heading of ,,morphopragmatics, a linguistic domain that seems to lead a Cinderella-like existence. Despite genuine morphopragmatic studies such as Kubo (2002), the scope of morphopragmatics is controversial. For example, Kiefer (1998, p. 272) argues that ,,morphology is relevant pragmatically in so far as word structure (afxes, clitics) can be taken as an indication of the speech situation and/or the speech event.21 Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1997, p. 2), on the other hand, argue explicitly ,,against the claim that pragmatic meanings can be completely derived from semantic meanings with the help of general pragmatic principles. They favour the position whereby a morphopragmatically relevant rule possesses some non-semantic, autonomous pragmatic feature in its meaning description. (Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi 1997, p. 2) A case in point would be the feature [+ctive] being necessary in the
Cf. the more elaborate version given below (Levinson 2000, pp. 136137): M-principle Speakers maxim: Indicate an abnormal, nonstereotypical situation by using marked expressions that contrast with those you would use to describe the corresponding normal, stereotypical situation. Recipients corollary: What is said in an abnormal way indicates an abnormal situation, or marked messages indicate marked situations, [...].
21 The speech situation includes time, location, social setting and participant roles, the speech event includes strategies, plans, goals and intentions of the actors. 20

123

258

J. Meibauer

analysis of Italian diminutives. Accordingly, Kiefer (1998, p. 277) states that morphopragmatics is concerned with the pragmatic effects of ad hoc compounds, whereas Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi (1997, p. 4) claim that ,,in contrast to derivation and inection, compounding is scarcely relevant for morphopragmatics. In this paper I argued that phrasal compounds are word-syntactic entities whose raison detre may be explained on the basis of pragmatic principles. It follows that a modular system must have access to those pragmatic principles. Morphopragmatics is then a discipline that may help to explain at least some morphological phenomena, for example those that have to do with marginality or productivity.
Acknowledgements This is a thorougly revised version of a talk given at the Workshop on Marginal Morphology, University of Stuttgart, July 21th, 2006. I am very grateful for comments by Eva Gressnich, Daniel Gutzmann, Ingo Plag, Bjorn Rothstein, Carmen Scherer, Carola Trips, and two anonymous reviewers that helped to improve this paper.

References
Ackema, P., & Neeleman, A. (2004). Beyond morphology. Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ackema, P., & Neeleman, A. (2007). Morphology Syntax. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 325352). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baayen, H., & Renouf, A. (1996). Chronicling The Times: productive lexical innovations in an English Newspaper. Language, 72, 6996. Bauer, L. (1997). Evaluative morphology: in search of universals. Studies in Language, 21, 533575. Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Booij, G. (2002). The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, H. (1998). Morphology and syntax. In A. Spencer, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 151190). Oxford: Blackwell. Botha, R. P. (1981). A base rule theory of Afrikaans synthetic compounding. In M. Moortgat, & H. van der Hulst (Eds.), The scope of lexical rules (pp. 177). Dordrecht: Foris. Bresnan, J. W., & Mchombo, S. A. (1995). The lexical integrity principle. Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 181254. Carroll, J. M. (1979). Complex compounds: phrasal embeddings in lexical structures. Linguistics, 17, 863877. Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53, 810842. Dressler, W. U. (2000). Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology. In U. Doleschal, & A. M. Thornton (Eds.), Extragrammatical and marginal morphology (pp. 110). Munchen: Lincom Europa. Dressler, W. U., & Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1997). Morphopragmatics. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Ostmann, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins. Foolen, A. (1997). The expressive function of language: Towards a cognitive semantic approach. In S. Niemeier, & R. Dirven (Eds.), The language of emotions: conceptualization, expression, and theoretical foundation (pp. 1531). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Gallmann, P. (1990). Kategoriell komplexe Wortformen. Tubingen: Niemeyer. Hohenhaus, P. (2005). Lexicalization and institutionalization. In P. Stekauer, & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 349373). Dordrecht: Springer. Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kiefer, F. (1998). Morphology and pragmatics. In A. Spencer, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 272279). Oxford: Blackwell. Kubo, S. (2002). Illocutionary morphology and speech acts. In D. Vanderveken, & S. Kubo (Eds.), Essays in speech act theory (pp. 209224). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

123

How marginal are phrasal compounds?

259

Lawrenz, B. (1996). Der Zwischen-den-Mahlzeiten-Imbi und der Herren-der-Welt-Groenwahn: Aspekte der Struktur und Bildungsweisen von Phrasenkomposita im Deutschen. Zeitschrift fur Germanistische Linguistik, 24, 115. Lawrenz, B. (2006). Moderne deutsche Wortbildung. Phrasale Wortbildung im Deutschen: ` Linguistische Untersuchung und didaktische Behandlung. Hamburg: Kovae. Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lieber, R. (1988). Phrasal compounds and the morphologysyntax-interface. Chicago Linguistic Society 24, Part II: Parasession on Agreement in Grammatical Theory, 202222. Lieber, R. (1992). Deconstructing morphology: Word-formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieber, R. (2005). English word-formation processes. In P. Stekauer, & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 375427). Dordrecht: Springer. Lieber, R., & Scalise, S. (2007). The lexical integrity hypothesis in a new theoretical universe. In G. Booij, et al. (Eds.), On-line proceedings of the fth mediterranean morphology meeting (MMM5). Frejus 1518 September 2005, University of Bologna, 2007. URL: http://mmm.lingue.unibo.it/ r Meibauer, J. (2003). Phrasenkomposita zwischen Wortsyntax und Lexikon. Zeitschrift fu Sprachwissenschaft, 22, 153188. Meibauer, J. (2006). Implicature. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 568580). Oxford: Elsevier. Meibauer, J., & Steinbach, M. (2007). Generalized insertion: Parentheticals and phrasal compounds. Talk given to the 29th DGfS Annual Meeting, Siegen, 2007. Meyer, R. (1993). Compound comprehension in isolation and in context. The contribution of conceptual and discourse knowledge to the comprehension of German novel noun-noun compounds. Tubingen: Niemeyer. Plag, I. (1999). Morphological productivity. Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Poser, W. J. (1992). Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In I. Sag, & A. Szabolsci (Eds.), Lexixal matters (pp. 111130). Stanford: CSLI. Ritchie, G. (2004). The linguistic analysis of jokes. London/New York: Routledge. Ruszkiewicz, P. (1997). Morphology in generative grammar. From morpheme-based grammar to lexical morphology and beyond. Gdansk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego. Ryder, M. E. (1994). Ordered chaos. The interpretation of english noun-noun compounds. Berkeley: University of California Press. Scalise, S., & Guevara, E. (2005). The lexicalist approach to word formation and the notion of the lexicon. In P. Stekauer, & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation. (pp. 147188). Dordrecht: Springer. Scherer, C. (2005). Wortbildungswandel und Produktivitat. Eine empirische Studie zur nominalen er-Derivation im Deutschen. Tubingen: Niemeyer. Spencer, A. (2005). Word-formation and syntax. In P. Stekauer, & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 7397). Dordrecht: Springer. Sproat, R. (1993). Review article: Morphological non-separation revisited: a review of R. Liebers Deconstructing Morphology. Yearbook of Morphology, 1992, 235258. Stump, G. T. (1993). How peculiar is evaluative morphology? Journal of Linguistics, 29, 136. Traugott, E. C. (2004). A critique of Levinsons view of Q- and M-inferences in historical pragmatics. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 5, 125. Wahrig-Burfeind, R. (Ed.). (2006). WAHRIG Deutsches Worterbuch. 8. Au. Gutersloh/Munchen: Wissen Media Verlag. Wiese, R. (1996). Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 27, 183193. Zanuttini, R., & Portner, P. (2003). Exclamative clauses: At the syntaxsemantics-interface. Language, 79, 3981. Zwicky, A. M., & Pullum, G. K. (1987). Plain morphology and expressive morphology. In J. Aske, N. Beery, L. Michaelis, & H. Filip (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirteenth annual Meeting of the Berkeley linguistic society (pp. 330340). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.

123