Cover not available

Article published In: Constructions and Frames
Vol. 9:1 (2017) ► pp.1–40

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Between VP and NN

On the constructional types of German -er compounds

 | Università di Torino
 | Georgetown University
Published online: 20 October 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.9.1.01gae
Abstract
This paper is concerned with the classification and analysis of different types of German synthetic compounds headed by deverbal agent nouns in -er, such as Romanleser ‘novel-reader’ or Gedankenleser ‘mind-reader’, where the non-head is seen to saturate an argument of the head lexeme while adhering to the semantic interpretation found in corresponding VPs (e.g. the distinct senses of read in the previous examples). In contrast to several previous approaches, which attempt to explain the relationship between VPs and compounds using a unified mechanism of incorporation or derivation, we argue that different compounding patterns require different analyses and that the respective constructions are to some extent independent of each other. While some compounds are modelled after frequent, familiar VPs and take account of the usage profile of syntactic phrases, other productive sets of compounds extend independently lexicalized schemas with fixed compound heads. To support our analysis we undertake the largest empirical survey of these formations to date, using a broad coverage Web corpus. We suggest several categories of verb-object lexeme pairs to account for our data and formulate an analysis of the facts within the framework of Construction Morphology.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous approaches
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Data and motivation
    • 3.2Identifying and segmenting synthetic compounds
    • 3.3Identifying verbal objects
    • 3.4Classifying verbal and compounding lexeme pairs
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Group 1
    • 4.2Group 2
    • 4.3Group 3
    • 4.4Interim conclusion
  • 5.Synthetic compounds and productivity
    • 5.1Identifying and measuring productivity
    • 5.2Do more VP objects mean more SC non-heads?
    • 5.3How are novel SCs generated?
  • 6.Synthetic compounds and phrases as interrelated schemas
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (54)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2007). Typological distinctions in word-formation. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. 2nd edition. Vol. 31 (pp. 1–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., & Schäfer, F. (2010). On the syntax of episodic vs. dispositional -er nominals. In A. Alexiadou & M. Rathert (Eds.), The syntax of nominalizations across languages and frameworks (Interface Explorations 23) (pp. 9–38). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (1993). On frequency, transparency and productivity. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992 (pp. 181–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Word frequency distributions. (Text, Speech and Language Technologies 18). Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook, Vol. 21 (pp. 899–919). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Kuperman, V., & Bertram, R. (2010). Frequency effects in compound processing. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311) (pp. 257–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic (Constructional Approaches to Language 8). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., & Zanchetta, E. (2009). The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, 43(3), 209–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barz, I. (1995). Komposita im Großwörterbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache. In I. Pohl & H. Ehrhardt (Eds.), Wort und Wortschatz. Beiträge zur Lexikographie (pp. 13–24). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological productivity (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, G. E. (1988). The relation between inheritance and argument structure: Deverbal -er-nouns in Dutch. In M. Everaert, A. Evers, R. Huybregts, & M. Trommelen (Eds.), Morphology and modularity. In honour of Henk Schultink (pp. 57–74). Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). The nominalization of Dutch particle verbs: Schema unification and second order schemas. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 201, 285–314. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Botha, R. P. (1984). Morphological mechanisms: Lexicalist analyses of synthetic compounding. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christ, O. (1994). A modular and flexible architecture for an integrated corpus query system. Proceedings of Complex, 941, 23–32. Budapest.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Jong, N. H., Feldmand, L. B., Schreuder, R., Pastizzo, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2002). The processing and representation of Dutch and English compounds: Peripheral morphological and central orthographic effects. Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 555–567. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Downing, P. A. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53(4), 810–842. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erk, K. (2012). Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: A survey. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(10), 635–653. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evert, S., & Lüdeling, A. (2001). Measuring morphological productivity: Is automatic preprocessing sufficient? In P. Rayson, A. Wilson, T. McEnery, A. Hardie, & S. Khoja (Eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001 (pp. 167–175). Lancaster.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaeta, L. (2010). Synthetic compounds with special reference to German. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (pp. 219–235). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Restrictions in word formation. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe, Vol. 21 (pp. 858–874). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaeta, L., & Ricca, D. (2006). Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics, 44(1), 57–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Composita solvantur: Compounds as lexical units or morphological objects? Italian Journal of Linguistics / Rivista di Linguistica, 21(1), 35–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Productivity. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe, Vol. 21 (pp. 841–858). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Constructionist approaches to language. In Th. Hoffmann & Gr. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heringer, H. J. (1984). Wortbildung: Sinn aus dem Chaos. Deutsche Sprache, 121, 1–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kawahara, D., & Kurohashi, S. (2005). PP-attachment disambiguation boosted by a gigantic volume of unambiguous examples. In R. Dale, K. -F. Wong, J. Su, & O. Y. Kwong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP-05) (pp. 188–198). Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kohvakka, H., & Lenk, H. (2007). ‘Streiter für Gerechtigkeit’ und ‘Teilnehmer am Meinungsstreit’? Zur Valenz von Nomina agentis im Deutschen und Finnischen. In H. Lenk, & M. Walter (Eds.), Wahlverwandtschaften. Valenzen – Verben – Varietäten. Festschrift für Klaus Welke zum 70. Geburtstag (pp. 195–218). Hildesheim, Zurich & New York: Georg Olms.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kürschner, W. (1974). Zur syntaktischen Beschreibung deutscher Nominalkomposita. Auf der Grundlage generativer Transformationsgrammatiken. (Linguistische Arbeiten 18). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. (1960). The grammar of English nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leser, M. (1990). Das Problem der ‘Zusammenbildungen’: eine Lexikalistische Studie. Trier: WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1981). On the organization of the lexicon. PhD Thesis, University of New Hamsphire.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lüdeling, A., Evert, S., & Baroni, M. (2007). Using web data for linguistic purposes. In M. Hundt, N. Nesselhauf, & C. Biewer (Eds.), Corpus linguistics and the web. (Language and Computers-Studies in Practical Linguistics 59) (pp. 7–24). Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Masini, F. (2009). Phrasal lexemes, compounds and phrases: A constructionist perspective. Word Structure, 2(2), 254–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, W. (1981). Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nübling, D., & Szczepaniak, R. (2011). Merkmal(s?)analyse, Seminar(s?)arbeit und Essen(s?)ausgabe: Zweifelsfälle der Verfugung als Indikatoren für Sprachwandel. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 30(1), 45–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Linking elements in German origin, change, functionalization. Morphology, 231, 67–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plag, I. (1999). Morphological productivity. Structural constraints in English derivation (Topics in English Linguistics 28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rainer, F. (2003). Studying restrictions on patterns of word-formation by means of the Internet. Italian Journal of Linguistics / Rivista di Linguistica, 15(1), 131–139.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (2005). Chomsky’s remarks and the transformationalist hypothesis. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), The handbook of word-formation (pp. 125–146). Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Säily, T. (2011). Variation in morphological productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and methodological considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 7(1), 119–141. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiller, A., Teufel, S., Stöckert, C., & Thielen, C. (1999). Guidelines für das Tagging deutscher Textcorpora mit STTS. Technical report, Universität Stuttgart, Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung & Universität Tübingen, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlücker, B. (2012). Die deutsche Kompositionsfreudigkeit. Übersicht und Einführung. In L. Gaeta & B. Schlücker (Eds.), Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache. Strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte (Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen 46) (pp. 1–25). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H. (1994). Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In Proceedings of the Conference on New Methods in Language Processing (pp. 44–49). Manchester, UK.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharoff, S. (2010). In the garden and in the jungle. Comparing genres in the BNC and Internet. In Genres on the web. Computational models and empirical studies (pp. 149–166). Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siebert, S. (1999). Wortbildung und Grammatik. Syntaktische Restriktionen in der Struktur komplexer Wörter (Linguitische Arbeiten 408). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ten Hacken, P. (2009). Early generative approaches. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics) (pp. 54–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wulff, S. (2008). Rethinking idiomaticity: A usage-based approach. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. (1998). On the development of incorporating structures in German. In R. M. Hogg & L. van Bergen (Eds.), Historical linguistics 1995, Vol. 21: Germanic linguistics (pp. 331–344). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeldes, A. (2012). Productivity in argument selection. From morphology to syntax (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 260). Berlin & Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Mattiello, Elisa
2025. A contrastive analysis of English deverbal -er synthetic compounds and their Italian equivalents. Languages in Contrast 25:2 ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo
Neef, Martin
2025. 5 Synthetic compounds in German. In Word-Formation – Special Patterns and Restrictions, ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Th. Gries, Stefan
2025. Corpus Linguistics and the Cognitive/Constructional Endeavor. In The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Schäfer, Roland & Ulrike Sayatz
2024. Between syntax and morphology: German noun+verb units. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Hübener, Carlotta J.
2023. The morphologization of German noun-participle combinations. A diachronic case study. Morphology 33:3 ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Audring, Jenny
2022. Advances in Morphological Theory: Construction Morphology and Relational Morphology. Annual Review of Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo
Mattiello, Elisa & Wolfgang U. Dressler
2022. Dualism and superposition in the analysis of English synthetic compounds ending in-er. Linguistics 60:2 ► pp. 395 ff. DOI logo
Mattiello, Elisa & Wolfgang U. Dressler
2025. Verb-noun compounds versus synthetic compounds in English, German and Italian. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 61:2 ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Gaeta, Livio & Marco Angster
2019. Stripping paradigmatic relations out of the syntax. Morphology 29:2 ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue