Cover not available

Article published In: English Text Construction
Vol. 17:2 (2024) ► pp.234–261

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

Deconstructing OUT-prefixation

A construction grammar approach

 | University of Liège
Published online: 16 October 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.24009.yal
Abstract
This paper takes a construction morphological approach to the word formation process of OUT-prefixation, based on a corpus study using the Collins Word Banks Online corpus. It distinguishes two distinct constructions: spatial OUT-prefixation, conveying movement “outside”, and comparative OUT-prefixation, used for scaling dimensions. These constructions are characterised by their own semantic and morphosyntactic properties, including differences in compositionality, argument structure, applicative potential, and event structure. While the base remains active in an OUT-verb, each construction functions as a constructional idiom at the word level, integrating the fixed prefix OUT- into a higher-level schema with predictable properties and constraints. The study challenges formal approaches by demonstrating that OUT-prefixation is more productive than previously assumed, particularly through coercion effects. Although the comparative construction is shown to be more productive, the spatial construction is more conventionalized but still capable of generating emergent patterns, illustrating the productivity and flexibility of these constructions.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1OUT-prefixation
    • 1.2Constructional morphology
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Findings and discussion
    • 3.1Semantics of the OUT-constructions
    • 3.2Role of the base in OUT-prefixation
      • 3.2.1Part-of-speech of the base
      • 3.2.2Eventuality
    • 3.3Applicative potential: Argument structure of OUT-verbs
    • 3.4Thematic roles: Event structure of OUT-verbs
    • 3.5Productivity
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (52)
References
Ahn, Byron. 2022. Mapping OUT- argument structure. Syntax 25(4). 417–465. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Audring, Jenny, Geert Booij & Ray Jackendof. 2017. Menscheln, kibbelen, sparkle: Verbal diminutives between grammar and lexicon. In Sander Lestrade & Bert le Bruyn (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 1–15. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, James. 2019. Split intransitivity in English. English Language and Linguistics 23(3). 557–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie & Rodney Huddleston. 2002. Lexical word-formation. In Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 1621–1721. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber & Ingo Plag. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. The theorist and the language teacher. Foreign Language Annals 2(1). 119–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(7). 543–555. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. The role of schemas in Construction Morphology. Word Structure 12(3). 385–395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyd, Jeremy K. & Adele E. Goldberg. 2011. Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in “a”-adjective production, Language 81(1). 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Polyadicity. In Joan Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, 149–72. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The Role of Frequency. In Brain D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cambridge Dictionary Online. 1999. Cambridge University Press. [URL]
Croft, William & David Alan Cruise. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916. Course in General Linguistics. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Swart, Henriette. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 161. 347–385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. (ed.). 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone?. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Downing, Pamela. 1977. On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language 531. 810–842. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. & Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3). 532–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 1993. On the absence of category-changing prefixes in English. Linguistic Inquiry 241. 562–7.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Ingo Plag. 2004. What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 221. 565–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale. (eds). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Irube, Kaneharu. 1984. Argument structure and the out-prefixation. English Linguistics 1(1). 105–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotowksi, Sven. 2020. The semantics of English out-prefixation: A corpus-based investigation. English Language & Linguistics 25(1). 61–89.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2023. Modeling locative prefix semantics. A formal account of the English verbal prefix out-. Morphology 331. 115–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koutsoukos, Nikos, Kristel Van Goethem & Hendrik De Smet. 2018. Asymmetries, mismatches and Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 10(2). 123–146. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1999. Objecthood: An event structure perspective. In Sabrina J. Billings, John P. Boyle & Aaron M. Griffith (eds.), Proceedings of CLS 351, 223–47. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation, 2nd edn. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2003. Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics. In Geert Booij & Jaap Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2003, 119–44. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Denominal verbs. In Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-formation, 434–50. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. & Josef Ruppenhofer. 2001. Beyond alternations. A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2022. Aspectual coercion and lexical semantics part 1: Using selection to Describe the interaction between construction and verb meaning. Cognitive Semantics 81. 383–408. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nagano, Akiko. 2011. The right-headedness of morphology and the status and development of category-determining prefixes in English. English Language and Linguistics 15(1). 61–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag & Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70(3). 491–538.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Online Etymology Dictionary. 2000. [URL]
Peterson, D. A. 2007. Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petré, Peter & Hubert Cuyckens. 2008. Bedusted, yet not beheaded: The role of be-’s constructional properties in its conservation. In Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Construction and Language Change, 133–169. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological productivity. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2001. An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77(4). 766–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schröder, Anne. 2011. On the productivity of verbal prefixation in English: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics: typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tolskaya, Inna. 2014. Verbal prefixes: Selection and interpretation. Tromsø: University of Tromsø PhD thesis.
Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Goethem, Kristel. A constructionist view on language innovation. Some key issues. Research Seminar of the Modern Greek Dialect Research Laboratory (University of Patras, 11/06/2015).
Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12(2). 245–74.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, Darrell. 1992. English comparative compounds with OVER, UNDER and OUT. In Michael Bernstein (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth Eastern States Conference of Linguistics, 272–81. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando & Denis Creissels. (2024). Applicative constructions: An introductory overview. In Fernando Zúñiga & Denis Creissels (eds.), Applicative constructions in the world’s languages, 3–46. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando, Peter Arkadiev & Veronika Hegedűs. 2024. Applicativizing preverbs in selected European languages. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue