Article published In: Languages in Contrast
Vol. 17:2 (2017) ► pp.183–204
Motivating an English-German contrast in word-formation
Published online: 19 September 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17.2.02haa
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.17.2.02haa
Abstract
German has a set of nouns which are derived from a combination of a preposition and the reciprocal pronoun einander ‘one another’. Compounds of this type are strikingly absent from English, although all the components that enter the German formations are available in English, as well. This paper takes a closer look at the relevant word-formation patterns, focusing on compounding and different types of conversion, also taking into account the diachrony of reciprocal pronouns (einander in German and each other/one another in English) and the role of morphological schemas. It will be argued that for explaining the lack of English nouns corresponding to the German nouns under discussion contrasts in the history and the grammar of reciprocals are less relevant than (i) the availability of well-entrenched word-formation patterns, and (ii) the more significant role of ‘syntactic conversion’ in German.
Keywords: compounding, conversion, word-formation, English/German
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Word-formation in English and German
- 2.1Compounding
- 2.2Conversion
- 2.3Problems of delimitation
- 3.The status of PREP-einander nouns
- 3.1The case of Miteinander, Nebeneinander and Durcheinander
- 3.1.1Semantics
- 3.1.2Morphosyntax
- 3.1The case of Miteinander, Nebeneinander and Durcheinander
- 4.Explaining the contrast
- 4.1Scenario 1: Contrasts in the expression of reciprocity
- 4.2Scenario 2: Schemas
- 4.2.1English
- 4.2.2German
- 5.Discussion: PREP-einander compounds and English-German contrasts in word-formation
- 5.1Conversion
- 5.2Compounding
- 6.Summary
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (39)
2011. Compounds and minor word-formation types. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, B. Aarts and A. McMahon (eds), 483–506. London: Blackwell.
Berg, T. 1998. The incompatibility of morpheme orders and lexical categories and its historical implications. English Language and Linguistics 21: 245–262.
Berg, T., Helmer, S., Neubauer, M., and Lohmann, A. 2012. Determinants of the extent of compound use: A contrastive analysis. Linguistics 501: 269–303.
Botha, R. 1981. A Base Rule Theory of Afrikaans Synthetic Compounding. In The Scope of Lexical Rules, M. Moortgat, H. v.d. Hulst and T. Hoekstra (eds), 1–77. Dordrecht: Foris.
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 2002. An Introduction to English Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Eschenlohr, S. 1999. Vom Nomen zum Verb: Konversion, Präfigierung und Rückbildung im Deutschen. Hildesheim/Zürich/New York: Georg Olms Verlag.
Fischer, O. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change: Formal and Functional Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fleischer, W. and Barz, I. 2012. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, 4th ed. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Gast, V. 2008. V-N compounds in English and German. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 561: 269–282.
Gast, V. and Haas, F. 2008. On reflexive and reciprocal readings of anaphors in German and other European languages. In Reciprocity and Reflexivity Theoretical and Typological Explorations, E. König and V. Gast (eds), 307–346.Berlin: de Gruyter.
Haas, F. 2010. Reciprocity in English: Historical Development and Synchronic Structure. London: Routledge.
Haselow, A. 2011. Typological Changes in the Lexicon: Analytic Tendencies in English Noun Formation. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hiltunen, R. 1983. The Decline of the Prefixes and the Beginning of the English Phrasal Verb: The Evidence from some Old and early Middle English Texts. Turku/Helsinki: Turun Yliopiso.
Itkonen, E. 2005. Analogy as Structure and Process. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kastovsky, D. 2006. Vocabulary. In A History of the English Language, R. Hogg and D. Denison (eds), 199–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kemmer, S. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Koehn, P. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. MT Summit 51: 79–86.
König, E. and Gast, V. 2012. Understanding English-German Contrasts, 3rd ed. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Lehmann, C. 2008. Roots, stems and word classes. Studies in Language 321: 546–567.
Lieber, R. 2009. IE, Germanic: English. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, R. Lieber and P. Stekauer (eds), 357–369. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oxford English Dictionary. Available online at [URL] [last accessed 2 June 2016]
Plank, F. 2008. Thoughts on the origin, progress, and pro status of reciprocal forms in Germanic, occasioned by those of Bavarian. In Reciprocity and Reflexivity Theoretical and Typological Explorations, E. König and V. Gast (eds), 347–373.Berlin: de Gruyter.
Raffelsiefen, R. 1998. Semantic stability in derivationally related words. In Historical linguistics 1995, volume 2, R. M. Hogg and L. van Bergen (eds), 247–267. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schmid, H.-J. 2011. English Morphology and Word-Formation: An Introduction. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
2015. The scope of word-formation research. In Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Vol. I1. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 40/1), P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen and F. Rainer (eds), 1–21. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Schröder, A. 2011. On the Productivity of Verbal Prefixation in English: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Tübingen: Narr.
Vogel, P.M. 1996. Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel: Zu Konversion und verwandten Erscheinungen im Deutschen und in anderen Sprachen. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Wiemer, B. and Nedjalkov, V. P. 2007. Reciprocal and reflexive constructions in German. In Reciprocal Constructions, V. P. Nedjalkov (ed.), 455–512. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Koutsoukos, Nikos
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 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.
