Aim of this volume
This volume is a collection of papers presented at a workshop on "Extragrammatical and
Marginal Morphology" held in Vienna in February 1996 during the 7th International Morphology
Meeting.
In 1995 we had the idea to bring together scholars from different countries and theoretical
backgrounds to discuss certain topics variously labeled as "extragrammatical", "marginal",
"minor", "expressive" morphology. Already the variety of these labels suggests that the
referential domain addressed was rather fuzzy.
For instance, Scalise (1994:41-42), in a short section that goes under the heading ”Morfologia
minore” (i.e, minor morphology) lists phenomena such as acronyms, blends, clipping and
morpheme truncation, and dubs them ”sporadic and unpredictable”.
At that point the range of phenomena covered was not even fully clear, as witnessed by the
headings in the bibliography of morphology... questa frase non so se è utile…
A first attempt to distinguish between two classes of phenomena was made by Zwicky & Pullum
(1987) in their well-known seminal paper. However, even these authors do not start from a clear
definition of the phenomena addressed as it appears from their characterization of "Plain
morphology" as "the ordinary productive (and nonproductive) word formation and word
structure rules of a language" as opposed to "expressive morphology, examples being processes
like expletive infixation, shm-reduplication, and word formation with -(e)teria." (Zwicky &
Pullum 1987: 332). I.e., non mi piace iniziare la frase con i.e. while for grammatical morphology
a unifying definition is given, expressive morphology is only characterized by means of an open
list of phenomena. This list is non-exhaustive and rather heterogeneous.
messo sopra!
Even the boundaries between the two kinds of morphology are not well established, as it appears
from the many hedges in the following citation: "Almost certainly in some cases, we believe,
these two are not assimilable under the same heading". (Zwicky & Pullum 1987: 332)
These boundaries have been delimited by Dressler & Merlini (1994: 36-41) who distinguish
between grammatical and extragrammatical morphology (and also introduce the concept of
marginality, although they do not define it). Morphological grammar is conceived of as
consisting of categories, rules (or processes) expressing and manipulating them, and principles
governing rules” (ibid. 39), whereas extragrammatical morphology is defined negatively as
“heterogeneous morphological phenomena which do not belong to morphological grammar”
(ibid. 38). The boundary between the two is then made explicit by a series of clear-cut examples
(ibid. 39-41). But since this discussion is hidden in a book on diminutives and intensifiersit has
not had any impact on morphological theory.
The topic is still patently absent in the latest Handbook of Morphology (Spencer & Zwicky
1998).
Notwithstanding the long-standing ill-definition of the field the phenomena had been noted many
times before and described in a number of monographs, as witnessed by the rich list of
references in the contributions to this volume, but they had not been treated under the same
heading within a larger framework of grammatical theory.Various linguists in various
frameworks and countries have worked on these phenomena without knowing of one another.
Our aim in organizing a workshop in the frame of the the 7th International Morphology Meeting
was to bring together as many people as possible who were interested in the set of topics that go
under the labels mentioned above, and help clarify the topics themselves through the
contributions to the workshop and the ensuing discussion.
To formulate a call for papers, we consulted Beard & Szymanek’s (1988) bibliography of
morphology, and selected all the key-words that we felt were related to the topic. We then
invited papers on the following topics:
pseudoaffixes, semiaffixes, quasimorphemes
blending, acronyms, subtraction, clipping
interfixes
reduplication
expressive (and affective) morphology
and borderline phenomena, such as:
suppletion, toponymy, semi- and indeclinability etc.
The proposals concerned were roughly classifiable in three groups: two papers were concerned
with theoretical definitions and delimitations (Dressler, Werner), three papers were concerned
with the description of non-prototypical and unusual phenomena in inflection, such as double
marking (Ortmann), "affective" plurals (Corbett) and pseudoaffixes (Doleschal), and five papers
were concerned with the description of non-prototypical derivational phenomena, such as
blending, acronyms and the morphology of proper names (Bat-El, Fradin, Nübling,
Ronneberger-Sibold, Thornton).
During the workshop it became clear that the contributions on derivation had much more in
common than the ones on inflection. While the delimitation problem in the first group is rather
one of grammatical vs. extragrammatical, in the second it is between marginal and
non-marginal, pointing to the fact that there is no such thing as extragrammatical inflectional
morphology (but this point has to be clarified further).
Clarification of the concept?
The present book brings together the contributions on word-formation, preceded by an
introductory paper by Wolfgang U. Dressler which…. aims at clarifying the concepts of
“extragrammatical” and “marginal” morphology. Dressler argues that the two do not overlap and
that neither is a subpart of the other, but that extragrammatical morphology is opposed to
grammatical morphology, while marginal morphology is opposed to prototypical morphology.
The term “extragrammatical morphology” therefore refers to morphological operations that
cannot be described by regular morphological rules, such as blends and abbreviations, but also
sophisticated terminological coinages as well as children’s attempts at morphology. Marginal
morphology on the other hand lies at the edge of morphological grammar. Marginality is defined
with respect to the boundaries between morphology and other components or the boundaries
within morphology, i.e., between inflection, derivation and compunding. Under this view clitics
are considered “marginal morphology”, because they lie at the boundary of morphology and
syntax, while semi-affixes are an example for the margin between derivation and compounding.
Besides, productivity also serves as a criterion to identify phenomena such as suppletion or
submorphemes as marginal. Dressler also makes the point that extragrammatical morphology is
often more “natural” in the sense that iconicity preferences can operate in an unrestricted way,
therefore, e.g., full reduplication is common in extragrammatical word-formation while it is
hardly used in morphological grammar.
The paper by Damaris Nübling discusses morphological peculiarities of proper nouns, more
precisely – derivational structures of German toponyms. Nübling shows that toponyms can be
easily identified by certain morphological properties that set them off from common nouns.
Although most toponyms have the structure of compounds or derivations they deviate from
“normal” word-formation in many respects, e.g., accent-structure, form of the root or affix, or
semantic transparency. Some of these structures appear to be productive. Nübling argues that in
such a way homonymy with common nouns is avoided and the apparently deviant
(extragrammatical?) formation of proper nouns thus serves an important semiotic function.
Outi Bat-El’s paper is devoted to Hebrew acronyms and blends: these formations are analyzed
from the phonological point of view, and it is shown that they do not display any phonological
characteristic which is not found in words formed by prototypically grammatical means.
Rather, some of the phonological properties of Hebrew acronyms and blends can be understood
as cases of emergence of the unmarked phonological structure: for instance, Hebrew acronyms
never have complex onsets, while other lexical items often do. Bat El concludes that acronyms
and blends are not extragrammatical from the phonological point of view, and proposes to limit
the label ‘extragrammatical’ to contrived word formation phenomena, regardless of their
phonological regularity.
Bernard Fradin’s extensive paper examines a range of phenomena of compounding, which
share the property of containing ‘combining forms’, i.e. parts that do not correspond to free
lexemes. Fradin’s paper has many virtues. First of all, it discusses at length previous literature on
the subject, helping to clarify many of the concepts involved, and to refine the terminology
employed to describe them. Besides, it submits the phenomena investigated to a formal semantic
analysis, couched into the formalism of predicate logic and lambda calculus. This strict formal
requirements, generally absent form studies of ‘extragrammatical phenomena’, help to
distinguish between apparently similar formations (see, for instance, Fradin’s analyses of the
different semantic structures behind hamburger, cheeseburger and fishburger). Fradin concludes
that compounds involving combining forms are classifiable in four different types, defined on the
basis of semantic criteria.
The paper by Elke Ronneberger-Sibold scrutinizes a special field of word-formation, the
formation of trade names in German. The author argues that the creation of novel names for
products follows certain regularities which differ from morphological grammar in specific ways,
most prominently in that they cannot be formulated as rules. So, e.g., there is a “structural type”
of name creation which makes the output conform to a certain sound shape: trisyllabic with
penultimate stress, which bears a – positive – “Italo-Spanish” connotation. This result can be
obtained via various “creational techniques”, e.g., blending (Opekta) or suffixation (Weiss-ella).
Although some of the phenomena typically occurring in trade names can also be found in the
normal lexicon, they are typical only for the former, where they serve a distinct function.
Therefore Ronneberger-Sibold proposes the term “creative competence” as distinct from
grammatical competence.
Anna Thornton’s paper is a case study of the development of two apparent quasi-suffixes, -ex
and -tex, that appear in American trade names. The two formatives are described in the same way
as grammatical suffixes would be in the framework of Lexical Morphology, with the aim of
identifying phonological, syntactic, semantic and stratal conditions on the formation of trade
names with these formatives. The results of this analysis are then compared with both Zwicky
and Pullum’s and Dressler and Merlini Barbaresi’s sets of criteria. The trade names investigated
are found less extragrammatical than expected. Thornton concludes calling into question the
adoption of ‘consciousness’ as a test criterion for extragrammaticality, arguing that
metalinguistic competence is a constitutive part of linguistic competence, and its conscious
exploitation in word coinage should be considered part of the normal functioning of grammatical
competence.
riassunti di papers
The workshop has been a forum bringing into contact people from different countries, national
traditions and theoretical backgrounds, spanning from (German-Austrian) Natural Morphology
to (French) lexicography and (American) Optimality Theory.
The difference in points of view and the understanding of the phenomena and delimitation has
sometimes been striking. The confrontation, however, turned out to be fruitful in
and we still continue with divergent interpretations of phenomena and an integration even in
terms of terminology an basic concepts has not been reached.
già dettoWho did not know of one another's research before
Acknowledgements
We want to thank all the participants in the workshop for their contributions and their willingness
to act as internal referees. Some of the papers presented at the workshop have not been submitted
for publication in the present volume and have remained unpublished or have been published
elsewhere. The contributions not included in this volume were the following:
G.Corbett (Guildford): Affective use of morphology in number systems (material to appear in
Number, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming)now published as... così ci ha detto lui. Gli
ho scritto per sapere quando esce Number, e ho ricevuto un mail automatico che dice che è a
Mosca fino al 7 febbraio, e ci risponderà quando torna.
U.Doleschal (Wien): On the margin of declension: indeclinability, semi-declinability and related
problems in Slavic languages material appeared in Habilitationschrift?
A.Ortmann (Düsseldorf): Affix repetition, identical information and redundancy now published
as.. Ortmann, Albert (1996) Affix Repetition and Non-Redundancy in Inflectional
Morphology. Arbeiten des Sonderforschungsbereichs 282 "Theorie des
Lexikons" No. 86. HHU Duesseldorf/BUGH Wuppertal.. lo aveva anche submitted a ZS, gli
ho scritto per sapere se è uscito.O.Werner (Tübingen): Is suppletion a borderline phenomenon of
morphology?
We thank W.U.Dressler who has given the first impulse for the organization of the workshop and
has hosted it in the Institut für Sprachwissenschaft of the University of Vienna.
Prof. Otmar Werner who has been an active and enthusiastic participant in the workshop and in
the refereeing process for this volume has prematurely died in 1997. We dedicate this book to his
memory with gratitude and love/affection.
Beard, Robert & Szymanek, Bogdan. 1988. Bibliography of Morphology. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1987. Plain Morphology and Expressive
Morphology. In: Aske, Jon, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis, Hana Filip (eds.).
Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society:
330-340. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.