1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. English Text Construction
  4. Volume 17, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper takes a construction morphological approach to the word formation process of OUT-prefixation, based on a corpus study using the 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.

© 2024 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/etc.24009.yal
2025-10-16
2025-11-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/etc.24009.yal
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahn, Byron
    2022 Mapping OUT- argument structure. Syntax25(4). 417–465. 10.1111/synt.12241
     https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12241 [Google Scholar]
  2. Audring, Jenny, Geert Booij & Ray Jackendof
    2017 Menscheln, kibbelen, sparkle: Verbal diminutives between grammar and lexicon. InSander Lestrade & Bert le Bruyn (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 1–15. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/avt.34.01aud
     https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.34.01aud [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, James
    2019 Split intransitivity in English. English Language and Linguistics23(3). 557–89. 10.1017/S1360674317000533
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674317000533 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bauer, Laurie & Rodney Huddleston
    2002 Lexical word-formation. InRodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 1621–1721. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530.020
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.020 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber & Ingo Plag
    2013 The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bolinger, Dwight
    1968 The theorist and the language teacher. Foreign Language Annals2(1). 119–127. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.1968.tb00282.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1968.tb00282.x [Google Scholar]
  7. Booij, Geert
    2010 Construction morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass4(7). 543–555. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2010.00213.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00213.x [Google Scholar]
  8. 2019 The role of schemas in Construction Morphology. Word Structure12(3). 385–395. 10.3366/word.2019.0154
     https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0154 [Google Scholar]
  9. Boyd, Jeremy K. & Adele E. Goldberg
    2011 Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in “a”-adjective production, Language81(1). 1–29. 10.1353/lan.2011.0012
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0012 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bresnan, Joan
    1982 Polyadicity. InJoan Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, 149–72. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bybee, Joan L.
    2003 Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The Role of Frequency. InBrain D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2010 Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cambridge Dictionary Online
    Cambridge Dictionary Online 1999 Cambridge University Press. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/
  14. Croft, William & David Alan Cruise
    2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. De Saussure, Ferdinand
    1916 Course in General Linguistics. London: Duckworth.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. De Swart, Henriette
    1998 Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory161. 347–385. 10.1023/A:1005916004600
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005916004600 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dixon, Robert M.
    (ed.) 1982 Where have all the adjectives gone?. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110822939
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822939 [Google Scholar]
  18. Downing, Pamela
    1977 On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language531. 810–842. 10.2307/412913
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412913 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 2006 Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Goldberg, Adele E. & Ray Jackendoff
    2004 The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language80(3). 532–68. 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hammond, Michael
    1993 On the absence of category-changing prefixes in English. Linguistic Inquiry241. 562–7.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 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 Theory221. 565–96. 10.1023/B:NALA.0000027679.63308.89
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALA.0000027679.63308.89 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hilpert, Martin
    2014 Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale
    (eds) 2013 The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Irube, Kaneharu
    1984 Argument structure and the out-prefixation. English Linguistics1(1). 105–22. 10.9793/elsj1984.1.105
     https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj1984.1.105 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jackendoff, Ray
    2002 Foundations of language, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kotowksi, Sven
    2020 The semantics of English out-prefixation: A corpus-based investigation. English Language & Linguistics25(1). 61–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 2023 Modeling locative prefix semantics. A formal account of the English verbal prefix out-. Morphology331. 115–152. 10.1007/s11525‑023‑09405‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-023-09405-8 [Google Scholar]
  30. Koutsoukos, Nikos, Kristel Van Goethem & Hendrik De Smet
    2018 Asymmetries, mismatches and Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames10(2). 123–146. 10.1075/cf.00016.kou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00016.kou [Google Scholar]
  31. Levin, Beth
    1999 Objecthood: An event structure perspective. InSabrina J. Billings, John P. Boyle & Aaron M. Griffith (eds.), Proceedings of CLS351, 223–47. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Marchand, Hans
    1969 The categories and types of present-day English word-formation, 2nd edn. Munich: C. H. Beck.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. McIntyre, Andrew
    2003 Preverbs, argument linking and verb semantics. InGeert Booij & Jaap Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2003, 119–44. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑1513‑7_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-1513-7_6 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2015 Denominal verbs. InPeter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-formation, 434–50. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110246254‑025
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110246254-025 [Google Scholar]
  35. Michaelis, Laura A. & Josef Ruppenhofer
    2001 Beyond alternations. A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Michaelis, Laura A.
    2022 Aspectual coercion and lexical semantics part 1: Using selection to Describe the interaction between construction and verb meaning. Cognitive Semantics81. 383–408. 10.1163/23526416‑bja10036
     https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10036 [Google Scholar]
  37. Nagano, Akiko
    2011 The right-headedness of morphology and the status and development of category-determining prefixes in English. English Language and Linguistics15(1). 61–83. 10.1017/S1360674310000286
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000286 [Google Scholar]
  38. Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag & Thomas Wasow
    1994 Idioms. Language70(3). 491–538.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Online Etymology Dictionary
    Online Etymology Dictionary 2000 https://www.etymonline.com/
  40. Peterson, D. A.
    2007 Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Petré, Peter & Hubert Cuyckens
    2008 Bedusted, yet not beheaded: The role of be-’s constructional properties in its conservation. InAlexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Construction and Language Change, 133–169. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110211757.133
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211757.133 [Google Scholar]
  42. Plag, Ingo
    1999 Morphological productivity. Berlin: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin
    2001 An event structure account of English resultatives. Language77(4). 766–97. 10.1353/lan.2001.0221
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0221 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schröder, Anne
    2011 On the productivity of verbal prefixation in English: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Talmy, Leonard
    2000 Toward a cognitive semantics: typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Tolskaya, Inna
    2014 Verbal prefixes: Selection and interpretation. Tromsø: University of Tromsø PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans
    2003 The semantics of English prepositions: spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
  48. 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).
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Williams, Edwin
    1981 On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry12(2). 245–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Williams, Darrell
    1992 English comparative compounds with OVER, UNDER and OUT. InMichael Bernstein (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth Eastern States Conference of Linguistics, 272–81. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Zúñiga, Fernando & Denis Creissels
    (2024) Applicative constructions: An introductory overview. InFernando Zúñiga & Denis Creissels (eds.), Applicative constructions in the world’s languages, 3–46. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110730951‑001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110730951-001 [Google Scholar]
  52. Zúñiga, Fernando, Peter Arkadiev & Veronika Hegedűs
    2024 Applicativizing preverbs in selected European languages. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110730951‑014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110730951-014 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/etc.24009.yal
Loading
Deconstructing OUT-prefixation
English Text Construction 17, 234 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.24009.yal
/content/journals/10.1075/etc.24009.yal
/content/journals/10.1075/etc.24009.yal
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): applicativization; constructional morphology; OUT-prefixation

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error