1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interactional Linguistics
  4. Volume 3, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 3, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 2666-4224
  • E-ISSN: 2666-4232
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Occasionalisms, i.e., non-lexicalized ad-hoc-expressions that are coined for a specific occasion, are a recurrent phenomenon in verbal interactions. Even though recipients have not heard those novel word formations before, they can still understand them. This paper reports on a study from an Interactional Linguistics perspective which explores ad-hoc-expressions in spoken German, such as (‘stroke-me-little-bear-couple’) and (‘diaper-drug’). It draws on an analysis of 934 ad-hoc-compounds in a corpus of German interaction. These typically do not cause a problem of understanding, because their meaning is inferable due to different resources that help recipients understand unfamiliar expressions: a specific word formation with a high degree of compositionality, cues or anchoring in the prior context or common ground. While a compositional word formation is not always necessary to sufficiently understand meaning in interaction due to other resources, opaque word formation has its limits when it comes to understanding the meaning of an expression especially when recipients cannot rely on other resources to understand the expression.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.22007.hel
2024-04-25
2024-12-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/il.22007.hel
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Antaki, C., Biazzi, M., Nissen, A., & Wagner, J.
    (2008) Accounting for moral judgments in academic talk: The case of a conversation analysis data session. Text & Talk, 281, 1–30. 10.1515/TEXT.2008.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aronoff, M.
    (1983) A decade of morphology and word formation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 121, 355–375. 10.1146/annurev.an.12.100183.002035
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.12.100183.002035 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bilmes, J.
    (2011) Occasioned semantics. A systematic approach to meaning in talk. Human Studies34(2), 129–153. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9183‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9183-z [Google Scholar]
  4. Bushnell, C.
    (2012) Talking the talk: The interactional construction of community and identity at conversation analytic data sessions in Japan. Human Studies, 351, 583–605. 10.1007/s10746‑012‑9248‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-012-9248-7 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H.
    (1996) Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482–1493.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Carter, R.
    (2004) Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, H. H.
    (1977) Bridging. InP. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp.411–420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (1996) Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark, H. H. & Gerrig, Richard J.
    (1990) Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66(4), 764–805. 10.2307/414729
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  10. Consten, M., Knees, M., & Schwarz-Friesel, M.
    (2007) The function of complex anaphors in texts. InMonika Schwarz-Friesel, Manfred Consten & Mareile Knees (Eds.), Anaphors in Text: Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference (pp.81–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.86.09con
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.86.09con [Google Scholar]
  11. Costello, F. J., & Keane, M. T.
    (2005) Compositionality and the pragmatics of conceptual combination. InE. Machery, M. Werning, & G. Schurz (Eds.), The compositionality of meaning and content. Volume II: Applications to Linguistics, Psychology, and Neuroscience (pp.203–216). Frankfurt am Main: Ontos. 10.1515/9783110332865.203
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110332865.203 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cruse, D. A.
    (1986) Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Deppermann, A.
    (2005) Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. InA. Hakulinen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation (pp.289–317). Benjamins: Amsterdam. 10.1075/sidag.17.15dep
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.15dep [Google Scholar]
  14. (2011) Notionalizations: The transformation of descriptions into categorizations. InA. Deppermann (Ed.), Formulation, Generalization, and Abstraction in Interaction. Human Studies, 34(2), 155–181. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9186‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9186-9 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2020) Interaktionale Semantik. InJ. Hagemann, & S. Staffeldt (Eds.), Semantiktheorien II (pp.235–278). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Deppermann, A. & De Stefani, E.
    (2019) Defining in talk-in-interaction: Recipient-design through negative definitional components. Journal of Pragmatics, 1401, 140–155. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  17. Deppermann, A. & Schmidt, A.
    (2021) How shared meanings and uses emerge over an interactional history: Wabi Sabi in a series of theater rehearsals. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(2): 203–224. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1899714
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899714 [Google Scholar]
  18. De Stefani, W.
    (2020) ‘Nel senso (che)’ in Italian conversation: Turn-taking, turn-maintaining and turn-yielding. InY. Maschler, S. Pekarek Doehler, J. Lindström, & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action (pp.25–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.32.02ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32.02ste [Google Scholar]
  19. Donalies, E.
    (2005) Die Wortbildung im Deutschen. Ein Überblick. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Downing, P.
    (1977) On the creation and use of Englisch compound nouns. Language53(4), 810–842. 10.2307/412913
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412913 [Google Scholar]
  21. Drew, P.
    (1997): „Open“ Class Repair Initiators in Response to Sequential Sources of Troubles in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28(1), 69–101. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)89759‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dunbar, G.
    (2005): The Goldilocks Scenario: Is noun-noun compounding compositional?InE. Machery, M. Werning & G. Schurz (Eds.). The compositionality of meaning and content. Volume II: Applications to Linguistics, Psychology, and Neuroscience (pp.217–228). Frankfurt am Main: Ontos. 10.1515/9783110332865.217
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110332865.217 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fox, B. A., Hayashi, M. & Jasperson, R.
    (1996) Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. InE. Ochs, Elinor, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp.185–237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.004 [Google Scholar]
  24. Gagné, C. L. & Spalding, T. L.
    (2015) Noun-noun compounds. InP. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Langua-ges of Europe. Volume21 (pp.1144–1159). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Georgakopoulou, A.
    (2015) Small stories research. Methods – Analysis – Outreach. InA. De Fina, & A. Georgakopoulou (Eds.), Handbook of narrative analysis (pp.255–271). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118458204.ch13
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118458204.ch13 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hawkins, J. A.
    (1978): Definiteness and indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Helmer, H. & Zinken, J.
    (2019) Das Heißt (“That Means”) for Formulations and Du Meinst (“You Mean”) for Repair? Interpretations of Prior Speakers’ Turns in German. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(2): 159–176. 10.1080/08351813.2019.1608098
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1608098 [Google Scholar]
  28. Helmer, H.
    (2020) How do speakers define the meaning of expressions? The case of German x heißt y (“x means y”). Discourse Processes, 57(3): 278–299. 10.1080/0163853X.2019.1646567
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1646567 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2022) Okkasionalismen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Bedeutungserklärungen zwischen Notwendigkeit und interaktiver Ressource. Deutsche Sprache, 2/2022, 97–123
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hein, K.
    (2017) Modeling the properties of German phrasal compounds within a usage-based constructional approach. InC. Trips, & J. Kornfilt (Eds.), Further investigations into the nature of phrasal compounding (pp.119–149). Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hohenhaus, P.
    (1996) Ad-hoc-Wortbildung. Terminologie, Typologie und Theorie kreativer Wortbildung im Englischen. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2007) How to do (even more) things with nonce words (other than naming). InJ. Munat (Ed.), Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts (pp.15–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sfsl.58.08hoh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.58.08hoh [Google Scholar]
  33. Ikoma, M. & Werner, A.
    (2007) Prosodie der Modalpartikel schon: Wahrnehmung verschiedener Interpretationen. InE.-M. Thüne, & F. Ortu (Eds.), Gesprochene Sprache – Partikeln (pp.129–139). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Keevallik, L.
    (2011) Grammar for adjusting assumptions: The Estonian enclitic -gi/-ki in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 2879–2896. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kendrick, K. H.
    (2015) Other-initiated repair in English. Open Linguistics, 1(1), 164–190. 10.2478/opli‑2014‑0009
     https://doi.org/10.2478/opli-2014-0009 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kitzinger, C. & Mandelbaum, J.
    (2013) Word Selection and Social Identities in Talk-in-Interaction. Communication Monograph, 80(2), 1–23. 10.1080/03637751.2013.776171
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.776171 [Google Scholar]
  37. Klos, V.
    (2011) Komposition und Kompositionalität. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der semantischen Dekodierung von Substantivkomposita. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110258875
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110258875 [Google Scholar]
  38. Marzo, D.
    (2015) Motivation, compositionality, idiomatization. InP. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Volume 2 (pp.984–1001). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Nguyen, H. T.
    (2012) Social interaction and competence development: Learning the sequential organization of a communicative practice. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 11, 127–142. 10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.05.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  40. Olsen, S.
    (2015) Composition. InP. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Volume 1 (364–386). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110246254‑022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110246254-022 [Google Scholar]
  41. Raymond, C. W.
    (2022) Suffixation and sequentiality. Notes on the study of morphology in interaction. Interactional Linguistcs, 2(1), 1–41. 10.1075/il.21012.ray
     https://doi.org/10.1075/il.21012.ray [Google Scholar]
  42. Ronneberger-Sibold, E.
    (2015) Word creation. InP. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word Formation: An international Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Volume 1 (pp.485–500). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110246254‑028
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110246254-028 [Google Scholar]
  43. Ryder, M. E.
    (1994) Ordered Chaos. The Interpretation of English Noun-Noun Compounds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Schlücker, B.
    (2012) Die deutsche Kompositionsfreudigkeit. Übersicht und Einführung. InL. Gaeta, & B. Schlücker (Eds.), Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache. Strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte (pp.1–25). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110278439.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110278439.1 [Google Scholar]
  45. Schmidt, T.
    (2016): Good practices in the compilation of FOLK, the Research and Teaching Corpus of Spoken German. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21(3), 396–418. 10.1075/ijcl.21.3.05sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.3.05sch [Google Scholar]
  46. Selting, M.
    (2004) Listen: Sequenzielle und prosodische Struktur einer kommunikativen Praktik – ein,e Untersuchung im Rahmen der Interaktionalen Linguistik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft231, 1–46. 10.1515/zfsw.23.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.23.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  47. Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Deppermann, A., Gilles, P., Günthner, S., Hartung, M. & Kern, F.
    (2011) A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT2. Translated and adapted for English by E. Couper-Kuhlen and D. Barth-Weingarten. Gesprächsforschung –Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 121, 1–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Sikveland, R. O., & Stokoe, E.
    (2020) Should police negotiators ask to “talk” or “speak” to persons in crisis? Word selection and overcoming resistance to dialogue proposals. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(3), 324–340. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1785770
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1785770 [Google Scholar]
  49. Simmler, F.
    (1998) Morphologie des Deutschen. Flexionsund Wortbildungsmorphologie. Berlin: Weidler.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Stevanovic, M.
    (2017) Managing Compliance in Violin Instruction: The Case of the Finnish Clitic Particles –pa and –pAs in Imperatives and Hortatives. InM.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action (pp.357–380). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.12ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.12ste [Google Scholar]
  51. Stumpf, S.
    (2018) Textsortenorientierte Wortbildungsforschung. Desiderate, Perspektiven und Beispielanalysen. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung, 2(1), 165–194. 10.3726/zwjw.2018.01.06
     https://doi.org/10.3726/zwjw.2018.01.06 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2021a): Occasional word formations in written and spoken German. Neologica, 151, 151–169.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. (2021b) Passe-partout-Komposita im gesprochenen Deutsch. Konstruktionsgrammatische und interaktionslinguistische Zugänge im Rahmen einer pragmatischen Wortbildung. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 49(1), 33–83. 10.1515/zgl‑2021‑2020
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl-2021-2020 [Google Scholar]
  54. Weber, T.
    (2014) Funktion und Bedeutung von Wortneubildungen in telefonischen Beratungsgesprächen. InS. Michel, & J. Tóth (Eds.), Wortbildungssemantik zwischen Langue und Parole. Semantische Produktionsund Verarbeitungsprozesse komplexer Wörter (pp.205–226). Stuttgart: ibidem.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/il.22007.hel
Loading
Ad-hoc-compounds in spoken German
Interactional Linguistics 3, 67 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/il.22007.hel
/content/journals/10.1075/il.22007.hel
/content/journals/10.1075/il.22007.hel
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ad-hoc-expressions; Conversation Analysis (CA); Interactional Linguistics (IL); morphology; repair; word formation

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