<!-- image -->

## The grammar of giants: Late-stage debonding of kæmpe 'giant' in Danish

Rasmus Puggaard Universiteit Leiden r.p.hansen@leidenuniv.nl

## Abstract

It  is  a  common process of language change for free morphemes to become bound  morphemes,  but  the  inverse  process  (termed  'debonding'  by  Norde 2009)  is  much  rarer.  Previous  studies  have  found  that  lexemes  with  the original  meaning  'giant'  (German Riesen ,  Dutch reuze )  have  historically grammaticalized as prefixes, and subsequently debonded into free morphemes with the same bleached meaning as the prefixes (Van Goethem & Hiligsmann 2014;  Norde  &  Van  Goethem  2014).  Using  a  synchronic  corpus  of  written Danish (KorpusDK), this paper shows that the Danish word kæmpe , originally ' giant' , is in the late stages of a similar process of debonding. By investigating the morphological and syntactic patterning of kæmpe ,  the paper shows that kæmpe has  indeed  debonded,  and  occurs  as  a  free-standing  semantically bleached adjective, but that it does not yet exhibit fully prototypical adjectival behavior.  All  three  functions  of kæmpe remain  in  use:  a  noun  with  the specific meaning 'giant' , a semantically bleached prefix, and a corresponding semantically bleached adjective. This would argue against an account relying on  abrupt  category  change,  and  it  is  proposed  that kæmpe has  reached  its current status through gradual analogy-driven change.

Keywords :    degrammaticalization,  language  change,  morphology,  corpus linguistics, Danish

## 1. Introduction

Free morphemes becoming bound morphemes is a common grammati  cal  ization process. Debonding is the reversal of that process - bound morphemes changing  into  free  morphemes.  It  is  a  type  of  degrammaticalization;  a controversial concept in contexts of language change, which has been claimed to be impossible (Haspelmath 1999). In the recent literature, though, several cases  of  debonding  have  been  uncovered  (Norde  2009:  186ff;  Norde  and Van  Goethem  2014;  Van  Goethem  and  De  Smet  2014;  Van  Goethem  and

## Rasmus Puggaard

Hiligsmann  2014;  Van  Goethem  and  Hüning  2015).  Morphemes  with  the original  meaning  'giant'  (Dutch reuze ,  German Riesen )  have  been  attested to  have  debonded:  in  these  cases, reuze and Riesen grammaticalized  into prefixoids which had the function of intensification or indication of large size, and later debonded into adjectives or adverbs with this same meaning (Van Goethem and Hiligsmann 2014; Norde and Van Goethem 2014). Due to an increased use of orthographic separation in Swedish compounds with jätte ' giant' , Norde and Van Goethem (ibid.) further investigated whether jätte had also  debonded, but found that this was purely an orthographic trend. This paper  investigates  a  similar  phenomenon  in  Danish,  where kæmpe ' giant' , similarly to reuze and Riesen , has partially undergone a process of debonding from  derivational  prefix  into  an  adjective  (and  possibly  an  adverb).  I  use synchronic corpus data to analyze the differences between orthographically free kæmpe and  bound kæmpeto  investigate  whether  differences  between them can reveal whether debonding has taken place. This paper follows the methodology of Norde and Van Goethem (ibid.) fairly closely, since Danish and Swedish are closely related, and the data used for that paper and this one are relatively similar.

Below, I will present some theoretical preliminaries, covering a description of the original grammaticalization of kæmpe , and definitions of the concepts of  affixoid  and  debonding. I will then present the data that has been used, including potential sources of error, and the methodology used in the analysis, including a description of the semantic types and formal properties used in the coding of examples. Following the main analysis, I discuss the adjectival status of kæmpe , comparing it with the behavior of other adjectives in Danish. Finally, I discuss usage-based explanations of the findings and propose that analogical change has the highest explanatory value.

Before  moving  on,  a  note  on  in-text  mentions  of  the  various kæmpe -morphemes  in  the  remainder  of  the  article:  When  referring  to  the  noun, kæmpe ' giant'  will  be  accompanied  with  a  translation.  In  order  to  avoid forcing an imperfect alignment of the Danish and English conceptual spaces, the  corresponding  prefixoid  and  adjective  will  not  be  accompanied  with translations. Bound kæmpewill be written with a hyphen, free kæmpe will be written without one; kæmpe(-) refers to both.

## 2. Theoretical preliminaries

In this section, I will present the concepts of 'affixoid' and 'debonding' , both of which are central to my analysis.

## 2.1 Affixoids and grammaticalization of original meaning

Following Norde and Van Goethem (2014), bound kæmpecan in most cases be  considered  a  prefixoid.  Affixoids  are  described  by  Booij  (2009:  208)  as morphemes which also occur as lexemes, but which have a 'specific and more restricted meaning when used as part of a compound' . The development of a lexeme into an affixoid can be considered a process of grammaticalization (e.g. Norde 2009: 15; Van Goethem and Hiligsmann 2014). Affixoids are not limited to a single word class, but occur with both nouns and adjectives, as shown in (1) and (2):

(1) Det skulle være så frit, men det blev lidt beskidt, og i stedet for en stor frigørende forløsningsfest udviklede sexmessen i 1969 sig til mændenes, de klaskende kønsdeles og pornoindustriens kvindeundertrykkende kæmpefest . 'It  should  have  been  so  free,  but  it  got  a  little  dirty,  and  instead  of  an emancipating redemption party, the sex exhibition in 1969 turned into the huge party of the men, the smacking genitals, and the female-oppressive porno industry. '

(2) Dengang var han en kæmpestor bodybuilder . 'Back then he was a huge (lit. giant-big) bodybuilder. '

The change from the original 'giant'-meaning of kæmpe to  the  prefixoid  is presumed to be similar to the Dutch process described by Van Goethem and Hiligsmann (2014: 50-51): 'a metonymical shift from a lexeme with a concrete, lexical meaning to a morpheme with an abstract, intensifying meaning' . The meaning of the prefixoid need not be completely abstract, however; the salient feature of 'largeness' is often retained. This is a process of semantic bleaching which happened quite a long time ago in Danish; intensifying uses of bound kæmpeare mentioned in dictionaries as far back as 1929 (DSL 1918-1956). As  with  Dutch reuze ,  other  processes  involved  in  the  grammaticalization process include decategorization (since the prefixoid can no longer take noun morphology), attrition (since some original semantic features have been lost), and paradigmaticization (since the prefixoid joins a paradigm of intensifiers).

## 2.2 Debonding

Debonding  is  defined  by  Norde  (2009:  186)  as  'a  composite  change whereby a bound morpheme in a specific linguistic context becomes a free morpheme'. According to Norde, it is the most frequently attested  type  of degrammaticalization. A well-known example is English -ish ,  which  in  the recent history of English has developed from a highly productive derivational suffix into a free morpheme (ibid.: 223ff.; Traugott and Trousdale 2013: 233ff.). Another  well-established  example  is  the  change  whereby  the  Old  Norse infinitive marker at 'to' went from being procliticized to the infinite verb to being a syntactically flexible free-standing complementizer å 'to' in presentday Norwegian (Faarlund 2007). There are also a number of other examples in the literature of prefixoids debonding into adjectives (e.g. Norde 2009; Van Goethem and De Smet 2014; Van Goethem and Hüning 2015; Battefeld et al. 2018).

In  the  Germanic  languages  where  'giant'-words  have  grammaticalized, debonding does not entail reversion of the prefixoid into primary use as a

## Rasmus Puggaard

specific  noun;  the  original  meaning  always  remains.  It  rather  entails  that the prefixoid develops usage as a free morpheme, in this case as an adjective or an adverb with the same meaning as the bound morpheme. Thus, if the original prefixoid had an intensifying meaning, this meaning will be retained in the free adjective or adverb. Debonding shows severance, recategorization, scope  expansion,  and  flexibilization  (Van  Goethem  and  Hiligsmann  2014: 52), covering the change from bound to free morpheme, and the expansion to new syntactic contexts. Kæmpe has debonded in accordance with Norde's (2009)  definition  of  the  process,  but  it  might  not  be  best  understood  as degrammaticalization. Affixoids such as bound kæmpeare not best described as  grammatical,  and  as  will  be  shown  below,  free kæmpe is  actually  more semantically bleached than its bound counterpart.

Norde and Van Goethem (2014: 260) warn against necessarily considering the emergence of separate spelling a sign of debonding. While separate spelling coincided with other proof of debonding for German Riesen and Dutch reuze (ibid.; Van Goethem and Hiligsmann 2014), it was also shown for Swedish that separate spelling of jätte -compounds was due to an increased tendency to  spell  compounds  separately  in  informal  contexts;  this  non-standard usage has been noted for all the major Scandinavian languages (Walmsness 2002; Hallencreutz 2003; Andersen 2010) and may be due to influence from English, although Hallencreutz (2003) argues against this. Since both Danish and  Swedish  language  users  show  a  rising  tendency  to  spell  compounds separately, this is important to keep in mind in the current study. Norde and Van Goethem (2014: 259) point out that the debonding process may in some cases have its roots in a spelling phenomenon which then leads to reanalysis.

## 3. Data

This study makes use of KorpusDK (DSL 2008), which consists of a wide variety of published texts (including literature, journalism, and advertisements) from between 1982-2002. All in all, the corpus consists of 56 million words. It is significantly  smaller  and  of  a  more  formal  nature  than  the  corpus  used  by Norde and Van Goethem (2014) in their study of German Riesen . There are both advantages and disadvantages to the more formal nature of KorpusDK. An advantage is that formally published texts are more likely to follow the advice given by the Danish Language Council that compounds be written as a single word (DSN 2014: §18-19), which means that the orthographic representation of kæmpe(-) as either free or bound is more likely to represent the linguistic reality (although this still cannot be taken for granted). A disadvantage is that informal language is more likely to reveal recent changes in the language. As such, if debonding is evident from the data, the change must be at a fairly advanced  stage.  Norde  (2020)  recently  presented  initial  results  of  a  study similar to the one presented here using the larger and more stylistically varied daTenTen17 corpus; there are differences in analysis methodology from this

## Rasmus Puggaard

study, which means that the results are not always directly comparable, but the list of common collocations in Norde's subset of daTenTen17 is similar to the ones reported in Section 5.2 below.

KorpusDK contains some rather curious texts, which probably leads to certain collocations being overrepresented. For example, there is a high volume of scientific texts, which leads to what is presumably an overrepresentation of collocations such as kæmpeøgle ' giant lizard' and kæmpeplanet ' giant planet' . The curiously high volume of erotic novellas also leads to overrepresentations of collocations such as kæmpepik 'huge cock' , which occurs three times in the corpus. Otherwise, the inclusion of erotic novellas is an advantage, since this data is more likely to be relatively informal.

I  extracted  500  random  sample  sentences  for  bound kæmpeand  free kæmpe ,  respectively.  It  was  not  feasible  to  go  any  higher,  since  the  corpus only  had  approximately  500  occurrences  of  free kæmpe . K æmpe  'giant'  is homographic (and homophonous) with a verb meaning 'to fight'; the two are also historically related, but no instances of the verb are included in this study. The treatment of the data will be laid out in the following section. The full concordance and accompanying analysis is freely available in the DataverseNL repository (Puggaard 2020).

## 4. Methodology

Each of the 1,000 occurrences of kæmpe(-) were coded for a range of formal and semantic properties, which are explained in turn below.

## 4.1 Formal properties

For each of the occurrences, I coded the word class of the element modified by kæmpe(-) . In the analyzed data, kæmpe(-) only modified nouns and adjectives, but Norde (2020) reports one example of free kæmpe modifying a verb. I also coded for the modified element itself; i.e. for bound kæmpe, I coded the root, and for free kæmpe , I coded the word modified by kæmpe . In the majority of cases, this is the word directly to the right of kæmpe , but there are also cases such as (3), where kæmpe is one of multiple adjectives.

(3) Ugen startede nede i et kæmpe sort hul ,  hvor  den amerikanske ambassadør sad  og  græmmede  sig  over  et  mislykket  statsmandsbesøg,  der  endte  med krykker i en flycontainer.

'The week started in a huge black hole , where the American ambassador was fretting over a failed state visit, which concluded with crutches in a flight container. '

In  (3), kæmpe clearly  does  not  modify sort 'black'  directly;  the  two  are semantically incompatible. It necessarily modifies the whole noun phrase, as the collocation sort hul 'black hole' has a highly specific meaning. The fact that

## Rasmus Puggaard

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 11(2), 2020 (1-21)

this is possible for free kæmpe indicates that the debonding process is rather advanced.

Apart from free and bound forms, there are also a few cases of compounds separated by a hyphen. These clearly have most in common with the bound forms, so they were eventually coded as such. This is further motivated in Section 5.1 below.

An important formal feature of Danish to consider is the fairly complex system  of  definiteness  marking.  For  ease  of  exposition,  this  section  will consider only singular noun phrases. Indefinite noun phrases are marked with a phrase-initial article marked for common or neuter gender, en or et . Definite bare nouns are marked morphologically with a suffix, -en or -et , while definite noun phrases are marked with a phrase-initial article, den or det . The phraseinitial  articles  are  homophonous  with  third  person  pronouns  of  the  same gender. Marking a bare noun with a phrase-initial definite article can specify that noun as contextually or deictically identifiable (Hansen and Heltoft 2011: 471). 1 Heavy modifiers of a noun phrase, such as subordinate clauses, are placed after the phrasal head; if a noun phrase contains heavy post-nominal modifiers but is otherwise bare, both forms of definiteness marking are acceptable. This means that ' kæmpe + noun' in either bound or free form should certainly be considered a compound if it takes morphological definiteness marking, as in (4a), whereas it should almost certainly be considered a complex noun phrase if  it  takes  the  definite  article  and  there  are  no  other  modifiers,  as  in  (5a). 2 (4a) and (5a) are attested occurrences from the corpus, while (4b-d) and (5bd) are constructed alternations exemplifying the other options. Most of the occurrences of kæmpe(-) in the corpus are underspecified for this parameter, but the ones that are specified for it are highly informative.

- (4a) Jeg er den glade mand med kæmpesmilet .
- 'I am the happy man with the huge smile (giant-smile-def.neu)' .
- (4b) * Jeg er den glade mand med kæmpe smilet .
- (4c) ? Jeg er den glade mand med det kæmpesmil . (def.neu giant-smile)
- (4d) Jeg er den glade mand med det kæmpe smil .
- (5a) Den skrivende Vangede-dreng med den kæmpe skattegæld og de sorte negle kan opleves i Indre By Medborgerhus.

'The writing boy from Vangede with the huge tax debt (def.uter giant taxdebt) and the black nails can be experienced in the Inner City Community Center' .

- (5b) ? Den skrivende Vangede-dreng med den kæmpeskattegæld (…)
- (5c) * Den skrivende Vangede-dreng med kæmpe skattegælden (giant taxdebt-def.neu) (…)
- (5d) Den skrivende Vangede-dreng med kæmpeskattegælden (…)

## Rasmus Puggaard

In  (4a) kæmpesmilet is  morphologically  marked  for  definiteness,  since  it is  a  compound.  Morphological  definiteness  would  be  unacceptable  in  a complex noun phrase (4b). An alternation where the phrase is analytically marked  for  definiteness  is  acceptable  only  if  the  noun  is  deictically  or contextually  specified  (4c),  but  is  perfectly  acceptable  as  long  as kæmpe is used in its free form (4d). Likewise, in (5a), kæmpe skattegæld is analytically marked for definiteness, since it is a complex noun phrase. An alternation with  a  compound kæmpeskattegæld is  marginally  acceptable,  requiring  the compound  to  be  deictically  or  contextually  specified  (5b).  An  alternation where a complex noun phrase is morphologically definite * kæmpe skattegælden is unacceptable (5c), but a similar alternation with a compound kæmpeskattegælden is  perfectly  acceptable (5d). These distinctions are of course not  purely  orthographical.  Rather,  the  orthography  reflects  a  phonological difference, namely that in a complex noun phrase, both kæmpe and the head noun carry primary stress (e.g. den ˈ kæmpe ˈ skatte ˌ gæld , det ˈ kæmpe ˈ smil ), whereas in a compound, only the first morpheme carries primary stress (e.g. ˈ kæmpe ˌ smilet , ˈ kæmpe ˌ skatte ˌ gælden );  see  e.g.  Basbøll  (2005:  468ff.).  The marginally acceptable cases of deictic or contextual identifiability (4c, 5b) are contingent on the definite article carrying primary stress ( ˈ det ˈ kæmpe ˌ smil , ˈ den ˈ kæmpe ˌ skatte ˌ gæld ).

Of  course,  the  optimal  solution  would  be  to  simply  look  at  prosodic realization  instead  of  spelling,  but  such  a  study  would  be  much  more demanding.  While  it  might  be  feasible  for  Swedish,  where jätte -  is  an extremely frequent intensifying prefixoid, it would be much less so for Danish where both bound kæmpeand free kæmpe are much less frequent. In fact, a  search  in  the  only  freely  available  corpus  of  Danish  spoken  interaction, Samtalebank (MacWhinney and Wagner 2010), yields only two occurrences. These occurrences do however happen to be bound and free, respectively, and are clearly prosodically marked as such. 3 In the following, prosodic realization is not taken into account, as I have no reliable access to the intended prosody of the writer; as discussed above, orthographic realization is not necessarily a credible indication of prosody.

## 4.2 Semantic types

Following Norde and Van Goethem (2014), all occurrences were coded for the type of semantic modification. Three different types are distinguished:

Classifying ,  in  which  the kæmpe -prefix  classifies  the  related  noun  as  a specific subtype. These are highly specific compounds, as in (6):

(6) Her mødte han konger, der førte krig med hære af edderkopper, lopper og kæmpemyrer .

'Here he met kings, who waged war with armies of spiders, flees, and giant ants . '

## Rasmus Puggaard

Kæmpemyrer is considered a classifying compound, since it refers to a specific species of ant.

Simile , in which the modified element borrows a conventionalized feature of  the  modifier (Hoeksema 2012: 97). In the case of kæmpe(-) ,  this  feature is  large  size.  Similes  thus  require  a  non-abstract  root  or  head  that  can  be large in a quite literal sense. Examples of simile compounds and noun phrase modification can be seen in (7) and (8):

(7) Det er livsfarligt og ulovligt at køre med en sådan kæmpekran uden den er afmærket, så det var en meget ubehagelig situation, tyven havde sat os i, siger Hejgaard.

'It is potentially lethal and illegal to drive in such a huge crane if it is not properly marked, so the thief had put is in a very uncomfortable situation, Hejgaard says. '

(8) Han forestillede sig, at der lå en kæmpe kvælerslange gemt bag døren, eller at gulvet i virkeligheden var lavet af kviksand, som ville suge ham ned, i det øjeblik han trådte ind i rummet.

'He imagined that there was a huge constrictor hidden behind the door, or that the floor was actually made of quicksand that would suck him down the second he entered the room. '

In both (7) and (8), kæmpe(-) modifies the noun as being literally very large. Intensifying ,  in  which kæmpe(-) has  a  bleached  meaning,  and  simply functions as an intensifier. As such, it does not refer to largeness in any literal sense. It is  very  likely,  though,  that  this  function  appeared  in  analogy  with words like stor 'large' which can be used as an intensifier in the same contexts. Examples can be seen in (9) and (10):

(9) Men  ved  en  parodi  af  en  retssag  fik  de  kun kæmpebøder -  ingen fængselsstraffe .

'But  at  a  parody  of  a  trial  they  only  received huge  fines -  no  prison sentences. '

(10) Filmen gjorde et kæmpe indtryk på alle, og jeg tror, at mange vil ind og opleve det igen.

'The movie made a huge impression on everyone, and I think many will want to experience it again. '

In none of these cases can the modified element be said to borrow any features from giants.

The  coding  of  semantic  type  is  in  no  way  straightforward.  First  of  all, classifying uses can in all cases be considered a subcategory of simile uses; here, the collocation of modifier and modified classify a specific referent, but

## Rasmus Puggaard

always one that is named as such due to its large size. The distinction between similes  and  intensifiers  is  also  not  always  obvious,  particularly  since  the modified noun itself is often used metaphorically or metonymically, as in (11):

(11) For naturligvis er det et kæmpe puslespil , alt skal nummereres, lægges op, anbringes på rette plads, hele den praktiske side af sagen.

'Because naturally it's a huge puzzle ,  everything must be numbered, put up, put in the right place, the whole practical side of the matter. '

Examples like (11) were coded as intensifying, due to the metaphorical usage of puslespil 'puzzle' . While a puzzle can of course be large, this rather seems to be a case of kæmpe used to intensify a metaphor. For this reason, the semantic modification type is not necessarily clear from the modified noun, as many nouns can be used in both abstract and non-abstract senses, as exemplified by (12)-(14):

- (12) Det fik virkelig effekt, da to kæmpebølger slog ind over båden og fyldte hele agterenden.

'It really came into effect when two huge waves crashed against the boat and filled the entire stern. '

- (13) Ridende på succesens kæmpebølge er den tunge fotomodel begyndt at lancere tøj for andre tykke kvinder, og hun håber, der er et marked for hendes specielle design både i Europa og i USA.

'Riding on the huge wave of success, the heavy fashion model has begun to launch clothes for other big women, and she hopes that there is a market for her special designs both in Europe and in the US. '

- (14) Jeg er rystet, som var jeg blevet ramt af en kæmpebølge , men lidt efter falder jeg en smule til ro, jeg er jo ikke bange for noget.
2. , but after a while I calm

'I am shaken, as if I have been hit by a huge wave down a little, you know, I'm not afraid of anything. '

- (12) is clearly a simile compound, as kæmpemodifies the size of literal waves.

(13)  is  analyzed  as  an  intensifying  compound,  since bølge

'wave'  is  used

metaphorically, and can thus not be modified for literal size. (14) is a more

curious example;

bølge

is  not  used  literally  here  either,  but  in  this  case  the

entire sensation described in the subordinate clause is used in a non-literal

way, while the wave itself is conceived of as a real entity (that can be modified

for size). (14) is thus analyzed as a simile compound.

There are other possible typologies of semantic modification types than the  one  used  here.  Battefeld  et  al.  (2018),  for  example,  refer  to  'qualifying' modification rather than simile modification. Their conception of qualifying modification is rather broad, such that modification of metaphors or abstract nouns would fall under the qualifying type rather than the intensifying type; as  such,  they  do  not  make  a  distinction  between  literal  and  metaphorical classification. They also avoid the notion of intensifying modification of nouns altogether,  opting  instead  for  the  term  'evaluative'  modification;  this  term does not seem to be suitable in the case of kæmpe(-) , as there is no inherent evaluation associated with its use.

## 5. Analysis

This  section  will  present  the  results  of  the  analysis,  focusing  in  turn  on differences in formal properties, semantic types of modification, and productivity of free kæmpe and bound kæmpe. The chi-square tests referenced below were calculated using the freely available JASP statistical software (JASP Team 2016).

## 5.1 Formal properties

Here, I look at differences between free kæmpe and bound kæmpeon  the basis of the formal properties presented in Section 4.1 above: word class of the  modified,  and  morphological  definiteness  marking.  I  will  also  show that it is inconsequential whether a kæmpe -compound is directly bound or hyphenated.

Table 1 summarizes the occurrences of free kæmpe and  bound kæmpeby  word  class.  No  occurrences  were  found  of kæmpe(-) modifying  word classes other than nouns and adjectives. Both bound kæmpeand free kæmpe most frequently modify nouns, but bound kæmpeis much more likely than free kæmpe to modify adjectives. The distribution is fairly similar to that of German Riesen (Norde and Van Goethem 2014: 263). The difference between bound and free is significant (χ 2 = 75.57, p <.001) with a medium effect size (Cramér's V = .275); the modest effect size is not surprising, given the very high volume of modified nouns for both types. It can be inferred that bound kæmpebehaves like a prefixoid, while free kæmpe behaves mostly like a free adjective.

|           | Bound         | Free          |
|-----------|---------------|---------------|
| Adjective | 15.6% (n=78)  | 0.6% (n=3)    |
| Noun      | 84.4% (n=422) | 99.4% (n=497) |

Table 1: Word class of element modified by kæmpe(-).

Table 2 summarizes the distribution of morphological definiteness marking in nouns modified by free kæmpe and bound kæmpe. No occurrences were found of free kæmpe collocating with morphologically definite nouns. It was also not the norm for bound forms, which is unsurprising, as the environments for  morphological  definiteness  marking  are  rather  narrow,  as  explained  in Section 4.1 above. However, it was also not infrequent, occurring in 15.4% of all kæmpe -compounds. The difference between free kæmpe and bound kæmpeis  significant (χ 2 =  82.18, p <.001), also with a medium effect size (Cramér's V = .299), due to the overall majority of morphologically indefinite forms. Overall, it is striking that the morphologically definite form never occurs with free kæmpe , clearly indicating that the two forms have different grammatical properties.

|                              | Bound         | Free         |
|------------------------------|---------------|--------------|
| Morphologically definite     | 15.4% (n=65)  | 0%           |
| Not morphologically definite | 84.6% (n=358) | 100% (n=497) |

Table  2:  Distribution  of  morphological  definiteness  in  nouns  modified  by kæmpe(-).

As mentioned above, kæmpe -compounds are occasionally hyphenated. One might assume that the hyphenated form occurs in particularly long compounds to ease reading; however, no such tendency was found. Hyphenated kæmpe -compounds are clearly similar to bound kæmpe -compounds in that they are about equally likely to take morphological definiteness marking, as seen in Table 3. While non-hyphenated compounds were slightly more likely to take morphological  definiteness,  this  difference  is  considered  inconsequential given the relatively few occurrences of hyphenated compounds. The difference is not significant (χ 2 = .548, p <.459).

|                              | Hyphenated   | Not hyphenated   |
|------------------------------|--------------|------------------|
| Morphologically definite     | 11.1% (n=4)  | 15.8% (n=61)     |
| Not morphologically definite | 88.9% (n=32) | 84.2% (n=326)    |

Table 3: Morphological definiteness in noun compounds by hyphenation.

The  hyphenated  compounds  were  significantly  less  likely  to  modify adjectives (χ 2 = 5.048, p <.025), but with a tiny effect size (Cramér's V = .1). This difference has a clear functional motivation. As further discussed in Section 5.2 below, by far the most common adjective to be modified by kæmpeis stor 'big' , and given the high frequency of this compound, it is much less likely to be spelled with the marked hyphenated orthographic form.

Summing up, the bound form is much more likely than the free form to modify adjectives; the free form never modifies nouns that are morphologically marked for definiteness, while this is relatively frequent in both the bound and hyphenated forms. For this reason, the hyphenated form is considered an orthographic variant of the bound form.

## 5.2 Semantic distribution

This section will first investigate what semantic types of modification that free kæmpe and  bound kæmpecarry  out,  and  further  investigate  which  words they most often collocate with.

Table 4 shows the distribution of semantic types of modification. There is a clear difference between free and bound modification with regard to semantic modification type. There are a few cases of bound kæmpeused in classifying compounds,  but  no  instances  of  free kæmpe used  for  classification.  Aside from  the  few  classifying  compounds,  intensifying  and  simile  modification are roughly equally frequent for bound kæmpe. For free kæmpe , intensifying modification is much more frequent than simile modification. This difference is significant (χ 2 = 57.53, p <.001) with a medium effect size (Cramér's V = .24). The more frequent intensifying use of free kæmpe indicates that the debonding process also results in further semantic bleaching.

Table 4: Semantic modification types.

|              | Bound         | Free        |
|--------------|---------------|-------------|
| Classifying  | 5% (n=25)     | 0%          |
| Intensifying | 50.8% (n=254) | 71% (n=355) |
| Simile       | 44.2% (n=221) | 29% (n=145) |

Table 5 shows the most frequent collocations of bound kæmpeand free kæmpe :

Table 5: Most frequent collocations.

|   15 | Free problem , 'problem'     |   73 | Bound stor , 'large'     |
|------|------------------------------|------|--------------------------|
|   12 | oplevelse , 'experience'     |   23 | success , 'success'      |
|   12 | succes , 'success'           |   10 | høj , 'hill'             |
|    8 | fordel , 'advantage'         |    9 | kran , 'crane (machine)' |
|    7 | skuffelse , 'disappointment' |    8 | arbejde , 'work'         |
|    7 | stykke , 'piece'             |    7 | mus , 'mouse'            |
|    7 | udfordring , 'challenge'     |    7 | øgle , 'lizard'          |
|    6 | arbejde , 'work'             |    6 | brag , 'bang'            |
|    6 | opgave , 'task'              |    6 | hit , 'hit'              |
|    6 | sejr , 'victory'             |    6 | planet , 'planet'        |
|    5 | chance , 'chance'            |    6 | problem , 'problem'      |
|    5 | marked , 'market'            |    5 | fest , 'party'           |
|    5 | potentiale , 'potential'     |    5 | skærm , 'screen'         |
|    5 | underskud , 'deficit'        |      |                          |
|  287 | hapax legomena               |  198 | hapax legomena           |

Table 5 confirms that free kæmpe is  much more frequent with intensifying value collocating with abstract nouns. Actually, all of its most frequent collocations are abstract nouns; stykke 'piece' , which is not abstract on the surface, typically occurs in the construction et kæmpe stykke arbejde , 'a huge amount of work

(lit. a giant piece of work)' . While some of these are also frequent collocations for  bound kæmpe,  bound kæmpeis  clearly  more  likely  to  collocate  with concrete  nouns,  such  as kran ' crane  (machine)' , høj 'hill' ,  and  øgle  'lizard' . The highly frequent occurrence of kæmpe -compounds with these particular nouns probably does not reflect the actual usage of the prefix, but should be considered an effect of the corpus. But the list probably reflects reality in the sense that bound kæmpeis likely to occur as part of simile compounds.

Bound kæmpevery frequently occurs with stor 'large'; it is possible that the  frequency  of  this  particular  compound  may  have  had  an  effect  on  the preceding  analysis,  in  that  its  inclusion  may  exaggerate  the  difference  in semantic modification types of free kæmpe and bound kæmpe-.

## 5.3 Productivity

In the bottom of Table 5, the number of hapax legomena for bound kæmpeand free kæmpe are shown. Hapax legomena are collocations which occur only once in the data set. While the number is much higher for free kæmpe ,  the difference can be partially explained by the high frequency of the kæmpestor 'huge  (lit.  giant-big)'  compound.  In  their  study,  Norde  and  Van  Goethem (2014)  use  type-to-token  ratio  and  measurement  of  Potential  Productivity (the relative amount of hapax legomena) to investigate productivity. I forego these in favor of a more qualitative analysis for three reasons: 1) measurements of type-to-token ratio and Potential Productivity interact with corpus size in ways that are not immediately predictable, 2) the nature of the corpus used for this paper may mean that the particular collocations do not reflect general language use, and 3) it is clear from investigation of the hapax legomena that both bound kæmpeand free kæmpe are highly productive.

I  will  demonstrate  this  productivity  by  giving  a  few  examples  of  both bound kæmpeand free kæmpe modifying very infrequent nouns:

(15) I aftes åbnedes lejren officielt med et kæmpe velkomst-lejrbål , og i dag fortsætter  indretningen af  det  220  tønder  land  store  lejrområde,  der  siden 1967 har rummet landslejrene, som holdes hvert femte år.

'Last night the camp opened with a huge welcome bonfire , and today the decoration of the 220 acre camp area, which since 1967 has accommodated the national camps every fifth year, will continue. '

(16) Fra Rådhuspladsen blir der holdt en demo, hvor vi har lavet en kæmpe papmaché skråt-op-finger ,  som  vi  havde  tænkt  os  at  gi  kommunen,  men så synes vi alligevel den er for pæn til dem og tar den med ud til vores nye ungdomshus.

'From the City Hall square, a demo will be held, where we made a huge papier-mâché middle finger ,  which  we  were  planning  on  giving  to  the municipality, but then we thought it was too pretty for them anyway so we'll take it to our new youth house. '

## Rasmus Puggaard

In  (15)-(16),  free kæmpe modifies velkomst-lejrbål 'welcome  bonfire'  which occurs only three times in KorpusDK - and papmaché skråt-op-finger 'papier-mâché middle finger' - which occurs only this once in KorpusDK respectively. These examples should be enough to conclude that free kæmpe is  entirely  productive,  which  is  to  be  expected  if  it  is  to  be  analyzed  as  an adjective.

(17) Filmen skildrer Don Corleones forbryderfirma som et kæmpeforretningsforetagende og  samtidig  et  gammeldags  overskueligt familiefirma.

'The movie portrays Don Corleone's criminal business as a huge business endeavor and  at  the  same  time  an  old-fashioned  manageable  family business. '

(18) Konerne på gårdspladsen slog i takt på vasketøjet med et bræt, stående i iskoldt kildevand i et gammelt kæmpegranitkar ved byens brønd.

'The wives in the courtyard alternatingly beat on the laundry with a board, standing in ice cold spring water in an old huge granite tub at the town well. '

Likewise, in (17)-(18), bound kæmpemodifies forretningsforetagende 'business endeavor' - which occurs eight times in KorpusDK - and granitkar ' granite tub' - which occurs only once in KorpusDK - respectively. The infrequency of these words on their own should be enough to prove that bound kæmpeis also fully productive, at least with regards to noun modification.

The  same  cannot  be  said  for  adjective  modification.  Apart  from  the previously discussed stor 'large' , kæmpeonly modifies a relatively small and homogenous group of adjectives  in  the  analyzed  data: høj 'tall' , lang 'long' , massiv 'massive' . These modifications are all analyzed as being of the simile type, in that they can non-metaphorically be modified for size. However, since the  adjectives  by  themselves  already  refer  to  size,  the  distinction  between simile  and  intensifying  modification  is  actually  neutralized.  An  internet search revealed that purely intensifying kæmpe -modification of adjectives is also possible: 4

## (19) Det var kæmpefedt at få et job.

'It was hugely awesome (lit. huge-cool) to get a job. '

(Sand, Per Skovkjær. 2012. Det var kæmpefedt at få et job. Fyens Stiftstidende , December  18.  URL:  https://fyens.dk/artikel/det-var-k%C3%A6mpefedtat-f%C3%A5-et-job)

This  usage  is  obviously  less  frequent  than  the  more  straightforward  simile modifications  found  in  KorpusDK,  but  shows  that kæmpe -modification of  adjectives  is  not  entirely  unproductive,  and  also  shows  some  degree  of semantic bleaching. When kæmpemodifies size-adjectives, there is no clear distinction  between  simile  and  intensifying  modification;  as  such,  what originated as simile modification may be undergoing reanalysis as intensifying modification, allowing the prefixoid to become increasingly productive.

## 6. Adjectival status of free kæmpe

In order to investigate whether free kæmpe has fully debonded, this section will analyze whether it fulfills the criteria for adjectivehood given by Bhat and Pustet (2000) and Velupillai (2012) with particular focus on the use of kæmpe as compared to prototypical Danish adjectives (as described by e.g. Hansen and Heltoft 2011: 829ff.).

Cross-linguistically,  adjectives  generally  inflect  for  degree.  This  is  also the case in Danish, where the bare stem indicates positive degree, and most adjectives  can  inflect  for  the  comparative  and  superlative  degrees.  Some inflected adjectives have stem modification in the form of umlaut, and some have suppletive root forms; many do not take morphological degree inflection at all, but instead analytical inflection in the form of adverbs. The different options are exemplified in Table 6:

|             | Morphological inflection   | Stem modification   | Suppletive root     | Analytical               |
|-------------|----------------------------|---------------------|---------------------|--------------------------|
| Positive    | kold , 'cold'              | stor , 'large'      | lille , 'small'     | ædru 'sober'             |
| Comparative | kold-ere , 'colder'        | stør-re , 'larger'  | mindre , 'smaller'  | mere ædru , 'more sober' |
| Superlative | kold-est , 'coldest'       | stør-st , 'largest' | mindst , 'smallest' | mest ædru , 'most sober' |

Table 6: Degree inflection of Danish adjectives.

The regular inflectional paradigm is reasonably productive, and the analytical paradigm is entirely productive. That being said, no single instance of kæmpe modified  for  degree  was  found  in  the  corpus;  nor  have  I  found  any  using internet searches. Kæmpe can thus be said to differ from prototypical adjectives in that it does not normally take degree inflection. The corpus does, however, include an occurrence of reduplicated kæmpe indicating intensity:

(20) Stamceller har et kæmpe, kæmpe potentiale , når det gælder behandling. 'Stem cells have a huge, huge potential when it comes to treatment. '

Reduplication of Danish adjectives has not been described in the literature, but it is known to indicate plurality (Moravcsik 1978) and intensity (Bhat and Pustet 2000) in several languages, and does not appear particularly marked in  Danish,  but  rather  intuitively  seems  to  be  possible  for  most  adjectives. Hoeksema  (2012)  further  notes  that  prefixoids  generally  allow  emphatic reduplication in so-called 'elative compounds' , i.e. compounds where the root is inherently gradable.

Apart from degree inflection, Danish adjectives are also host to a large array of agreement phenomena. Some Danish adjectives take gender-marking in the form of the -t suffix when combining with neuter nouns, e.g. stor 'large' ~ et stort hus 'a large house (indef.neu large-neu house)' . This is not generally the case, however, for nouns which phonologically end in a vowel, e.g. lille 'small' ~ et lille hus ' a  small house (indef.neu small house)' . Morphological gender marking is thus not expected in kæmpe .

Adjectives also agree for definiteness and plurality, in both cases with an -e (phonologically schwa) suffix. This agreement is also not expected in kæmpe , since this suffix does not attach to adjectives which already end in schwa. This may partially serve to explain why kæmpedebonded in the first place: since prototypical adjectives take a -e suffix in multiple important contexts of use, adjectives very frequently appear with a final schwa. De Smet (2012) showed that  even  superficial  similarities  to  analogical  models  can  ease  reanalysis. The final schwa of kæmpe , even if it is simply part of the stem, provides such a  similarity  to  an  analogical  model,  in  that  it  overlaps  with  several  critical contexts  of  use  for  prototypical  adjectives.  This  would  entail  that kæmpe favors contexts of use in which it modifies definite or plural nouns; no such favoritism is found synchronically, but this may have been the case in early adjectival use of kæmpe .

Danish adjectives are frequently used predicatively (Hansen and Heltoft 2011: 292ff.), in which case they are connected to a clause subject through a copula verb. Surprisingly, no occurrences of predicative use of kæmpe were found in the corpus, indicating that this usage has not yet seeped fully into formal written Danish. It is, however, not difficult to find examples online:

(21) Han er kæmpe , og får han fat i Zaki, vil han banke ham, og hvis politiet kommer, har Zaki tabt.

' He's huge , and if he gets a hold of Zaki, he'll beat him up, and if the police show up, Zaki will have lost. '

(Hergel, Olav. 2011. Indvandreren . Copenhagen: Art People.)

(22) Dér hænger en Gary Hume (han er stor), dér hænger en Peter Doig ( han er kæmpe ), dér hænger en Chris Ofili (han er giga). 5

' There is  one  of  Gary  Hume (he's large), there is  one  of  Peter  Doig  ( he's huge ), there is one of Chris Ofili (he's gigantic). '

(Thorsen, Andreas. 2017. 'I en forjaget tid, hvor hele verden synes klar til at gå i krig, har vi brug for kunst, fordi kunst er ro. ' Mød Danmarks største kunstsamler. Zetland ,  October 17. URL: https://www.zetland.dk/historie/ sebaG4j0-aopXLwdn-20643)

As seen in (21)-(22), predicative use of kæmpe is possible, even if it is fairly infrequent in the written language. Only occurrences with simile modification have been found, but intensifying uses may also exist peripherally. Even if predicative use is infrequent, it is still very important in the context of this paper.  The  possibility  of  predicative  use  indicates  that  debonding  is  very advanced, as kæmpe in these cases has moved entirely out of the noun phrase. This is further evidence that the difference between bound and free use is not purely orthographic.

Kæmpe is  a  prototypical  adjective  in  Bhat's  (1994)  sense,  in  that  its categorical usage is temporally stable noun phrase modification. It is not a prototypical Danish adjective, as it does not take any inflection, as compared to other Danish adjectives which maximally inflect for degree, gender, number, and definiteness.  The  missing  agreement  marking  can  be  explained  by  the phonological make-up of the word, which may in turn partially explain why it debonded in the first place, since the stem ending is analogous to a highly frequent adjectival suffix. The missing degree marking both inflectionally and analytically is seen as an indication that while debonding is clearly advanced, it is still incomplete.

## 7. Discussion and conclusion

The noun kæmpe in  Danish refers to a large human-like mythological creature. 6 This noun has developed into a prefixoid which attaches to nouns or adjectives indicating either largeness or simply intensification of the stem meaning. In this paper, I show that this prefixoid more recently has further debonded and become an adjective, which can either modify a noun phrase directly or - to a lesser extent - be used predicatively. The difference between the latter two are at least partially reflected in the orthography. It would be too simplistic to say that kæmpehas been reanalyzed as an adjective; as shown in Section 6 above, this process is advanced, yet incomplete. The most frequent use of adjectival kæmpe is still in the context of direct noun phrase modification, where it most clearly resembles the prefixoid kæmpe; predicative use is less frequent. It also resists degree inflection, even though it is semantically compatible with it. This poses some problems for a traditional reanalysis explanation: the prefixoid has not been  abruptly  reanalyzed  as  an  adjective,  in  the  manner  described by  Hopper  and  Traugott  (2003:  46).  It  has not simply  joined  the  category (construction-type) of adjectives, in the manner described by Fischer (2007: 145). I propose that gradual analogy-driven change has higher explanatory value in the case of kæmpe(-) .

An analogical account holds that prefixoids directly modify nouns in a similar way to adjectives; in Danish, and languages with a similar manner of definiteness marking, this is particularly the case when the modified nouns are  unmarked  for  definiteness.  Like  adjectives,  the  prefixoid  immediately precedes  the  noun. Kæmpe already  superficially  shares  with  adjectives  a phonological ending which is also a frequent inflection indicating plurality or definiteness. This process could be further helped along by the non-standard orthographical tendency to split up compounds. Furthermore, indications of largeness or intensification is typically the domain of adjectives. Analogy to adjectives  is  thus  available  both  in  morphology  (superficially),  syntax,  and semantics, as exemplified in (23):

<!-- formula-not-decoded -->

Of course, the final -e of kæmpe is not actually a definite ending, but it has the same form as one. In a syntactic context such as (23), this analogical change simply requires writing kæmpe separately in the written language (which may have already been the case), and assigning a separate stress pattern to kæmpe in the spoken language. This analogical change only allows adjectival kæmpe in the immediately pre-nominal position of a noun phrase. The first change may then lead to a chain reaction, in which kæmpe gradually becomes more prototypically  adjectival,  for  instance  in  being  allowed  in  other  positions in the noun phrase than immediately preceding the head noun, or in being allowed in predicative use. These changes are analogical, as kæmpe takes on features of other words that also directly modify nouns; all frequent adjectives can modify nouns predicatively, for example. This could lead to a prediction that kæmpe will eventually take degree inflection, and might also explain why it does not already do so. Since kæmpe phonologically ends in a vowel, it is expected  to  take  analytical  and  not  morphological  degree  inflection.  Most highly frequent adjectives take morphological degree inflection, which means that analogs for analytical degree inflection are not as immediately available as they are for predicative noun modification. Failure to take degree inflection can thus be explained with reference to lack of an appropriate analogy.

A helpful way to think about the difference between the two modifying uses of kæmpe(-) may be as different constructions; bound kæmpedeveloped from the kæmpe ' giant'-concept, and free kæmpe developed from its bound counterpart. The two constructions differ significantly on the basis of both prosody,  morphology,  syntax,  and  semantics.  They  also  show  significantly different  collocation  patterns.  However,  they  both  appear  to  be  entirely productive  in  their  simile  and  intensifying  usages.  It  was  shown  that  free kæmpe shares  several  features with prototypical Danish adjectives, but also that it differs in important respects, indicating that the debonding is advanced yet incomplete. It was furthermore suggested that describing the debonding of kæmpeas  analogy-driven  change  has  higher  explanatory  value  than describing it as a case of traditional reanalysis.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Hendrik De Smet and Muriel Norde for their thoughtful comments and suggestions for a previous version of this paper. I would also like  to  thank  editor  Carsten  Levisen  and  an  anonymous  reviewer  for  their comments. Any remaining faults are, of course, my own.

## Notes

- 1 Note that Hansen and Heltoft (2011) analyze these instances of den or det as pronouns rather than articles.
- 2 We cannot entirely rule out that the intended reading of (5a) is equivalent to (5b) with non-standard spelling, i.e. contextually or deictically identifiable; the diagnostics for this are purely pragmatic (and prosodic). However, the construction in (5b) is rather more marked than (5a), and there is nothing in the context to signal such an intention.
- 3 Both occurrences can be heard in the Sam4 subcorpus (Wagner and MacWhinney 2010). The bound occurrence can be heard in moedregruppen1.cha (line 709), and the free occurrence can be heard in studiegruppe.cha (line 1731).
- 4 Norde (2020) also reports on a few instances of purely intensifying kæmpe -modification of adjectives.
- 5 Interestingly,  the  adjective giga ' gigantic'  seems  to  have  had  a  similar  historical trajectory to k æmpe(-) ; according to DSL (2018), at least, it was attested as an intensifying prefix prior to being attested as an adjective.
- 6 The historical source of this noun is in fact a verb kæmpe 'to  fight,  to  struggle' , which also remains in use. The link between the two is, however, synchronically opaque.

## References

- Andersen, Margrethe Heidemann. 2011. Særskrivning og sammenskrivning i dansk. In Inger Schoonderbek Hansen & Peter Widell (eds.), 13. møde om udforskningen af dansk sprog , 43-54. Aarhus University.
- Basbøll,  Hans.  2005. The  phonology  of  Danish (The  Phonology  of  the  World's Languages). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
- Battefeld, Malte, Torsten Leuschner & Gudrun Rawoens. 2018. Evaluative morphology in German, Dutch and Swedish. Constructional networks and the loci of change. In Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbouwhede (eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (Constructional Approaches  to  Language  20),  229-262.  Amsterdam  &  Philadelphia:  John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/cal.20.
- Bhat,  D.N.  Shankara.  1994. The  adjectival  category.  Criteria  for  differentiation and  identification (Studies  in  Language  Companion  Series  24).  Amsterdam  & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/slcs.24.
- Bhat, D.N. Shankara & Regina Pustet. 2000. Adjective. In Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, Stavros Skopeteas & Wolfgang Kesselheim (eds.), Morphology. An  international handbook  on inflection and word-formation (Handbooks  of  Linguistics  and  Communication  Science  17),  vol.  1,  757-769. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110111286.1.10.757.

## Rasmus Puggaard

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 11(2), 2020 (1-21)

- Booij,  Geert  E.  2009.  Compounding  and  construction  morphology.  In  Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (Oxford Handbooks  Online),  201-216.  Oxford  &  New  York:  Oxford  University  Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199695720.013.0010.
- De  Smet,  Hendrik.  2014.  The  course  of  actualization. Language 88(3),  601-633. doi:10.1353/lan.2012.0056.
- DSL = Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. 1918-1956. Ordbog over det danske sprog . Available online, URL:ordnet.dk/ods.
- DSL = Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab.  2008. KorpusDK .  URL:ordnet.dk/ korpusdk.
- DSL = Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. 2018. Den danske ordbog . URL:ordnet. dk/ddo.
- DSN  =  Dansk  Sprognævn.  2014. Retskrivningsregler .  URL:dsn.dk/retskrivning/ retskrivningsregler.
- Faarlund,  Jan  Terje.  2007.  Parameterization  and  change  in  non-finite  complementation. Diachronica 24(1), 57-80. doi:10.1075/dia.24.1.04faa.
- Fischer,  Olga.  2007. Morphosyntactic  change.  Functional  and  formal  perspectives (Oxford  Surveys  in  Syntax  and  Morphology).  Oxford  &  New  York:  Oxford University Press.
- Hallencreutz, Katharina. 2001. Skyll på längden, inte på engelskan. Språkvård 4, 4-9. Hansen,  Erik  &  Lars  Heltoft.  2011. Grammatik  over  det  danske  sprog .  Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
- Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6), 1043-1068. doi:10.1515/ling.37.6.1043.
- Hoeksema, Jack. 2012. Elative compounds in Dutch. Properties and developments. In  Guido  Oebel  (ed.), Crosslinguistic  comparison  of  intensified  adjectives  and adverbs (Schriften Zur Vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft), 97-142. Hamburg: Dr Kovac.
- Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization (Cambridge Textbooks  in  Linguistics).  2nd  ed.  Cambridge:  Cambridge  University  Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139165525.
- JASP Team. 2016. JASP. A fresh way to do statistics . Open source statistical software, URL:jasp-stats.org.
- MacWhinney,  Brian  &  Johannes  Wagner.  2010.  Transcribing,  searching  and  data sharing. The CLAN software and the TalkBank data repository. Gesprächsforschung 11, 154-173.
- Moravcsik,  Edith  M.  1978.  Reduplication  constructions.  In  Joseph  H.  Greenberg (ed.), Universals in human language , 297-334. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization . Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207923.001.0001.
- Norde, Muriel & Kristel Van Goethem. 2014. Bleaching, productivity and debonding of  prefixoids.  A  corpus-based  analysis  of  'giant'  in  German  and  Swedish. Linguisticæ Investigationes 37(2), 256-274. doi:10.1075/li.37.2.05nor.
- Norde,  Muriel.  2020.  Dänish kæmpe .  Gebunden  und  frei.  Paper  presented  at Sprachwissenschaftliches Kolloquium , Humboldt University of Berlin.
- Puggaard,  Rasmus.  2020.  Tagged  KorpusDK  concordance  for kæmpe ' giant' . DataverseNL , version 1. doi:10.34894/YXXNK3.

## Rasmus Puggaard

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 11(2), 2020 (1-21)

- Traugott,  Elizabeth  Closs  &  Graeme  Trousdale.  2013. Constructionalization  and constructional change (Oxford Studies in Diachronic & Historical Linguistics 6). Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press.  doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001.
- Van Goethem, Kristel & Hendrik De Smet. 2014. How nouns turn into adjectives. The emergence of new adjectives in French, English and Dutch through debonding processes. Languages in Contrast 14(2), 251-277. doi:10.1075/lic.14.2.04goe.
- Van  Goethem,  Kristel  &  Philippe  Hiligsmann.  2014.  When  two  paths  converge. Debonding and clipping of Dutch reuze. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26(1), 31-64. doi:10.1017/S1470542713000172.
- Van Goethem, Kristel & Matthias Hüning. 2015. From noun to evaluative adjective. Conversion or debonding? Dutch top and its equivalents in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 27(4), 366-409. doi:10.1017/S1470542715000112.
- Velupillai,  Viveka.  2012. An  introduction  to  linguistic  typology .  Amsterdam  & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/z.176.
- Wagner, Johannes & Brian MacWhinney. 2010. Sam4 corpus. Talkbank . doi:10.21415/ T5FK5V.
- Walmsness, Roar. 2002. Særskrivning av sammensatte ord. Språknytt 3(4), 26-29.