Is there a word or phrase to define several words linked by hyphens, such as in "a sit-back-and-wait-for-it attitude"

Question

some more examples:

• "And she gave me that aren't-I-just-gorgeous smile."

• "The I-did-it-my-way approach."

• "A from-this-day-forward-I-have-no-son scene."

Answer 1

It's more than a hyphenated compound modifier (a to-do list). It's a stacked hyphenated compound modifier.

Bonnie Mills, at Grammar Girl has a relevant article, starting:

Today’s episode concerns a what-you-may-have-been-wondering-about topic. That sure was a mouthful, and it illustrates the problem of stacked modifiers, which occurs when you string together too many words to describe a noun at the end of the mouthful.

Though the examples given here are quirky, punchy and easy to understand, and fine in informal registers, caution has to be exercised to avoid confusion or silliness.

And I'd say that trying to analyse these nonce coinings as other than compound adjectives is a futile exercise (though their origins are transparent).

Answer 2

It is a hyphenated compound modifier!

How to stop worrying about compound modifiers Monday, 1 Feb 2010, by Linda Lowenthal -

http://www.copyediting.com/how-stop-worrying-about-compound-modifiers

Answer 3

Going with Lambie's suggestion that the asker intended to find a name for 'whole sentences' used as a modifier in a noun phrase, this phenomenon should be pretty straight forward to categorize.

First, any clause that is not itself a main clause is subordinate, and since these clauses are functioning as a dependent in a noun phrase, they would have to be classed as subordinate clauses.

Second, since these clauses are headed by finite verbs (tensed verbs that is), we can say that they are finite subordinate clauses.

Third, since they have no perceivable difference from ordinary finite clauses that could stand on their own as a sentence, we might say they are unmarked finite subordinate clauses. However, we could also conclude that they are in fact marked as subordinate by their hyphenation, though this seems to fall into the category of punctuation more than syntax, and would not apply were we to hear them spoken. Also, in many instances, they are in fact not marked by hyphenation.

I'm a member of the why bother generation myself.

That said, I'd think the string of words making up the clause would be uttered at a quicker pace, and with less of a pause between words, especially when they get longer. Or, alternatively, there would be a pause after uttering the determiner and another after the clause.

But, on the overall, it would probably still be best to refer to them as unmarked as they would be indistinguishable from main clauses out of context.

Now, it remains to determine what exactly their function is in noun phrase structure. Since they appear in the pre-head position, and are not acting as determiner, they must be either a pre-head modifier or complement. We could posit that they are modifiers (allowed by almost any head noun) or complements (allowed by only a certain limited subset of head nouns).

The modifier categorization seems warranted here as the head noun is seen as characterized by the content of the clause (but maybe not literally communicating it), or specifically designated for the person or personified thing that would utter it. This allows them to be used with almost any head noun.

I was sitting all alone at [the I-did-it-my-way table].

[His I-did-it-my-way smile] really irked me.

They were surprised by [my I-did-it-my-way declaration].

In the third example, I may not have literally said the words 'I did it my way', but something that could be summed up that way.

This contrasts with finite subordinate clauses acting as post-head dependent in NPs, which are only allowed by certain head nouns and hence are complements.

They were surprised by [my declaration (that) I did it my way].

*They were surprised by [my smile (that) I did it my way].

In conclusion, the most accurate way to refer to these constructions would be unmarked finite subordinate clauses acting as pre-head modifiers in NPs. If we wanted to specify that they were hyphenated, then I suppose that could be added: hyphenated unmarked finite subordinate clauses acting as pre-head modifiers in NPs. If we then decided that in fact the hyphenation did in fact mark them as subordinate, I suppose we'd have to call them hyphenated syntactically-unmarked finite subordinate clauses acting as pre-head modifiers in NPs.

If we adopt the term content clause for a finite subordinate clause, the name could be shortened slightly to unmarked content clauses acting as pre-head modifiers in NPs.

---

But, why aren't they compound adjectives?

It would seem unwise to categorize these as adjectives as they cannot be used predicatively, do not readily take the typical range of dependents that adjectives would, and are not gradable (though we could have more or less of an I-told-you-so attitude).

*He seemed I-told-you-so.

?His very I-told-you-so attitude bothered me.

?His more I-told-you-so attitude bothered me.

Compare with a compound adjective like easy-going:

He seemed easy-going.

His very easy-going attitude bothered me.

His more easy-going attitude bothered me.

Furthermore, as Lambie has pointed out, their distribution does not match that of adjectives. They can, in unhyphenated form, appear in functions that adjectives cannot.

I did it my way. [main clause]

I thought I did it my way. [complement of reporting verb]

He was afraid I did it my way. [complement of adjective]

He was angry after I did it my way [complement of preposition]

So, since the range of dependents they may take and their distribution (outside of pre-head modifier in an NP) does not resemble that of adjectives, they should not be classed as such.