Diminutive-formation in German

Spelling out the classifier analysis
Original Paper

Abstract

In German, mass nouns can be turned into count nouns by means of two alternative strategies: either by using them in connection with a numeral classifier, or by adding the diminutive morpheme (-chen). In this paper, I argue that the two strategies are structurally exactly parallel, with both kinds of elements (numeral classifiers and diminutive -chen) being exponents of an individuating functional head. The (superficial) difference is that -chen—which I show is a clitic-like element—triggers obligatory movement of the nominalized root to its Spec. By contrast, this movement is optional with a (non-deficient) numeral classifier, yielding both ‘analytic’ and ‘compound’ forms. The picture that emerges from the discussion is a unified analysis of count structures in German.

Keywords

Diminutives Classifiers German Morphology Syntax 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  2. Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2004. Beyond morphology. Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, vol 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Classifiers: A typology of noun-categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman, and Melita Stavrou. 2007. Noun phrase in the generative perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, Mark C., and Jonathan Bobaljik. 2002. Introduction to morphology. Ms., Rutgers University and McGill University.Google Scholar
  6. Barrie, Michael. 2005. On unifying antisymmetry and bare phrase structure. In Proceedings of NELS 35, eds. Leah Bateman and Cherlon Ussery, 103–114. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  7. Beard, Robert. 1998. Derivation. In The handbook of morphology. Blackwell handbooks in linguistics, eds. Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky, 44–65. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Blühdorn, Hardarik. 2006. Zur Semantik von Numerus und Zählbarkeit im Deutschen. In Grammatische Untersuchungen. Analysen und Reflexionen, Studien zur deutschen Sprache, vol 36, eds. Eva Breindl, Lutz Gunkel, and Bruno Strecker, 53–77. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
  9. Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Bare syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Booij, Geert E. 1995. The phonology of Dutch. The phonology of the world’s languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Booij, Geert E. 2002. Prosodic constraints on stacking up affixes. In Yearbook of morphology 2001, eds. Geert E. Booij and Jaap van Marle, 183–202. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. Booij, Geert E. 2005. The grammar of words. An introduction to linguistic morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Borer, Hagit. 2005. In name only, Structuring sense, vol I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bos̆ković, Z̆eljko. 1994. D-structure, ϑ-Criterion, and movement into ϑ-positions. Linguistic Analysis 24:247–286.Google Scholar
  15. Bouchard, Denis. 2002. Adjectives, number and interfaces: Why languages vary, Linguistic Variations, vol 61. Amsterdam: North Holland Linguistic Series.Google Scholar
  16. Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Rint Sybesma. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30:509–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of semantic parameter. In Events and grammar, ed. Susan D. Rothstein, 53–103. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Corver, Norbert. 1998. Predicate movement in pseudopartitive constructions. In Possessors, predicates and movement in the Determiner Phrase. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, vol 22, eds. Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 215–258.Google Scholar
  21. Corver, Norbert, and Henk van Riemsdijk. 2001a. Semi-lexical categories. In Semi-lexical categories, eds. Norbert Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk, 1–19. Studies in Generative Grammar, vol 59. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  22. Corver, Norbert, and Henk van Riemsdijk, eds. 2001b. Semi-lexical categories. Studies in Generative Grammar, vol 59. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Corver, Norbert, and Joost Zwarts. 2006. Prepositional numerals. Lingua 116:811–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. De Belder, Marijke. 2008. Size matters: Towards a syntactic decomposition of countability. In Proceedings of WCCFL 27, eds. Natasha Abner and Jason Bishop, 116–122. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  25. den Dikken, Marcel. 1998. Predicate inversion in DP. In Possessors, predicates and movement in the Determiner Phrase. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, vol 22, eds. Artemis Alexiadou and Chris Wilder, 177–214 Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  26. Doetjes, Jenny. 1996. Mass and count: Syntax or semantics? In Proceedings of Meaning on the HIL, 34–52.Google Scholar
  27. Donalies, Elke. 2006. Dem Väterchen sein Megahut. Der Charme der deutschen Diminution und Augmentation und wie wir ihm gerecht werden. In Grammatische Untersuchungen. Analysen und Reflexionen. Studien zur deutschen Sprache, vol 36, eds. Eva Breindl, Lutz Gunkel, and Bruno Strecker, 33–51. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
  28. Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi. 1994. Morphopragmatics. Diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German, and other languages. Trends in Linguistics—Studies and Monographs, vol 76. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. Embick, David, and Morris Halle. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003: Selected papers from Going Romance 2003. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, vol 270, eds. Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken, and Haike Jacobs, 37–62.Google Scholar
  30. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, eds. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Emonds, Joseph. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  32. Emonds, Joseph. 2000. Lexicon and grammar: The English syntacticon. Studies in Generative Grammar, vol 50. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  33. Fanselow, Gisbert, and Caroline Féry. 2002. Ineffability in grammar. In Resolving conflicts in grammars: Optimality theory in syntax, morphology, and phonology. Linguistische Berichte (Sonderheft), vol 11, eds. Gisbert Fanselow and Caroline Féry, 296–311. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
  34. Greenberg, Joseph. 1972. Numeral classifiers and substantival number: Problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. Working Papers on Language Universals 9:2–39.Google Scholar
  35. Hall, Tracy Alan. 1989. Lexical phonology and the distribution of German [ç] and [x]. Phonology 6:1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Silvain Bromberger, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–176. Current Studies in Linguistics, vol 24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Papers at the interface. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol 30, eds. Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang, and Martha McGinnis, 425–449. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  38. Hallman, Peter. 2004. On the derivation of verb-final and its relation to verb-second. Ms., McGill University.Google Scholar
  39. Halpern, Aaron. 1995. On the morphology and placement of clitics. CLSI.Google Scholar
  40. Harley, Heidi. 2008. Compounding in Distributed Morphology. In The Oxford handbook of compounding, eds. Rochelle Lieber and Pavol S̆tekauer, 129–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Harley, Heidi, and Rolf Noyer. 2000. Formal versus encyclopedic properties of vocabulary: Evidence from nominalizations. In The lexicon-encyclopedia interface, ed. Bert Peeters, 349–374. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  42. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hunnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Hermans, Ben, and Marc van Oostendorp. 2008. Umlaut is phonological. Evidence from ineffability. Paper presented at the Umlaut in Germanic Dialects workshop, Meertens Institute (Amsterdam), June 2008.Google Scholar
  44. Hinterhölzl, Roland. 1997. An XP-movement account of restructuring. Ms., University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  45. Iverson, Gregory K., and Joe Salmons. 1992. The place of Structure Preservation in German diminutive formation. Phonology 9:137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic heads and word formation. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Julien, Marit. 2003. Word-order type and syntactic structure. In Linguistic variation yearbook 1, eds. Johan Rooryck and Pierre Pica, 17–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  48. Julien, Marit. 2007. On the relation between morphology and syntax. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, eds. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 209–238. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language 72:533–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, vol 25. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Kayne, Richard S. 2005. Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, eds. Guglielmo Cinque and Richard S. Kayne, 3–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. In-Seok Yang, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
  53. Kölver, Ulrike. 1983. Sprachliche Skalen im typologischen Vergleich. akup 53:121–158.Google Scholar
  54. Koopman, Hilda, and Anna Szabolcsi. 2000. Verbal complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Löbel, Elisabeth. 2001. Classifiers and semi-lexicality: Functional and semantic selection. In Semi-lexical categories. Studies in Generative Grammar, vol 59, eds. Norbert Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk, 223–271. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  56. Lowenstamm, Jean. 2007. On little n, \(\surd\), and types of nouns. In Sounds of silence: Empty elements in syntax and phonology. North Holland linguistic series: linguistic variations, vol 63, eds. Jutta Hartmann, Veronica Hegedűs, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 105–143. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  57. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Mahajan, Anoop. 2003. Word order and (remnant) VP movement. In Word order and scrambling, Explaining Linguistics, vol 4, ed. Simin Karimi, 217–237. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4:201–225.Google Scholar
  60. Muravyova, Irina A. 1998. Chukchee (Paleo-Siberian). In The handbook of morphology, eds. Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky, 521–538. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  61. Muromatsu, Keiko. 1998. On the syntax of classifiers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  62. Nieuwenhuis, Paul. 1985. Diminutives. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  63. Pearson, Matt. 1997. Pied-piping into the left periphery. In Proceedings of NELS 27, ed. Kiyomi Kusumoto, 321–335. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  64. Perlmutter, David. 1988. The Split Morphology hypothesis: Evidence from Yiddish. In Theoretical morphology, eds. Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan, 79–99. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  65. Raposo, Eduardo E., and Juan Uriagereka. 2005. Clitic placement in Western Iberian: A minimalist view. In The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, eds. Guglielmo Cinque and Richard S. Kayne, 639–697. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Siddiqi, Daniel. 2009. Syntax within the word: Economy, allomorphy, and argument selection in Distributed Morphology, Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, vol 138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  67. Simpson, Andrew. 2005. Classifiers and DP structure in Southeast Asia. In The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, eds. Guglielmo Cinque and Richard S. Kayne, 806–838. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Sproat, Richard. 1985. On deriving the lexicon. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. Stavrou, Melita. 1983. Aspects of the structure of the noun phrase in Modern Greek. Doctoral Dissertation, University of London.Google Scholar
  70. Stavrou, Melita. 2003. Semi-lexical nouns, classifiers and the interpretation(s) of the pseudopartitive construction. In From NP to DP. Vol. 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases, eds. Martine Coene and Yves D’hulst, Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, vol 55, 329–354. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  71. Stump, Gregory. 1993. How peculiar is evaluative morphology? Journal of Linguistics 29:1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Svenonius, Peter. 2007. 1 ... 3–2. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, eds. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 239–288. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Svenonius, Peter. 2008. The position of adjectives and other phrasal modifiers in the decomposition of DP. In Adjectives and adverbs: syntax, semantics, and discourse, Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, vol 19, eds. Louise McNally and Chris Kennedy, 16–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Talmy, Leonard. 1978. The relation of grammar to cognition—a synopsis. In Proceedings of TINLAP 2, ed. David Waltz, 12–24. Champaign, IL: Coordinated Science Laboratory, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  75. van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1998. Categorial feature magnetism: The endocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vos, Riet. 1999. A grammar of partitive constructions. Doctoral Dissertation, Universiteit van Tilburg.Google Scholar
  77. Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1:333–436.Google Scholar
  78. Wetzels, W. Leo, and Joan Mascaró. 2001. The typology of voicing and devoicing. Language 77:207–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wiese, Richard. 1996a. Phonological versus morphological rules: On German Umlaut and Ablaut. Journal of Linguistics 32:113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wiese, Richard. 1996b. The phonology of German. The phonology of the world’s languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Wiltschko, Martina. 2006. Why should diminutives count? In Organizing grammar. Studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Studies in Generative Grammar, vol 86, eds. Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz, and Jan Koster, 669–679. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  82. Wiltschko, Martina, and Olga Steriopolo. 2007. Parameters of variation in the syntax of diminutives. In Proceedings of the 2007 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference (online), ed. Milica Radisic.Google Scholar
  83. Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1970. Studien zur deutschen Lautstruktur. Studia grammatica, vol VIII. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  84. Zhang, Niina Ning. 2009. Syntactic properties of numeral classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. Ms., National Chung Cheng University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations