Advertisement

Morphology

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 249–270 | Cite as

Stripping paradigmatic relations out of the syntax

  • Livio GaetaEmail author
  • Marco Angster
Article

Abstract

This contribution aims at showing how paradigms and associative relations can be integrated into word-formation, with special attention paid to compounding. In this regard, we will take into account a phenomenon at the border between derivation and compounding, namely formations like süßherzig ‘sweet-hearted’, in which -ig is an adjective-forming suffix and AN a possible compound. To do so, we will explore data available from a large web corpus, on whose basis we will show how syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations developed in syntax find their way into word formation. We will show that the most productive compounding schemas as they are currently assumed in Construction Morphology give rise to processes of semi-affixation which are a first step toward derivation proper.

References

  1. Angster, M. (2009). Composizione e parasintesi negli aggettivi in tedesco: i tipi rotwangig, salzhaltig, risikofreudig in un corpus Web. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Turin. Google Scholar
  2. Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Massachusetts: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  3. Baerman, M., & Corbett, G. G. (2010). Introduction: defectiveness: typology and diachrony. Proceedings of the British Academy, 163, 1–18. Google Scholar
  4. Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., & Zanchetta, E. (2009). The WaCky wide web: a collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, 43(3), 209–226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer, L. (1997). Derivational morphology. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996 (pp. 243–256). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Booij, G. (2005). Compounding and derivation: evidence for Construction Morphology. In W. U. Dressler, F. Rainer, D. Kastovsky, & O. Pfeiffer (Eds.), Morphology and its Demarcations (pp. 109–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  9. Bybee, J. L. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representation. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  10. Carstairs, A. (1987). Allomorphy in inflexion. London: Croom Helm. Google Scholar
  11. Decroos, N., & Leuschner, T. (2008). Wortbildung zwischen System und Norm: Affixoide im Deutschen und im Niederländischen. Sprachwissenschaft, 33, 1–34. Google Scholar
  12. DWB 3 = Kühnhold, I., Putzer, O., & Wellmann, H. (1978). Deutsche Wortbildung: Typen und Tendenzen in der Gegenwartsprache, Hauptteil 3: Das Adjektiv. Düsseldorf: Schwann. Google Scholar
  13. Eichinger, L. M. (2000). Deutsche Wortbildung: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Google Scholar
  14. Fleischer, W., & Barz, I. (1992). Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar
  15. Fuhrhop, N., & Vogel, P. (2010). Analytisches und Synthetisches im deutschen Superlativ. In D. Bittner & L. Gaeta (Eds.), Kodierungstechniken im Wandel: Das Zusammenspiel von Analytik und Synthese im Gegenwartsdeutschen (pp. 83–97). Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  16. Furdík, J. (2004). Slovenská slovotvorba [Slovak word-formation]. Prešov: Náuka. Google Scholar
  17. Gaeta, L. (2006). Lexical integrity as a constructional strategy. Lingue E Linguaggio, 5(1), 67–82. Google Scholar
  18. Gaeta, L. (2007). On the double nature of productivity in inflectional morphology. Morphology, 17(2), 181–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaeta, L. (2010). Polysynthese, Multifunktionalität und die denominalen Adjektive im Deutschen. In D. Bittner & L. Gaeta (Eds.), Kodierungstechniken im Wandel: Das Zusammenspiel von Analytik und Synthese im Gegenwartsdeutschen (pp. 99–121). Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  20. Gaeta, L. (2013). Affix ordering and conversion: looking for the place of zero. Lingue E Linguaggio, 12(2), 145–170. Google Scholar
  21. Gaeta, L. (2014). On decategorization and its relevance in German. In R. Simone & F. Masini (Eds.), Word classes: nature, typology and representations (pp. 227–241). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  22. Gaeta, L. (2015). Restrictions in word formation. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe (Vol. 2, pp. 858–874). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  23. Gaeta, L., & Ricca, D. (2015). Productivity. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe (Vol. 2, pp. 841–858). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  24. Gaeta, L., & Zeldes, A. (2017). Between VP and NN: On the constructional types of German -er compounds. Constructions and Frames, 9(1), 1–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches to language. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  26. Hohenhaus, P. (2005). Lexicalization and institutionalization. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 353–373). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J. (2016). Morphological schemas: theoretical and psycholinguistic issues. The Mental Lexicon, 11(3), 467–493. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach (2nd ed.). München: Beck. Google Scholar
  30. Motsch, W. (2004). Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen (2nd ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scalise, S. (1984). Generative morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  32. Schlücker, B. (2013). Non-classifying compounds in German. Folia Linguistica, 47(2), 449–480. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Štekauer, P. (2014). Derivational paradigms. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology (pp. 354–369). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  34. Štekauer, P. (2015). The delimitation of derivation and inflection. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe (Vol. 1, pp. 218–235). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar
  35. Stump, G. T. (2005). Word-formation and inflectional morphology. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 49–71). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sugarewa, T. (1972). Zu den Wortbildungstypen ‘breitkrempig’, ‘zielstrebig’, ‘langgeschwärt’. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 93, 259–298 (Halle, Saale). Google Scholar
  37. Van Goethem, K. (2008). Oud-leerling versus ancien élève: A comparative study of adjectives grammaticalizing into prefixes in Dutch and French. Morphology, 18, 27–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vögeding, J. (1981). Das Halbsuffix ,,-frei“: Zur Theorie der Wortbildung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TurinTurinItaly
  2. 2.University of ZadarZadarCroatia

Personalised recommendations