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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As is well known, German adjectives display different forms if they are preceded by the determinative article (weak forms) or not (strong forms). However, the whole paradigm—and especially among the weak forms—is filled with homonymous forms, i.e. widespread syncretism: the forms hohe and hohen alone fill all the slots in the weak paradigm, e.g. no case distinction is conveyed by the adjective in plural weak forms and no gender distinction is conveyed by the adjective in nominative, dative and genitive singular weak forms.
Here, the traditional zero-suffix -ØV- for forming verbs is assumed. See Gaeta (2013) for a discussion of the alternative conversion hypothesis. The pattern prefix-ADJ-ØV—which is called Präfixkonversion ‘prefix conversion’ in German (cf. Fleischer and Barz 1992:308)—is more productive in the formation of de-adjectival verbs. See for example hoch → er- + höh- + -ØV → erhöhen ‘to raise, increase’, hoch → auf- + höh- + ØV → aufhöhen ‘to heighten’.
The symbol ° marks the output of the processes which are not attested in the Duden online dictionary available at www.duden.de.
It is worth noting that Motsch (2004:282) in his treatment of the -ens de-adjectival adverbs of German explicitly excludes the existence of kältestens, as opposed to heißestens, and in general the possibility to produce the relevant antonym of an -ens adverb formed from an adjective constituting the higher pole of an antonymic scale.
The derivative stämmig, from Stamm ‘root’, exists, but means in fact ‘strong, vigorous, athletic’.
The adjective niedrig is properly a derivative of the adverb nieder ‘low’ and the latter often occurs in alternation with the former in AN-ig formations.
At first sight, Mittel- in Mittelwelle might be connected either with the adjective mittel ‘neither good or bad, average’ or with the noun Mittel which can refer to ‘means, resources, remedy’ or to ‘middle value’, and in this latter meaning is related to the adjective (and historically derived from it). However, for the compounds in (23) the association with the adjective is preferable in the light of other compounds which clearly select the noun Mittel ‘mean’ such as Mittelbestand ‘funds, lit. stock of resources’, Mittelbedarf ‘resource needs’, etc.
More commonly the adjective derived for Mittelalter ‘the Middle Ages’ is mittelalterlich.
References
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.
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Baerman, M., & Corbett, G. G. (2010). Introduction: defectiveness: typology and diachrony. Proceedings of the British Academy, 163, 1–18.
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.
Bauer, L. (1997). Derivational morphology. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996 (pp. 243–256). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Carstairs, A. (1987). Allomorphy in inflexion. London: Croom Helm.
Decroos, N., & Leuschner, T. (2008). Wortbildung zwischen System und Norm: Affixoide im Deutschen und im Niederländischen. Sprachwissenschaft, 33, 1–34.
DWB 3 = Kühnhold, I., Putzer, O., & Wellmann, H. (1978). Deutsche Wortbildung: Typen und Tendenzen in der Gegenwartsprache, Hauptteil 3: Das Adjektiv. Düsseldorf: Schwann.
Eichinger, L. M. (2000). Deutsche Wortbildung: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Fleischer, W., & Barz, I. (1992). Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
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.
Furdík, J. (2004). Slovenská slovotvorba [Slovak word-formation]. Prešov: Náuka.
Gaeta, L. (2006). Lexical integrity as a constructional strategy. Lingue E Linguaggio, 5(1), 67–82.
Gaeta, L. (2007). On the double nature of productivity in inflectional morphology. Morphology, 17(2), 181–205.
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.
Gaeta, L. (2013). Affix ordering and conversion: looking for the place of zero. Lingue E Linguaggio, 12(2), 145–170.
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.
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.
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.
Gaeta, L., & Zeldes, A. (2017). Between VP and NN: On the constructional types of German -er compounds. Constructions and Frames, 9(1), 1–40.
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.
Hohenhaus, P. (2005). Lexicalization and institutionalization. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 353–373). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J. (2016). Morphological schemas: theoretical and psycholinguistic issues. The Mental Lexicon, 11(3), 467–493.
Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach (2nd ed.). München: Beck.
Motsch, W. (2004). Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen (2nd ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Scalise, S. (1984). Generative morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Schlücker, B. (2013). Non-classifying compounds in German. Folia Linguistica, 47(2), 449–480.
Štekauer, P. (2014). Derivational paradigms. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology (pp. 354–369). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Stump, G. T. (2005). Word-formation and inflectional morphology. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 49–71). Dordrecht: Springer.
Sugarewa, T. (1972). Zu den Wortbildungstypen ‘breitkrempig’, ‘zielstrebig’, ‘langgeschwärt’. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 93, 259–298 (Halle, Saale).
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.
Vögeding, J. (1981). Das Halbsuffix ,,-frei“: Zur Theorie der Wortbildung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Parts of this paper were presented at the workshop on “Paradigms in Word Formation” held during the 49th International Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea at the University of Naples “Federico II” (31.8.–3.9.2016), as well as in a lecture given at the University of Erlangen (16.1.2018). We thank all people attending the workshop, and especially Fiammetta Namer and Nabil Hathout, as well as two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and remarks. Needless to say, all remaining mistakes are ours.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gaeta, L., Angster, M. Stripping paradigmatic relations out of the syntax. Morphology 29, 249–270 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-018-9326-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-018-9326-2