Advertisement

Morphology

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 297–323 | Cite as

The form and productivity of the Maltese morphological diminutive

  • Shiloh DrakeEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the productivity and form of the morphological diminutive in Maltese. Maltese has lexical items and grammatical properties stemming from both Semitic and Indo-European roots; previous research has shown that there are different levels of productivity for Semitic and Indo-European morphology, which varies even among speakers. In addition, both the Semitic and Indo-European morphological diminutive may take several different forms in Maltese. The goals of this research are to determine whether native speakers of Maltese can use a morphological diminutive (like wuggie) rather than a lexical diminutive (like little wug); if they can, whether a default form exists for the morphological diminutive, and if so, whether the default form is Indo-European or Semitic in nature. A novel word elicitation task was used to test how speakers use the diminutive, and the results may be explained using a variety of different theoretical frameworks allowing for a hierarchical selection of a diminutive allomorph.

Keywords

Root-and-pattern morphology Maltese Novel word elicitation task Diminutive 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by grants from the University of Arizona Social and Behavioral Sciences Research Institute and the University of Arizona Graduate and Professional Students Council. The author wishes to thank the following individuals for their comments and expertise: Lauren M. Ackerman, William Cotter, Ray Fabri, Kenneth I. Forster, Luke Galea, Heidi Harley, Ingo Plag, Adam Ussishkin, Andrew Wedel, Samantha Wray, two anonymous reviewers, and the Institute of Linguistics at the University of Malta.

References

  1. Albright, A., & Hayes, B. (2003). Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study. Cognition, 90, 119–161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aquilina, J., & Cassar-Pullicino, J. (1957). Lexical material in Maltese folklore. Msida: Malta University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Arad, M. (2003). Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: the case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(4), 737–778. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aronoff, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  5. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01. Google Scholar
  7. Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bobaljik, J. D. (2000). The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In K. K. Grohmann & C. Struijke (Eds.), University of Maryland working papers in linguistics (Vol. 10, pp. 35–71). Google Scholar
  9. Bolozky, S. (1994). On the formation of diminutives in modern Hebrew morphology. Hebrew Studies, 35, 47–63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borg, A. (1996). On some Mediterranean influences on the lexicon of Maltese. In J. Lüdke (Ed.), Romania Arabica (pp. 129–150). Tübingen: Narr. Google Scholar
  11. Borg, A., & Azzopardi-Alexander, M. (1997). Maltese. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  12. Borg, C., Fabri, R., Gatt, A., & Rosner, M. (2011). MLRS Corpus, v2. 0 BETA. http://mlrs.research.um.edu.mt/corpusquery/malti02/. Google Scholar
  13. Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2004b). Allomorphic variation in Arabic: implications for lexical processing and representation. Brain and Language, 90, 106–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2011). Productivity and priming: morphemic decomposition in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(4), 624–652. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Campbell, R., & Sais, E. (1995). Accelerated metalinguistics (phonological) awareness in bilingual children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13(1), 61–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dawdy-Hesterberg, L. G., & Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2014). Learnability and generalisation of Arabic broken plural nouns. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(10), 1268–1282.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.899377. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Jong, N. H., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000). The morphological family size effect and morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4/5), 329–365. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deutsch, A., Frost, R., & Forster, K. I. (1998). Verbs and nouns are accessed differently in the mental lexicon: evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(5), 1238–1255. Google Scholar
  21. Frisch, S. A., Pierrehumbert, J. B., & Broe, M. B. (2004). Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22(1), 179–228. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frost, R., Forster, K. I., & Deutsch, A. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked-priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(4), 829–856. Google Scholar
  23. Frost, R., Deutsch, A., & Forster, K. I. (2000). Decomposing morphologically complex words in a non-linear morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology; Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(3), 751–765. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Galambos, S. J., & Hakuta, K. (1988). Subject-specific and task-specific characteristics of metalinguistic awareness in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 141–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gathercole, V. C. M. (2007). Miami and North Wales, so far and yet so near: a constructivist account of morphosyntactic development in bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 224–247. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from the building 20 (pp. 111–176). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  27. Hammond, M. (1988). Templatic transfer in Arabic broken plurals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 247–270. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harley, H. (1994). Hug a tree: deriving the morphosyntactic feature hierarchy. In A. Carnie & H. Harley (Eds.), MIT working papers in linguistics (Vol. 21, pp. 289–320). Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Google Scholar
  29. Harley, H., & Noyer, R. R. (1999). Distributed morphology. Glot International, 4(4), 3–9. Google Scholar
  30. Hay, J., & Baayen, R. H. (2002). Parsing and productivity. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2001 (pp. 203–235). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hay, J., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Shifting paradigms: gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9(7), 342–348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Inkelas, S., & Zoll, C. (2007). Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics, 45(1), 133–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jurafsky, D. (1996). Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language, 72(3), 533–578. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kempe, V., Brooks, P. J., Gillis, S., & Samson, G. (2007). Diminutives facilitate word segmentation in natural speech: cross-linguistic evidence. Memory & Cognition, 35(4), 763–773. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36. Abstract. Google Scholar
  36. Krott, A., Baayen, R. H., & Schreuder, R. (2001). Analogy in morphology: modeling the choice of linking morphemes in Dutch. Linguistics, 39(1), 51–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lele, S. R., Keim, J. L., & Solymos, P. (2017). Version 0.3-3 [Software]. Resource selection (probability) functions for use-availability data. https://github.com/psolymos/ResourceSelection.
  38. MATLAB (Version 2013B) [Software], Natick, MA: The MathWorks, Inc. Google Scholar
  39. McCarthy, J. J., & Prince, A. S. (1990). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: the Arabic broken plural. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 8, 209–283. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mifsud, M. (1995). Loan verbs in Maltese: A descriptive and comparative study. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar
  41. Noyer, R. R. (1992). Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  42. Ohala, D. (1999). The influence of sonority on children’s cluster reductions. Journal of Communication Disorders, 32, 397–422. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paradis, J. (2010). Bilingual children’s acquisition of English verb morphology: effects of language exposure, structure complexity, and task type. Language Learning, 60(3), 651–680. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001). Stochastic phonology. Glot International, 5(6), 195–207. Google Scholar
  46. Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73–193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Prasada, S., & Pinker, S. (1993). Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(1), 1–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. R Core Team (2016). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/. Google Scholar
  49. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11(6), 1090–1098. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schneider, K. P. (2003). Diminutives in English. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spagnol, M. (2011). A tale of two morphologies: verb structure and argument alternations in Maltese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Konstanz. Google Scholar
  52. Twist, A. E. (2006). A Psycholinguistic investigation of the verbal morphology of Maltese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. Google Scholar
  53. Vella, I. (2015). English Maltese dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.englishmaltesedictionary.com.
  54. Watson, J. C. E. (2006). Arabic morphology: diminutive verbs and diminutive nouns in San’ani Arabic. Morphology, 16, 189–204.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-006-9103-5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations