The form and productivity of the Maltese morphological diminutive

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    These templates are referred to generically as wazan (pl. awzaan) in Arabic grammars, pedagogical literature, and by Arabic linguists, or binyan in some Hebrew literature (seen in (2)) (McCarthy and Prince 1990). In this form, the root \(\sqrt{}\)fʔl is treated as a placeholder for the three root consonants in a template, similar to the CV skeleton above.

  2. 2.

    All Maltese examples are given in standard orthography. <q> indicates a glottal stop, <ċ> indicates a voiceless palato-alveolar affricate, <ġ> indicates a voiced palato-alveolar affricate, <ż> indicates a voiced alveolar fricative, <z> indicates a voiceless alveolar affricate, and <x> indicates a palatal fricative.

  3. 3.

    As an anonymous reviewer points out, tqajba is no longer widely used, and may not be used in everyday speech by the younger speakers who took part in Experiment 2.

  4. 4.

    The maximal model was computed as follows: glmer(ResponseTypeWordType * Dominance + (1 | subject) + (1 | item) + (1 | image), data = data). Stepwise model comparison was performed to arrive at the best fitting model, which is coded as the following: glmer(ResponseTypeWordType + (1 | subject) + (1 | item) + (1 | image), data = data). p-values were then computed using the anova function and comparing the best fitting model to a depleted model with WordType removed.

References

  1. Albright, A., & Hayes, B. (2003). Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study. Cognition, 90, 119–161.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2011). Productivity and priming: morphemic decomposition in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(4), 624–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Campbell, R., & Sais, E. (1995). Accelerated metalinguistics (phonological) awareness in bilingual children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13(1), 61–68.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hay, J., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Shifting paradigms: gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9(7), 342–348.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jurafsky, D. (1996). Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language, 72(3), 533–578.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36. Abstract.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  42. Ohala, D. (1999). The influence of sonority on children’s cluster reductions. Journal of Communication Disorders, 32, 397–422.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Prasada, S., & Pinker, S. (1993). Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(1), 1–56.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Schneider, K. P. (2003). Diminutives in English. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Spagnol, M. (2011). A tale of two morphologies: verb structure and argument alternations in Maltese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Konstanz.

  52. Twist, A. E. (2006). A Psycholinguistic investigation of the verbal morphology of Maltese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shiloh Drake.

Appendix: Stimuli used in the novel word elicitation task

Appendix: Stimuli used in the novel word elicitation task

Practice nonsense words:

brieq (Semitic)

korfa (Indo-European)

Practice real words:

ġobon / ġbejna (‘cheese / cheeselet’, Semitic)

festa / festina (‘party / little party’, Indo-European)

kuċċarun / kuċċarina (‘ladle / teaspoon’, Indo-European)

triq / trejqet (‘street / alley’, Semitic)

Semitic nonsense words:

sammieġ

hikża

tifkiż

tmiq

xesna

mebda

ldir

toqxa

tħetik

tirqil

kfieċa

girma

żonta

rdis

tammiel

kattuq

naffur

xqim

ħamna

meħin

Indo-European nonsense words:

xuħ

britt

naks

mirx

stirniċ

ġimir

nixx

bitla

tamdi

setrib

tiss

qarr

draxx

ħursamm

fint

tran

klid

blass

skrit

naġatt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Drake, S. The form and productivity of the Maltese morphological diminutive. Morphology 28, 297–323 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-018-9328-0

Download citation

Keywords

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