Advertisement

A declarative approach to conversion into verbs in German

  • Martin Neef
Part of the Yearbook of Morphology book series (YOMO)

Abstract

Among the most problematic and controversial phenomena in morphological theory is conversion. Several different analyses have been proposed in the literature which sometimes differ quite fundamentally, depending on the framework chosen. In many such frameworks the analysis of conversion demands the addition of a theoretical device that is not a natural consequence of the respective approach. In this paper, I will present an analysis of conversion within the declarative model of morphology called Word Design (cf. Neef 1996a) which allows to treat conversion as a phenomenon that is predictable from the theoretical assumptions. The analysis is restricted to German data and is not applicable straightforwardly to data from other languages for reasons that will become clear in the course of argumentation.

Keywords

Design Condition Word Design Morphological Category Word Class Past Participle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 62 )CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, Mass., London: MIT. (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 22 )Google Scholar
  3. Becker, Thomas. 1990. Analogie und morphologische Theorie. München: Fink. (Studien zur theoretischen Linguistik 11 )Google Scholar
  4. Becker, Thomas. 1998. Das Vokalsystem der deutschen Standardsprache. Frankfurt: Lang. ( Arbeiten zur Sprachanalyse 32 )Google Scholar
  5. Bergenholtz, Henning and Joachim Mugdan. 1979a. Einführung in die Morphologie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. (Urban Taschenbücher 296 )Google Scholar
  6. Bergenholtz, Henning and Joachim Mugdan. 1979b. “Ist Liebe primär? Über Ableitung und Wortarten”. In Peter Braun (ed.), Deutsche Gegenwartssprache. München: Fink, 339–354.Google Scholar
  7. Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, Eve and Herbert Clark. 1979. When Nouns Surface as Verbs“. Language 55, 767–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dokulil, Milos. 1968. “Zur Frage der Konversion und verwandter Wortbildungsvorgänge und -beziehungen”. Travaux Linguistique de Prague 3, 215–239.Google Scholar
  10. Don, Jan. 1993. Morphological Conversion. Utrecht: LEd. (OTS Dissertation Series) Duden. 19955. Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Mannheim, Leipzig, Wien, Zürich: Dudenverlag. (Duden 4 )Google Scholar
  11. Duden. 199621. Rechtschreibung der deutschen Sprache. Mannheim, Leipzig, Wien, Zürich: Dudenverlag. (Duden 1)Google Scholar
  12. Eschenlohr, Stefanie. 1997a. “Zur kategorialen Determiniertheit von Wortformen im Deutschen”. In Elisabeth Löbel and Gisa Rauh (eds), Lexikalische Kategorien und Merkmale. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 27–43. (Linguistische Arbeiten 366 )Google Scholar
  13. Eschenlohr, Stefanie. 1997b. Vom Nomen zum Verb: Konversion, Präfigierung und Rückbildung im Deutschen. Ph.D. dissertation, FU Berlin.Google Scholar
  14. Féry, Caroline. 1997. “Unis und Studis: die besten Wörter des Deutschen”. Linguistische Berichte 172, 461–489.Google Scholar
  15. Fleischer, Wolfgang and Irmhild Barz. 1992. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  16. Gallmann, Peter. 1990. Kategoriell komplexe Wortformen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. ( Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 108 )CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax - generativ Tübingen: Narr. ( Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 325 )Google Scholar
  18. Haspelmath, Martin. 1996. “Word-class-changing Inflection and Morphological Theory”. In Geert Booij and Jaap van Marie (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 43–66.Google Scholar
  19. Harnisch, Rüdiger. 1994. “Stammerweiterung im Singular — Stammflexion im Plural. Zum Bautyp der deutschen Substantivdeklination”. In Klaus-Michael Köpcke (ed.), Funktionale Untersuchungen zur deutschen Nominal-und Verbalmorphologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 97–114. (Linguistische Arbeiten 319 )Google Scholar
  20. Kiparsky, Paul. 1983. “Word Formation and the Lexicon”. In Francis Ingemann (ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 3–29.Google Scholar
  21. Lieber, Rochelle. 1981. On the Organization of the Lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  22. Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology. Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Marchand, Hans. 1964. “A Set of Criteria for the Establishing of Derivational Relationship between Words Unmarked by Derivational Morphemes”. Indogermanische Forschungen 69, 10–19.Google Scholar
  24. Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  25. Meyer, Ralf. 1993. Compound Comprehension in Isolation and in Context. Tübingen: Niemeyer. ( Linguistische Arbeiten 299 )CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muthmann, Gustay. 1988. Rückläufiges deutsches Wörterbuch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. ( Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 78 )Google Scholar
  27. Naumann, Bernd. 1985. “Konversion”. Zeitschrift für das deutsche Altertum 114, 277288.Google Scholar
  28. Neef, Martin. 1994. Review of: Rochelle Lieber Deconstructing Morphology. Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. Studies in Language 18, 219–229.Google Scholar
  29. Neef, Martin. 1996a. Wortdesign. Eine deklarative Analyse der deutschen Verbflexion. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 52 )Google Scholar
  30. Neef, Martin. 1996b. “Wortdesign: Das Wortbildungsmuster Gehopse und die Kopflosigkeit von ‘Ableitungen-. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 15, 61–91.Google Scholar
  31. Neef, Martin. 1997a. “Die Alternationsbedingung: Eine deklarative Neubetrachtung”. In Christa Dürscheid, Monika Schwarz and Karl Heinz Ramers (eds.), Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 17–31.Google Scholar
  32. Neef, Martin. 1997b. Conversion into Verbs: a Declarative Analysis of the German Infinitive. Düsseldorf: Universität. ( Theorie des Lexikons 95 )Google Scholar
  33. Neef, Martin. 1998a. Elemente einer deklarativen Wortgrammatik. Hürth: Gabel. (KLAGE 32)Google Scholar
  34. Neef, Martin. 1998b. The Reduced Syllable Plural in German“. In Ray Fabri, Albert Ortmann and Teresa Parodi (eds), Models of Inflection. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 244–265. (Linguistische Arbeiten 388 )Google Scholar
  35. Olsen, Susan. 1986. Wortbildung im Deutschen. Eine Einführung in die Theorie der Wortstruktur. Stuttgart: Kröner. (Kröners Studienbibliothek Linguistik 660 )Google Scholar
  36. Olsen, Susan. 1990. “Konversion als kombinatorischer Wortbildungsprozeß”. Linguis-tische Berichte 127, 185–216.Google Scholar
  37. Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag. 1987. Information-Based Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 1: Fundamentals. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. ( CSLI Lecture Notes 13 )Google Scholar
  38. Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory. Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms., Rutgers University. (Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science Technical Report #2)Google Scholar
  39. Raffelsiefen, Renate. 1993a. “Relating Words. A Model of Base Recognition. Part Linguistic Analysis 23, 3–159.Google Scholar
  40. Raffelsiefen, Renate. 1993b. Wohlgeformtheitsbedingungen für deutsche Wörter. Talk presented to the `Linguistischer Arbeitskreis’, University of Cologne, 3. 11. 1993.Google Scholar
  41. Raffelsiefen, Renate. 1995. “Potential Verbs in German: the Emergence of a Productivity Gap”. FAS Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 122–153.Google Scholar
  42. Reis, Marga. 1985. “Against Höhle’s Compositional Theory of Affixation”. In Jindrich Toman (ed.), Studies in German Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 377–406. (Studies in Generative Grammar 21 )Google Scholar
  43. Rickheit, Mechthild. 1993. Wortbildung. Grundlagen einer kognitiven Wortsemantik. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. (Psycholinguistische Untersuchungen )Google Scholar
  44. Russell, Kevin. 1997. “Optimality Theory and Morphology”. In Diana Archangeli and D. Terence Langendoen (eds), 1997. Optimality Theory. An Overview. Oxford: Blackwell, 102–133.Google Scholar
  45. Scobbie, James M., John S. Coleman and Steven Bird. 1996. “Key Aspects of Declarative Phonology”. In Jacques Durand and Bernard Laks (eds), Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods. Volume II. Salford: European Studies Research Institute, 685–709. (Proceedings of the Royaumont meeting 1995 )Google Scholar
  46. Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Stiebels, Barbara. 1996. Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. (studia grammatica 39 )Google Scholar
  48. Vater, Heinz. 19962. Einführung in die Sprachwissenschaft. München: Fink. (UTB 1799 )Google Scholar
  49. Vennemann, Theo. 1991. “Syllable Structure and Syllable Cut Prosodies in Modern Standard German”. In Pier Marco Bertinetto, Michael Kenstowicz and Michele Loporcaro (eds), Certamen Phonologicum II. Papers from the 1990 Cortona Phonology Meeting. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier, 211–243.Google Scholar
  50. Vogel, Petra Maria. 1996. Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel. Zu Konversion und verwandten Erscheinungen im Deutschen und in anderen Sprachen. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. (Studia Linguistica Germanica 39)Google Scholar
  51. Werner, Anja. 1996. i-Bildungen im Deutschen. Düsseldorf: Heinrich Heine Universität. ( Theorie des Lexikons 87 )Google Scholar
  52. Wiese, Richard. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon. (The Phonology of the Languages of the World )Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Neef
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für deutsche Sprache und LiteraturUniversität zu KölnKölnGermany

Personalised recommendations