Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Semantics of Complex Words pp 47–66Cite as

The Role of Second Order Schemas in the Construction of Complex Words

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Studies in Morphology ((SUMO,volume 3))

Abstract

Morphology is the study of the systematic relationship between the form and meaning of complex words. Therefore, it is a central task of morphology to provide a proper account of how the meanings of complex words are computed. One straightforward approach would be to assume that the computation of complex words is ruled by Fregean compositionality. The latter, however, has been claimed to be too narrow, since both syntactic and morphological constructions may exhibit specific holistic semantic properties that cannot be derived from their constituents or from general patterns of combination (Booij, Construction morphology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010; Goldberg, Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1995; Goldberg, Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006; Jackendoff, Constructions in the parallel architecture. In: Hoffmann T, Trousdale G (eds) The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 70–92, 2013). In the article we address a related problem, i.e. the fact that the meaning of a complex word may derive from that of another linguistic construct (be it a word or a phrase) that is not a building block of that complex word. We illustrate this point by providing data from different languages and we claim that this type of violation of Fregean compositionality can be accounted for by means of “second order schemas”, i.e. sets of two or more paradigmatically related constructional schemas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Not all adjectives conform to this pattern, as shown by the word series Frankrijk ‘France’ – Fransman ‘Frenchman’ – Frans ‘French’, and Nederland ‘Netherlands’ – Nederlander ‘Dutchman’ – Nederlands ‘Dutch’.

  2. 2.

    Cranberry morphemes are morphemes that only appear as stems in a complex word, as mer- in mermaid.

  3. 3.

    These lexical constructions differ in a number of ways from proper compounds in Russian. For details see Benigni and Masini (2009) and Masini and Benigni (2012).

  4. 4.

    An extreme version of the Bare Stem Constraint occurs in cases such as Italian cerchiobottismo, noted by Gaeta (2003). Cerchio-bott-ismo (lit. ring-barrel-ism) ‘trying to keep in with both sides’ is a noun derived from the complex idiomatic expression dare un colpo al cerchio e uno alla botte (lit. to give a hit to the ring and one to the barrel) ‘to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds’.

  5. 5.

    -ka is not the only suffix used in these kinds of shortenings, but it is definitely the most common.

  6. 6.

    Please note that this is a simplified formalization, where the phonetic form of the stump constituents and of the -ka forms are just hinted at (AStump, N(Stump), ATrun) and not detailed. The abbreviated form of N in (27) is optional (N(Stump)) so as to cover both stump compounds proper (24) and clips (25).

References

  • Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Thomas. 1990. Analogie und morphologische Theorie. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Thomas. 1994. Back-formation, cross-formation, and ‘bracketing paradoxes’. In Yearbook of morphology 1993, ed. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 1–26. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benigni, Valentina, and Francesca Masini. 2009. Compounds in Russian. Lingue e Linguaggio 8(2): 171–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billings, Loren. 1998. Morphology and syntax: Delimiting stump compounds in Russian. In Proceedings of the first mediterranean morphology meeting, ed. Geert Booij, Angela Ralli, and Sergio Scalise, 99–110. Patras: University of Patras.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bisetto, Antonietta, and Francesca Moschin. 2010. Bracketing paradoxes as constructions. Paper presented at the 14th International Morphology Meeting (IMM14), Budapest, 13–16 May 2010. http://www.nytud.hu/imm14/abs/bisetto_moschin.pdf. Abstract accessed 28 May 2014.

  • Bisetto, Antonietta, and Sergio Scalise. 1991. Compounding: Morphology and/or syntax? In The boundaries of morphology and syntax, ed. Lunella Mereu, 31–48. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij, Geert. 1997a. Allomorphy and the autonomy of morphology. Folia Linguistica31(1–2): 25–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij, Geert. 1997b. Autonomous morphology and paradigmatic relations. In Yearbook of morphology 1996, ed. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 35–53. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Booij, Geert. 2002. The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij, Geert. 2009. Phrasal names: A constructionist analysis. Word Structure 2(2): 219–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booij, Geert. 2014. The nominalization of Dutch particle verb: Schema unification and second order schemas. Manuscript, downloadable from http://geertbooij.com

  • Botha, Rudolf. 1984. Morphological mechanisms: Lexicalist analyses of synthetic compounding. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, Bernard, and Gerald Stone. 1978. The Russian language since the revolution. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiSciullo, Anna-Maria, and Edwin Williams. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, David. 2007. Compositionality as an empirical problem. In Direct compositionality, ed. Chris Barker and Jacobson Pauline, 23–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, Gottlob. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100(1): 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta, Livio. 2003. Ai limiti della morfologia basata sulle parole. In Scritti di morfologia in onore di Sergio Scalise in occasione del suo 60° compleanno, ed. Antonietta Bisetto, Claudio Iacobini, and Anna M. Thornton, 47–59. Roma: Caissa Italia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghomeshi, Jila, Ray Jackendoff, Nicole Rosen, and Kevin Russell. 2004. Contrastive focus reduplication in English (The salad-salad paper). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(2): 307–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeksema, Jack. 2012. Elative compounds in Dutch: Properties and developments. In Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachenvergleich/Crosslinguistic comparison of intensified adjectives and adverbs, ed. Guido Oebel, 97–142. Hamburg: Verlag dr. Kovač.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, Ray. 2013. Constructions in the parallel architecture. In The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, ed. Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale, 70–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2013. Conspiring to mean: Experimental and computational evidence for a usage-based harmonic approach to morphophonology. Language 89(1): 110–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Los, Bettelou, Corrien Blom, Geert Booij, Marion Elenbaas, and Ans Van Kemenade. 2012. Morphosyntactic change: A comparative study of particles and prefixes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Masini, Francesca. 2009. Phrasal lexemes, compounds and phrases: A constructionist perspective. Word Structure 2(2): 254–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masini, Francesca, and Valentina Benigni. 2012. Phrasal lexemes and shortening strategies in Russian: The case for constructions. Morphology 22(3): 417–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, Caroline. 2013. Bekje-af, knettertjegek and dolletjesgelukkig. The use and development of intensifying diminutive compounds in Dutch within the framework of Construction Morphology. MA thesis. Groningen: University of Groningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Namer, Fiammetta. 2013. Adjectival bases of French -aliser and -ariser verbs: Syncretism or under-specification? In Morphology in Toulouse. Selected papers from the 7th Décembrettes (Toulouse, 2–3 December 2010), ed. Nabil Hathout, Fabio Montermini, and Jesse Tcheng, 185–210. München: LINCOM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesset, Tore. 2008. Abstract phonology in a concrete model: Cognitive linguistics and the morphology-phonology interface. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ralli, Angela. 2013. Compounding in modern Greek. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, Andrew. 1988. Bracketing paradoxes and the English lexicon. Language 64(4): 663–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallès, Teresa. 2003. Lexical creativity and the organization of the lexicon. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1: 137–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virgillito, Daniele. 2010. Bracketing paradoxes in Italian. MA thesis. Bologna: University of Bologna.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12(2): 245–274.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leiden University Center of Linguistics, 9515, 2300 RA, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Geert Booij

  2. Dipartimento di Lingue, Letterature e Culture Moderne, University of Bologna, Via Cartoleria 5, Bologna, Italy

    Francesca Masini

Authors
  1. Geert Booij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesca Masini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geert Booij .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Laurie Bauer

  2. Department of British and American Studies, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia

    Lívia Körtvélyessy

  3. Department of British and American Studies, P.J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia

    Pavol Štekauer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Booij, G., Masini, F. (2015). The Role of Second Order Schemas in the Construction of Complex Words. In: Bauer, L., Körtvélyessy, L., Štekauer, P. (eds) Semantics of Complex Words. Studies in Morphology, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14102-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation