Schema Unification and Morphological Productivity: A Diachronic Perspective

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Morphology book series (SUMO, volume 4)

Abstract

Unified schemas which allow for deriving multiply complex word-formation products are a central concept in Construction Morphology (CxM). Based on examples such as un-V-able formations in English, it has been argued in the framework of Construction Morphology that unified schemas (in this case: [un[V-able]A]A) can be conceived of as short cuts in coining new complex words. In this paper, we explore three prospective cases of schema unification and discuss what kind of evidence supports the assumption of unified schemas. The first two case studies are diachronic in nature. Drawing on corpus analyses of data from the Early New High German period (1350–1650) and from the early stages of New High German, we show how the developments of the complex patterns diverge from the developments of their counterparts. To this end, we analyze the frequency and productivity of the (sub-)constructions and assess the semantics of the word-formation products. Firstly, nominalization with the suffix -ung has been shown to undergo a diachronic decrease in morphological productivity. However, unified schemas such as [Be-X-ung]N or [(PREF)-X-ierung]N are shown to be still productive, e.g. Beplankung, Belaberung, Vercomedianisierung (from www.wortwarte.de, a collection of neologisms). In a similar vein, complex derivation of the type [un-V-lich]ADJ ‘un-V-able’ is shown to have remained productive for a longer period of time than its simplex parent schema [V-lich]ADJ. Moreover, many un-V-lich derivatives historically precede their unprefixed counterparts, or lack them altogether (unwiderstehlich ‘irresistible’, but *widerstehlich). Our third case study explores present day German pseudo-participles (bebrillt ‘bespectacled’) using web data. The complex pattern can be shown to diverge stylistically from its parent schemas and also to provide semantically more uniform derivatives. Overall, our results show that the concept of unified schemas can help explain important differences in the development of the individual subpatterns in terms of morphological productivity and in terms of semantic aspects of the word-formation constructions.

Keywords

Complex schema Constructionalization Parasynthetic formation Productivity Pseudo-participles Schema unification 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Geert Booij and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on a previous version of this paper. Any remaining errors and shortcomings are of course ours.

References

  1. Corpora and web resources.Google Scholar
  2. Google Books http://books.google.de/.
  3. Google NGram Viewer https://books.google.com/ngrams.

Literature

  1. Anderson, J.R., D. Bothell, M.D. Byne, S. Douglass, C. Lebiere, and Y. Quin. 2004. An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review 111: 1036–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen, R.H. 1993. On frequency, transparency, and productivity. In Yearbook of morphology 1992, ed. G. Booij and J. van Marle, 181–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ———. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Corpus linguistics (HSK 29.2), ed. A. Lüdeling and M. Kytö, 899–919. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Barðdal, J. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic, Constructional Approaches to Language 8. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer, L. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernstein, W.Z. 1992. Pseudopartizipien im deutschen Sprachgebrauch. Ein Nachschlage- und Übungsbuch. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
  7. Biber, D., and E. Finegan. 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In To explain the present. Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen, ed. T. Nevalainen and L. Kahlas-Tarkka, 253–275. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
  8. Booij, G. 2007. Construction morphology and the lexicon. In Selected Proceedings of the 5th Décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse, ed. F. Montermini, G. Boyé, and N. Hathout, 34–44. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2015. The nominalization of Dutch particle verbs: Schema unification and second order schemas. Nederlandse Taalkunde 20: 285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Croft, W. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Demske, U. 2000. Zur Geschichte der ung-Nominalisierung im Deutschen: Ein Wandel morphologischer Produktivität. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 122: 365–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donalies, E. 2011. Explizite Adjektivderivate. In Grammis 2.0. Das grammatische Informationssystem des Instituts für deutsche Sprache. http://hypermedia.ids-mannheim.de/call/public/sysgram.ansicht?v_id=1231. Last checked 10/02/2017.
  14. Durrell, M., A. Ensslin, and P. Bennett. 2007. The GerManC project. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 31: 71–80.Google Scholar
  15. Eisenberg, P. 2013. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Bd. 1: Das Wort. 4th ed. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
  16. Flury, R. 1964. Struktur- und Bedeutungsgeschichte des Adjektiv-Suffixes -bar. Winterthur: Keller. [Dissertation University Zürich].Google Scholar
  17. FWB = Frühneuhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Robert R. Anderson, Ulrich Goebel, Oskar Reichmann, Anja Lobenstein-Reichmann (Eds.). 12 volumes, 1986−. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Ganslmayer, Ch. 2012. Adjektivderivation in der Urkundensprache des 13. Jahrhunderts: Eine historisch-synchrone Untersuchung anhand der ältesten deutschsprachigen Originalurkunden. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gauger, H.-M. 1994. Geschichte des Lesens. In Schrift und Schriftlichkeit. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung. 1. Halbband, ed. H. Günther and O. Ludwig, 65–84. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Giraudo, H., and S. Dal Maso. 2016. The salience of complex words and their parts: Which comes first? Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldberg, A.E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Grosse, S., Grimberg, M, Hölscher, T., and Karweick, J. (eds.). 1989. “Denn das Schreiben gehört nicht zu meiner täglichen Beschäftigung”. Der Alltag kleiner Leute in Bittschriften, Briefen und Berichten aus dem 19. Jahrhundert. Ein Lesebuch. Bonn: Dietz.Google Scholar
  23. Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. The language of science. Collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, vol. 5, ed. J.J. Webster. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  24. Hartmann, S. 2016. Wortbildungswandel. Eine diachrone Studie zu deutschen Nominalisierungsmustern. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hartmann, S. 2018. Derivational morphology in flux. A case study on word-formation change in German. Cognitive Linguistics. Ahead of print, https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0146.
  26. Haspelmath, M. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37: 1043–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hay, J.B. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39: 1041–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ———. 2003. Causes and consequences of word structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Hilpert, M. 2014. Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2015. From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward-strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 26: 113–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ———. forthcoming. Three open questions in diachronic construction grammar. In Grammaticalization meets construction grammar, ed. E. Coussé, P. Andersson, and J. Olofsson. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  32. Hopper, P. 2015. Emergent grammar. In Handbook of language emergence, ed. B. MacWhinney and W. O’Grady, 314–327. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Horlitz, B. 1986. Zur lexikographischen Darstellung der Verbalsubstantive auf -ung. In Studien zur neuhochdeutschen Lexikographie VI, Teilbd. 1 (GL 87), ed. H.E. Wiegand, 479–490. Hildesheim/Zürich/New York: Olms.Google Scholar
  34. Hüning, M., and B. Schlücker. 2010. Konvergenz und Divergenz in der Wortbildung. Komposition im Niederländischen und Deutschen. In Kontrastive germanistische Linguistik, ed. A. Dammel, S. Kürschner, and D. Nübling, 783–825. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
  35. Keller, R. 1994. Sprachwandel: Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. Tübingen/Basel: Francke.Google Scholar
  36. Kempf, L. 2016. Adjektivsuffixe in Konkurrenz. Wortbildungswandel vom Frühneuhochdeutschen zum Neuhochdeutschen. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  37. Klein, Th., H.-J. Solms, and K.-P. Wegera, eds. 2009. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik: Wortbildung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  38. Knoop, U. 1994. Entwicklung von Literalität und Alphabetisierung in Deutschland. In Schrift und Schriftlichkeit. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung. 1. Halbband, ed. H. Günther and O. Ludwig, 859–872. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  39. Koch, P. 2004. Sprachwandel, Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 120: 605–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koch, P., and W. Oesterreicher. 1996. Sprachwandel und expressive Mündlichkeit. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 102: 64–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kopf, K. 2016. Mainzer (Früh-)Neuhochdeutschkorpus (1500–1710). Mainz: University of Mainz.Google Scholar
  42. Kühnhold, I., O. Putzer, and H. Wellmann. 1978. Deutsche Wortbildung. Typen und Tendenzen in der Gegenwartssprache. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache, Forschungsstelle Innsbruck. Dritter Hauptteil: Das Adjektiv. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
  43. Kupietz, M., C. Belica, H. Keibel, and A. Witt. 2010. The German Reference Corpus DeReKo: A primordial sample for linguistic research. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2010)., ed. N. Calzolari et al., 1848–1854. Valletta: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/pdf/414_Paper.pdf.
  44. Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Motsch, W. 2004. Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen. 2nd ed. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Norde, M., and G. Trousdale. 2016. Exaptation from the perspective of construction morphology. In Exaptation and language change, ed. M. Norde and F. Van de Velde, 163–195. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Paul, H. 1897. Ueber die Aufgaben der Wortbildungslehre. Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen und der historischen Classe der königlich bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1896, Heft IV, 692–713. München: Staub.Google Scholar
  48. Pfeifer, W. 1993. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. Online version via https://www.dwds.de/.
  49. Pimenova, N.B. 2002. Semantische Restriktionen für die unga-Ableitung im Althochdeutschen. Germanistisches Jahrbuch der GUS “Das Wort”, 93–106.Google Scholar
  50. Plag, I. 1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation, Topics in English Linguistics 28. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. ———. 2005. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Plag, I., Ch. Dalton-Puffer, and R.H. Baayen. 1999. Morphological productivity across speech and writing. English Language and Linguistics 3: 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pleyer, M. 2017. Protolanguage and mechanisms of meaning construal in interaction. Language Sciences 63: 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pounder, A.V. 2001. Adverb-marking in German and English: System and standardization. Diachronica 18: 301–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Riecke, J. 1999. Pseudopartizipien im Althochdeutschen. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte eines Wortbildungstyps. Sprachwissenschaft 24: 157–193.Google Scholar
  56. Rumelhart, D.E. 1980. Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education, ed. R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce, and W.F. Brewer, 33–58. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. Schäfer, R., and F. Bildhauer. 2012. Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. In Proceedings of LREC 2012, ed. C. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. Uğur Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, and S. Piperidis, 486–493.Google Scholar
  58. Scherer, C. 2005. Wortbildungswandel und Produktivität. Eine empirische Studie zur nominalen -er-Derivation im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schmid, H.-J. 2007. Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. In The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, ed. D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens, 118–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. ———. 2014. A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. In Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, ed. M. Hilpert and S. Flach, vol. 2, 3–25. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  61. ———. 2017. A framework for understanding entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, ed. H.-J. Schmid, 9–39. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schmid, H.-J., and F. Günther. 2016. Toward a unified socio-cognitive framework for salience in language. Frontiers in Psychology 7. http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01110.
  63. Schröder, M. 1988. Entwicklungstendenzen in der Wortbildung. In Entwicklungstendenzen in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, ed. K.-E. Sommerfeldt, 174–192. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
  64. Szczepaniak, R. 2015. Syntaktische Einheitenbildung – typologisch und diachron betrachtet. In Handbuch Satz, Äußerung, Schema, ed. Ch. Dürscheid and J.G. Schneider, 104–124. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  65. Taylor, J.R. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Thomas, B. 2002. Adjektivderivation im Nürnberger Frühneuhochdeutsch um 1500: Eine historisch-synchrone Analyse anhand von Texten Albrecht Dürers, Veit Dietrichs und Heinrich Deichslers. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Traugott, E.C., and G. Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes, Oxford studies in diachronic and historical linguistics 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Van de Velde, F. 2014. Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Extending the scope of construction grammar, ed. R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, and G. Rutten, 141–180. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  69. Van Haeringen, C.B. 1949. Participia praeverbalia. De Nieuwe Taalgids 42: 187–191.Google Scholar
  70. Weber, H. 1971. Das erweiterte Adjektiv- und Partizipialattribut im Deutschen. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
  71. Wells, R. 1960. Nominal and verbal style. In Style in language, ed. T.A. Sebeok, 213–220. Cambridge, MA/New York: Technology Press & Wiley.Google Scholar
  72. Winkler, G. 1995. Die Wortbildung mit -lich im Alt-, Mittel- und Frühneuhochdeutschen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deutsches InstitutJohannes Gutenberg-UniversitätMainzGermany
  2. 2.Lehrstuhl für deutsche SprachwissenschaftOtto-Friedrich-Universität BambergBambergGermany

Personalised recommendations