Advertisement

Partial Motivation, Multiple Motivation: The Role of Output Schemas in Morphology

  • Geert Booij
  • Jenny Audring
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Morphology book series (SUMO, volume 4)

Abstract

Output-oriented, constructional schemas should be used for stating regularities that are not productive. These schemas have a motivational function only. We show that words may be partially motivated even when they lack a base word. Moreover, they can be motivated by more than one schema. This applies to the huge set of Dutch verbs in -elen. Verbs in -eren appear to exhibit similar properties, as do parallel verbs in German and English, and Dutch words ending in -ig. Diachronic facts, in particular the construction of nouns ending in -er, support the claim that language users make generalizations in the form of output-oriented schemas.

Keywords

Diminutive verb Motivation Output schema Phonaestheme Productivity Lexical network 

References

  1. Aronoff, M. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2013. The roots of language. In The boundaries of pure morphology, ed. S. Cruschina, M. Maiden, and J.C. Smith, 161–180. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolinger, D.L. 1950. Rime, assonance, and morpheme analysis. Word 6: 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Booij, G. 1977. Dutch morphology. A study of word formation in generative grammar. Lisse/Dordrecht: The Peter de Ridder Press/Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bybee, J. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10: 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Haas, W., and M. Trommelen. 1993. Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands. Een overzicht van de woordvorming. ’s Gravenhage: SDU Uitgeverij.Google Scholar
  8. De Jager, A. 1875. Woordenboek der frequentatieven in het Nederlands. Gouda: G.B. van Goor.Google Scholar
  9. Gundersen, H. 2001. Building blocks or network relations: Problems of segmentation. In A cognitive approach to the verb. Morphological and constructional perspectives, ed. H. Gram Simonsen and R. Theil Endresen, 95–128. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Guyter.Google Scholar
  10. Jackendoff, R., and J. Audring. 2016. Morphological schemas. The Mental Lexicon 11: 467–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jurafsky, D. 1996. Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language 72: 533–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Köpcke, K.-M., and K.U. Panther. 2016. Analytische und gestalthafte Nomina auf -er im Deutschen vor dem Hintergrund konstruktionsgrammatischer Überlegungen. In Formen und Funktionen. Morphosemantik und grammatische Konstruktion, ed. A. Bittner and C. Spieß, 85–101. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  13. Kwon, N., and E.R. Round. 2015. Phonaesthemes in morphological theory. Morphology 25: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Van Loey, A. 1964. Schönfelds historische grammatica van het Nederlands. Zutphen: Thieme.Google Scholar
  15. Van Marle, J. 1978. Veranderingen in woordstructuur. In Aspecten van taalverandering, ed. G. Koefoed and J. Van Marle, 127–176. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
  16. Weidhaas, Th., and H.-J. Schmid. 2015. Diminutive verbs in German: Semantic analysis and theoretical implications. Morphology 25: 183–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leiden University Center of LinguisticsUniversity of LeidenLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations