Advertisement

Debonding and Clipping of Prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or Constructional Change?

  • Muriel Norde
  • Kristel Van Goethem
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Morphology book series (SUMO, volume 4)

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the debonding of three Germanic prefixoids: Dutch kei ‘boulder’, German Hammer ‘hammer’, and Swedish kanon ‘cannon’. Drawing on an extensive corpus-based and statistical analysis, we compare the formal properties (construction types), semantics (degree of bleaching), collocational properties and productivity of bound and free uses of each prefixoid. We show that debonding of prefixoids is a productive process of lexical innovation in Germanic languages, which may lead to the creation of new intensifying adverbs or evaluative adjectives. In addition, we explore whether debonding of prefixoids can be fruitfully analysed from a constructional perspective. More in particular, we address the question of whether the observed changes accompanying debonding are best accounted for by Traugott and Trousdale’s concept of ‘constructionalization’, or by Hilpert’s concept of ‘constructional change’. To this end, we explore a variety of quantitative methods, including productivity measures and distinctive collexeme analysis. We conclude that the quantitative differences between the bound and the free forms of the three prefixoids studied in this paper allow us to consider them as two separate constructions, but that the distinction is a gradient one.

Keywords

Debonding Clipping Prefixoids Intensification Constructionalization Constructional change Germanic languages (Dutch, German, Swedish) 

References

  1. Andersen, H. 2001. Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change. In Actualization. Linguistic change in progress, ed. H. Andersen, 225–248. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  2. Ascoop, K., and T. Leuschner. 2006. “Affixoidhungrig? Skitbra!” Comparing affixoids in German and Swedish. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59 (3): 241–252.Google Scholar
  3. Baayen, H. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Corpus Linguistics. An international handbook, ed. A. Lüdeling and M. Kytö, 900–919. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Barðdal, J., E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, and S. Gildea. 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Battefeld, M., T. Leuschner, and G. Rawoens. 2018. Evaluative morphology’ in German, Dutch and Swedish: Constructional networks and the loci of change. In Category change from a constructional perspective, ed. K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, and G. Vanderbauwhede, 229–262. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergs, A., and G. Diewald, eds. 2008. Constructions and language change (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 194). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. ———, eds. 2009. Contexts and constructions (Constructional Approaches to Language 9). John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  8. Berman, J. 2009. The predicative as a source of grammatical variation. In Describing and modeling variation in grammar, ed. A. Dufter, J. Fleischer, and G. Seiler, 99–116. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  9. Booij, G. 2009. Compounding and Construction Morphology. In The Oxford handbook of compounding, ed. R. Lieber and P. Štekauer, 201–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. De Smet, H. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88: 601–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gries, S.T., and A. Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (1): 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hilpert, M. 2013. Constructional change in English. Developments in allomorphy, word formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2015. From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 26 (1): 113–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoeksema, J. 2012. Elative compounds in Dutch: Properties and developments. In Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachenvergleich/Crosslinguistic comparison of intensified adjectives and adverbs, ed. G. Oebel, 97–142. Hamburg: Kovač Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Hüning, M., and G. Booij. 2014. From compounding to derivation. The emergence of derivational affixes through “constructionalization”. Folia Linguistica 48 (2): 579–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klara, L. 2012. Steinreich ist saucool: Adjektivische Steigerungsbildungen des Gegenwartsdeutschen. In Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachvergleich, ed. G. Oebel, 143–170. Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
  18. Ledin, P. 2012. Positivens interjektioner: grymmerst! finerst! kanoners och kalasers! braish! På svenska 24.5.2012. https://pasvenska.se/positivismens-interjektioner-grymmerst-finerst-kanoners-och-kalasers-braish/.Google Scholar
  19. Leuschner, T. 2010. Ausnahmepianist fettgeschreckt – inbleich! Deutsche, niederländische und schwedische Präfixoide im Spannungsfeld von Genealogie, Kreativität und Norm. In Kontrastive Germanistische Linguistik, ed. A. Dammel, S. Kürschner, and D. Nübling, 863–892. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
  20. Levshina, N. 2014. Rling: A companion package for how to do linguistics with R. R package version 1.0.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2015. How to do linguistics with R. Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lundbladh, C.-E. 2002. Prefixlika förleder. In In Det Svenska ordförrådets utveckling 1800–2000. Göteborg: Institutionen för svenska språket. http://spraakdata.gu.se/ordat/pdf/Ordat17utsida.pdf.Google Scholar
  23. Meibauer, J. 2013. Expressive compounds in German. Word Structure 6: 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meyer, D., A. Zeileis, and K. Hornik. 2016. vcd: Visualizing categorical data. R package version 1.4–3.Google Scholar
  25. Noël, D. 2016. For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30: 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Norde, M. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Norde, M., and C. Morris. 2018. Derivation without category change: A network-based analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch. In Category change from a constructional perspective, ed. K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, and G. Vanderbauwhede, 47–90. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norde, M., and K. Van Goethem. 2014. Bleaching, productivity and debonding of prefixoids. A corpus-based analysis of ‘giant’ in German and Swedish. Lingvisticae Investigationes 37 (2): 256–274.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2015. Emancipatie van affixen en affixoïden: Degrammaticalisatie of lexicalisatie? Nederlandse Taalkunde 20 (1): 109–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pittner, K., and J. Berman. 2006. Video ist echt schrott aber single ist hammer. Jugendsprachliche Nomen-Adjektiv-Konversion in der Prädikativposition. Deutsche Sprache 3: 233–250.Google Scholar
  31. R Core Team. 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
  32. Schäfer, R. 2015. Processing and querying large web corpora with the COW 14 architecture. In Proceedings of Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora (CMLC-3, July 20, 2015, Lancaster).Google Scholar
  33. Schäfer, R., and F. Bildhauer. 2012. Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. In Proceedings of the eight international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’12), ed. N. Calzolari et al., 486–493. Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
  34. Schlücker, B. 2013. Non-classifying compounds in German. Folia Linguistica 47 (2): 449–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stevens, C.M. 2005. Revisiting the affixoid debate: On the grammaticalization of the word. In Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, ed. T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, and S. De Groodt, 71–83. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  36. Teleman, U., S. Hellberg, and E. Andersson. 1999. Svenska Akademiens Grammatik.II: Ord. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
  37. Traugott, E.C., and G. Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Trousdale, G. 2008. A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions. Word Structure 1: 156–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. ———. 2013. Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language 37 (3): 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Trousdale, G., and M. Norde. 2013. Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences 36: 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van de Velde, F., H. De Smet, and L. Ghesquière. 2013. On multiple source constructions in language change. Studies in Language 37 (3): 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van der Sijs, N. (Ed.) 2010. Etymologiebank, http://etymologiebank.nl/.
  43. Van der Wouden, T., and A. Foolen. 2017. A most serious and extraordinary problem. Intensification of adjectives in Dutch, German, and English. Leuvense Bijdragen 101: 82–100.Google Scholar
  44. Van Goethem, K., and H. De Smet. 2014. How nouns turn into adjectives. The emergence of new adjectives in French, English and Dutch through debonding processes. Languages in Contrast 14 (2): 251–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Goethem, K., and Ph. Hiligsmann. 2014. When two paths converge: debonding and clipping of Dutch reuze ‘lit. giant; great’. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26 (1): 31–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Goethem, K., and M. Hüning. 2015. From noun to evaluative adjective: Conversion or debonding? Dutch top and its equivalents in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 27 (4): 366–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Goethem, K., and N. Koutsoukos. forthcoming. ‘Morphological transposition’ as the onset of recategorization. The case of luxe in Dutch. Linguistics. Google Scholar
  48. Van Goethem, K., M. Norde, E. Coussé, and G. Vanderbauwhede, eds. 2018. Category change from a constructional perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Corpora:

  1. COW12-corpora. (Schäfer and Bildhauer 2012).Google Scholar
  2. COW14-corpora. (Schäfer 2015): https://webcorpora.org/.

Dictionaries:

  1. DWB., Das deutsche Wörterbuch von Wilhelm & Jakob Grimm (via Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache): https://www.dwds.de/wb.
  2. SAOB., Svenska Akademiens Ordbok: http://www.saob.se/.
  3. WNT., Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (via Geïntegreerde Taalbank): http://gtb.inl.nl/.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nordeuropa-InstitutHumboldt UniversitätBerlinGermany
  2. 2.F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de LouvainUniversité catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations