Advertisement

Subtraction

  • Stela ManovaEmail author
Chapter
  • 437 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Morphology book series (SUMO, volume 1)

Abstract

This chapter is organized as follows: the first Section 4.1 is devoted to terminological matters and the definition of subtraction. Section 4.2 tackles subtraction-like shortenings that cannot be described in terms of morphological rules and therefore do not represent subtraction. The latter is set apart from phonological shortening, backformation, haplology, hypocoristics, clippings, blends, acronyms, subtraction of semantics, zero sign and truncation. Section 4.3 analyzes subtraction in relation to rule inversion. Section 4.4 deals with the classification of subtraction. It is shown that subtraction operates in derivation and in inflection and that subtraction in derivation can be word-class-changing and word-class preserving. Derivational and inflectional subtraction may exhibit additional phonological and morphonological modifications. The last Section 4.5 gives a brief summary of the chapter and draws conclusions.

Keywords

Slavic Language Singular Form Morphological Technique Zero Sign Phonological Rule 
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.

References

  1. Adams, Valerie. 1973. An Introduction to Modern English Word-Formation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Stephen R. 1988. Morphological Theory. In Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Vol. I: Linguistic Theory: Fondations, ed. Frederick J. Newmeyer, 146–191. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Andrejčin, Ljubomir. 1962. K morfologičeskoj xarakteristike vidovoj sistemy sovremennogo bolgarskogo jazyka. In Voprosy glagol’nogo vida, ed. Jurij Maslov, 231–237. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo inostrannoj literatury.Google Scholar
  5. Andrejčin, Ljubomir. 1978. Osnovna bălgarska gramatika. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo.Google Scholar
  6. Andrejčin, Ljubomir, Petja Asenova, Elena Georgieva, Kalina Ivanova, Ruselina Nicolova, Petăr Pašov, Xristo Părvev, Rusin Rusinov, Valentin Stankov, Stojan Stojanov, and Kristalina Čolakova. 1983. Gramatika na săvremennija bălgarski knižoven ezik. Tom II. Morfologija. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na BAN.Google Scholar
  7. Andrejčin, Ljubomir, L. Georgiev, St. Ilčev, N. Kostov, Iv. Lekov, St. Stojkov, and Cv. Todorov. 1999. Bălgarski tălkoven rečnik, IV izdanie, dopălneno i preraboteno ot D. Popov. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo.Google Scholar
  8. Anić, Vladimir. 1991. Rječnik hrvatskoga jezika. Zagreb: Novi Liber.Google Scholar
  9. Anić, Vladimir, Dunja Brozović Rončević, Ivo Goldstein, Slavko Goldstein, Ljiljana Jojić, Ranko Matasovič, and Ivo Pranjković. 2002. Hrvatski enciklopedijski rječnik. Zagreb: Novi Liber.Google Scholar
  10. Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Aronoff, Mark and Nanna Fuhrhop 2002. Restricting suffix combinations in German and English: Closing suffixes and the monosuffix constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 451–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Assenova, Petja 2002. Balkansko ezikoznanie. V. Tǎrnovo: Faber.Google Scholar
  14. Babić, Stjepan. 1991 [1986]. Tvorba riječi u hrvatskom književnom jeziku: nacrt za gramatiku. 2 izd. Zagreb: Djela Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti.Google Scholar
  15. Babić, Stjepan, Dalibor Brozović, Milan Moguš, Slavko Pavešić, Ivo Škarić, and Stjepko Težak. 1991. Povijesni pregled, glasovi i oblici hrvatskoga književnog jezika: nacrt za grammatiku. Zagreb: Djela Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti.Google Scholar
  16. Barić, Eugenija, Mijo Lončarić, Dragica Malić, Slavko Pavešić, Mirko Peti, Vesna Zečević, and Marija Znika. 1997 [1995]. Hrvatska gramatika. II. promijeneno izdanje. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.Google Scholar
  17. Battistella, Edwin L. 1990. Markedness. The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  18. Battistella, Edwin L. 1996. The Logic of Markedness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-formation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Bauer, Laurie. 1988. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Bauer, Laurie. 2005. Conversion and the notion of lexical category. In Approaches to Conversion/Zero-Derivation, eds. Laurie Bauer and Salvador Valera, 19–30. Münster/New York: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  22. Baxturina, R.V. 1966a. Značenie i obrazovanie otimennyx glagolov s suffiksom -Ø- // -i-(t’). In Razvitie slovoobrazovanija sovremennogo russkogo jazyka, eds. Elena A. Zemskaja and D. N. Šmeleva, 74–112. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
  23. Baxturina, R. V. 1966b. Morfonologičeskie uslovija obrazovanija otymennyx glagolov s suffiksom -Ø- // -i-(t’). In Razvitie slovoobrazovanija sovremennogo russkogo jazyka, eds. Elena A. Zemskaja and D. N. Šmeleva, 113–126. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
  24. Beard, Robert. 1982. The plural as a lexical derivation. Glossa 16(2), 133–148.Google Scholar
  25. Beard, Robert. 1987. Morpheme order in a lexeme/morpheme-based morphology. Lingua 72, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  27. Becker, Thomas. 1990. Analogie und morphologische Theorie. München: Fink.Google Scholar
  28. Becker, Thomas. 1993. Back-formation, cross-formation, and ‘bracketing paradoxes’ in paradigmatic morphology. In Yearbook of Morphology 1993, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 1–25. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  29. Bergenholtz, H. and J. Mugdan. 1979. Ist liebe primär? – Über Ableitung und Wortarten. In Deutsche Gegenwartssprache, ed. Peter Braun, 339–354. München: Fink.Google Scholar
  30. Berlin, Brent and Paul Kay. 1969. Basic Color Terms. Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. Blevins, J. P. 2005. Word-based declensions in Estonian. In Yearbook of Morphology 2005, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 1–25. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Blevins, J. P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42, 531–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York, NY: Holt [British edition 1935]: London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  34. Bojadžiev, Todor, Ivan Kucarov, and Jordan Penčev. 1999. Săvremenen bălgarski ezik. Fonetika. Leksikologija. Slovoobrazuvane. Morfologija. Sintaksis. Sofija: P. Beron.Google Scholar
  35. Bojadžiev, T. 1999. Slovoobrazuvane. In Săvremenen bălgarski ezik. Fonetika. Leksikologija. Slovoobrazuvane. Morfologija. Sintaksis, eds. Bojadžiev, Todor, Ivan Kucarov, and Jordan Penčev, 227–276. Sofija: P. Beron.Google Scholar
  36. Booij, G. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 1–16. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  37. Booij, G. 2000. Inflection and derivation. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. Vol. 1, eds. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 360–369. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  38. Booij, Geert. 2002. The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Booij, Geert, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan. (eds.). 2000. Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  40. Browne, W. 1993. Serbo-Croat. In The Slavonic Languages, eds. Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, 306–387. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Bulgarian Academy Grammar = Andrejčin et al. (1983).Google Scholar
  42. Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  43. Bybee, J. L. 1988. Morphology as lexical organization. In Theoretical Morphology, eds. Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan, 119–141. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Bybee, Joan L. and Carol L. Moder. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59, 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Bybee, Joan, R. Perkins, and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Cannon, G. 2000. Blending. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. 1, eds. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 952–956. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  47. Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1984. Subtraction in word formation and its place within a theory of natural morphology. Quaderni di Semantica 5, 78–85.Google Scholar
  49. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1997. On productivity and potentiality in inflectional morphology. CLASNET Working Papers 7, 2–22.Google Scholar
  50. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2000a. Naturalness. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. 1, eds. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 288–296. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  51. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2000b. Subtraction. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. Vol. 1, eds. Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 581–587. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  52. Georgiev, Vladimir I. 1969. Osnovni problemi na slavjanskata diaxronna morfologija. Sofija: BAN.Google Scholar
  53. Georgiev, Vladimir I. 1985. Problemi na bălgarskija ezik. Sofija: BAN.Google Scholar
  54. Golston, C. and R. Wiese. 1996. Zero morphology and constraint interaction: subtraction and epenthesis in German dialects. In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 143–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  55. Jakobson, Roman. 1939. Signe zéro. Reprinted in Selected Writings II, 1971, 211–219.Google Scholar
  56. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2007a. States, Changes of State, and the Monotonicity Hypothesis. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  57. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2007b. Aspectual coercion and the typology of change of state predicates. Journal of Linguistics 43, 115–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Koontz-Garboden, Andrew and B. Levin. 2005. The morphological typology of change of state event encoding. In Online Proceedings of the Fourth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM4), Catania, 21–23 September 2003, eds. Geert Booij, Emilio Guevara, Angelliki Ralli, Salvatore Sgroi and Sergio Scalise, 185–194. Università degli Studi di Bologna. <http://morbo.lingue.unibo.it/mmm/mmm4-proceedings.php>
  59. Manova, Stela. 2003a. An input-oriented approach to inflection class assignment illustrated with Bulgarian nominal inflection. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 49, 103–118.Google Scholar
  60. Manova, Stela. 2005b. Towards a theory of subtraction. Paper Presented at the 38th Societas Linguistica Europaea Congress, 7–10 September 2005, Valencia, Spain (Abstracts/Resúmenes, 163–164).Google Scholar
  61. Manova, Stela and Wolfgang U. Dressler. 2001. Gender and declensional class in Bulgarian. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 67–69, 45–81.Google Scholar
  62. Nida, Eugene A. 1949 [1946]. Morphology: The descriptive Analysis of Words. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  63. Pennanen, E. V. 1975. What happens in back-formation? In Papers from the Second Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, ed. E. Hovdhaugen, 216–229. Norway: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  64. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1980. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  65. Stonham, John T. 1994. Combinatorial Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  66. Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Švedova, Natalija Ju. et al. 1980. Russkaja grammatika. Tom I. Fonetika, Fonologija, Udarenie, Intonacija, Slovoobrazovanie, Morfologija. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ‘Nauka’ (Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR).Google Scholar
  68. Težak, Stjepko and Stjepan Babić. 1992. Gramatika hrvatskoga jezika: priručnik za osnovno jezično obrazovanie. 8. popravljeno izdanije. Zagreb: Školska kniga.Google Scholar
  69. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1977. Grammatičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka: slovoizmenenie. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo ‘Russkij jazyk’.Google Scholar
  70. Zemskaja, Elena A. 1992. Slovoobrazovanie kak dejatel’nost’. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
  71. Zemskaja, Elena A., M. V. Kitajgorodskaja, and E. N. Širjaev. 1981. Russkaja razgovornaja reč. Obščie voprosy. Slovoobrazovanie. Sintaksis. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
  72. Marchand, Hans. 1969 [1960]. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation, 2nd completely revised and enlarged edition. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  73. Naumann, B. and P. M. Vogel. 2000. Derivation. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. 1, eds. Booij, Geert, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 929–943. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  74. Zemskaja, Elena A. and D. N. Šmeleva. (eds.) 1966. Razvitie slovoobrazovanija sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
  75. Milev, Al., B. Nikolov and J. Bratkov. 1978. Rečnik na čuždite dumi v bălgarskija ezik. IV preraboteno i dopălneno izdanie. Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo.Google Scholar
  76. Russian Academy Grammar = Švedova et al. (1980).Google Scholar
  77. Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. [English translation: 1989. Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Slavic StudiesUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations