Process and Paradigms in Word-Formation Morphology 9783110814378, 9783110168679

Citation preview

Processes and Paradigms in Word-Formation Morphology

W DE G

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 131

Editor

Werner Winter

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Processes and Paradigms in Word-Formation Morphology

by

Amanda Pounder

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

2000

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Pounder, Amanda, 1960Processes and paradigms in word-formation morphology / by Amanda Pounder. p. cm. - (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs ; 131) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3-11-016867-7 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Grammar, Comparative and general — Word formation. 2. Linguistic models. 3. Semantics. 4. German language Word formation - History. 5. Linguistic change. I. Title. II. Series. P245 .P64 2000 415-dc21 00-048999

Die Deutsche Bibliothek -

CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Pounder, Amanda: Processes and paradigms in word formation morphology / by Amanda Pounder. - Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 2000 (Trends in linguistics : Studies and monographs ; 131) ISBN 3-11-016867-7

© Copyright 2000 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printing & Binding: Hubert & Co, Göttingen. Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Preface This book is an attempt both to apply a theoretical model of morphology to a historical problem and to use a historical problem to test a theoretical model, so that it should have something to offer to theoreticians and to those working in historical linguistics or specifically on the history of German word-formation. The latter may linger longer over the detail of sections 7.1.6., 7.2.6, and 7.3.6., while the former may prefer to skim or skip these sections. The book has been a long time coming... It started out as a translation of my 1987 Vienna thesis, Systemangemessenheit in der Wortbildung am Beispiel desubstantivischer Adjektivableitung im Deutschen. It took me over a year and a completed first draft to confirm my initial suspicions that I was a terrible translatress. When I again had the opportunity to work on the book, it was largely independently of both the original and the translation. I eventually abandoned the project, as I could not give it the time and attention it required. After some years, however, I decided that I had had some important things to say and that I should take it up again. I hope that the passage of time has not been entirely detrimental to the result: both teaching and work on other problems, particularly within inflection, have refined my thinking about a number of theoretical issues in morphology, and the addition of new text material to the database and the implementation of statistic analysis have made my results more robust. The theoretical chapters were completed in 1996; I have endeavoured to refer to newer literature where possible, however. I then began work on the empirical investigation, which takes quite a different approach to its predecessor, while arriving at the same basic results. There are many people and institutions who, in one way or another, have helped this project along, and it is my great pleasure to acknowledge them. First, the Max-Planck-Institut für Psycholinguistik provided very generous support in 1988-1989, and I benefited from much good advice and encouragement there. The Linguistics Department at Memorial University of Newfoundland also supported my work, among other things in providing me with a research assistant. Faculty of Humanities and University of Calgary research grants allowed me to engage a research assistant and to travel to Germany to gather data. The Faculty of Humanities and the Department of Germanic, Slavic, and East Asian studies also contributed to proof-reading costs.

vi

Preface

Aditi Lahiri gave me useful comments on my first "translation" draft, and Veronika Ehrich gave me the excellent advice, which I ultimately took, to forget about translating the original thesis and write the book afresh. The late Helmut Feldweg was infinitely generous with advice and help on everything computer-related, including setting up the original database. He had the very original idea of adapting the CHELDES system for child language to historical data. I'm also grateful for his hospitality during my stay in Tübingen in 1997. Thanks go to Marie-Louise Willett and Pamaz Rafatjou for work on the database. Marie-Louise did corrections and Parnaz did inputting and analysis of new data. Parnaz Rafatjou also formatted the tables for Chapter 7. David Bird set up a new database system, advised me on statistics, and designed a computer spreadsheet for the statistical analysis. I thank Rosvita Vaska for bibliographic detective work. I benefited also from the helpful comments of the series reviewer for Mouton de Gruyter. When it came time to prepare the final camera-ready copy of the book for publication, I had the assistance of Leslie Blair and Melanie Blair in proofreading; they have saved me, I'm sure, from much embarrassment. I take responsibility, of course, for anything we all missed. Nicholas 2ekulin and David Bird rescued me from many a struggle with the text-editing software (on whose designers I hereby lay a fatal curse!). And now for my family: my husband David did all the things admirably that husbands in acknowledgements do: extra cooking and household tasks during the last stage, moral support in those darkest formatting moments — and yes, he helped with the index. Our cats supervised the project conscientiously throughout, as only cats can. They were all three wonderful companions and guardians of my sanity during the preparation of the final manuscript. To all these, and to my friends and colleagues for their forbearance, my most heartfelt gratitude. I would like to dedicate this book to the memory of my good friend, Helmut Feldweg.

Contents Preface 1. Introduction

ν 1

2. Psycholinguistic research in morphology 5 2.1. Introduction 5 2.2. The lexicon 7 2.2.1. The lemma (head word) and the lexical entry 8 2.2.2. The status of affixes as lexical units 16 2.2.3. Structure of the lexical entry 19 2.2.4. Structure of the lexicon 21 2.3. Morphological processes 23 2.3.1. Analysis 23 2.3.1.1. Recognition 25 2.3.1.2. Manner of recognition 26 2.3.1.3. Stem recognition 27 2.3.1.4. Complex-word recognition 28 2.3.1.5. Affix recognition and segmentation processes .. 28 2.3.2. Synthesis 29 2.3.2.1. Role of the lexicon 29 2.3.2.2. Synthesis processes 30 2.3.3. Semantic analysis and synthesis 30 2.3.3.1. Semantic ambiguity 31 2.3.3.2. Semantics and analysis processes 31 2.4. Conclusion 33 3. Formal concepts: model-building 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Elements of a model of the morphological component 3.2.1. Introduction 3.2.2. Morphology as a component of grammar 3.2.3. Word-formation and the lexicon 3.2.4. The morphological component 3.2.4.1. Word-formation vs. inflection 3.2.4.2. Dimensionality of word-formation 3.3. Form and meaning relations in word-formation 3.3.1. The separation of form and meaning

35 35 35 35 35 44 46 46 49 50 50

viii Contents 3.3.2. Semiotics and word-formation 3.3.2.1. The (linguistic) sign 3.3.2.2. Structure of the sign 3.4. Units of analysis in word-formation 3.4.1. Lexical units 3.4.1.1. The word-form 3.4.1.2. The lexeme 3.4.2. Morphological units 3.4.2.1. The morph 3.4.2.2. The morpheme 3.4.2.3. The stem 3.4.2.4. The affix 3.4.3. Formal representation of lexical and morphological units 3.4.3.1. The signifiant of the linguistic sign 3.4.3.2. The signifie of the linguistic sign 3.4.3.3. The syntactics of the linguistic sign 3.5. The morphological operation 3.5.1. Base of the operation 3.5.2. Nature of the morphological operation 3.5.3. The signifiant of the operation: form rules 3.5.3.1. Conversion 3.5.3.2. Segmental form rules 3.5.3.2.1. Concatenation (affixation) 3.5.3.2.2. Modificatory form rules 3.5.3.3. Non-segmental form rules 3.5.3.4. Compounding 3.5.4. The signifiant of the operation: semantic rules 3.5.5. The signifiant of the operation: syntactic rules 3.5.6. The signifiant of the operation: rule-mappings 3.5.7. Constraints 3.6. Summary 3.7. The word-formation paradigm 3.7.1. The existence of the word-formation paradigm 3.7.2. The nature of the word-formation paradigm 3.7.3. Modelling the word-formation paradigm 3.7.3.1. Redundancy rules: the lexical paradigm 3.7.3.2. Van Marie (1985): On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity 3.7.3.3. Guilbert (1975): La creativite lexicale 3.7.4. Model of the word-formation paradigm

53 53 56 57 57 57 58 60 60 60 62 63 64 64 64 65 65 65 66 68 69 71 71 72 73 74 74 76 77 79 80 82 82 84 87 87 88 90 92

Contents ix

3.7.5. Problems 3.7.5.1. Degree of abstraction of the representation 3.7.5.2. Membership in the paradigm: the operation . . . . 3.7.5.3. Base of the paradigm: lexical semantic criteria . . 3.7.5.4. Individual differences 3.7.6. Paradigm structures in the process-and-paradigm model . 3.8. Conclusion

93 93 93 94 94 95 96

4. The semantics of word-formation 97 4.1. Introduction 97 4.2. Word-formation meaning vs. lexical meaning 97 4.3. Formal possibilities of representation for word-formation meanings 103 4.3.1. Labelling 104 4.3.2. The paraphrase 104 4.3.3. Componential analysis 107 4.3.4. Relations and functions as (an) expression of wordformation meanings 107 4.4. Design of a system of word-formation functions 108 4.4.1. List of word-formation functions 109 4.4.1.1. Primary functions 110 4.4.1.2. Secondary word-formation functions 120 4.4.1.3. Special functions 122 4.4.2. Problems 122 4.4.3. Inflectional meaning and derivational meaning 123 4.5. Lexical relationships 124 4.5.1. Lexical relationships between word-formations 124 4.5.2. Word-formation meaning and paradigmatic relationships 124 4.5.3. Lexical meaning and the paradigm 126 4.5.3.1. Polysemy and synonymy 126 4.5.3.2. Lexicalization 127 4.5.3.3. Core meaning vs. figurative meaning 128 4.5.3.4. Extra-linguistic information 128 4.5.3.5. The situational or participant role 129 4.6. Semantics in the lexical and word-formation paradigms 131 5. Productivity and norm 5.1. Introduction 5.2. Productivity 5.2.1. Notions of productivity

133 133 133 133

χ Contents 5.2.2. Productivity and frequency 133 5.2.3. Productivity and transparency 134 5.2.4. Productivity and regularity 135 5.2.5. Formal concepts of productivity 136 5.2.6. Productivity and the word-formation paradigm 138 5.3. Norm 139 5.3.1. Generalities 139 5.3.2. Norm I 140 5.3.2.1. The prescriptive norm 140 5.3.2.2. Morphological naturalness 142 5.3.3. Norm Π 142 5.3.3.1. System-defining properties and canonical expectations 143 5.3.3.2. Norm Π and productivity 150 5.3.3.3. Diachrony and Norm Π 152 5.3.4. Relations between Norm I and Norm Π 153 5.4. Conclusion 153 6. Historical investigation: sources and parameters 6.1. Introduction 6.2. Empirical investigation: goals and data sources 6.3. Lexicographical sources 6.3.1. Period Ii Maaler {Mad) 6.3.2. Period Π: Stieler (Sti) 6.3.3. Period Π: Steinbach (Stb) 6.3.4. Period ΙΠ: Adelung (Ad) 6.3.5. Additional lexicographical sources 6.4. Prose text sources 6.5. Presentation of results 6.6. Hypotheses

155 155 155 159 159 161 164 166 171 171 173 175

7. Systemic development of denominal adjective derivation in German: 16th - 19th centuries 177 7.1. Period I: 16th-century German 177 7.1.1. Word-formation processes in denominal adjective formation 177 7.1.2. Rules and rule elements in the denominal adjective system 178 7.1.3. Operations in the denominal adjective system 182 7.1.3.1. Operations in slot-I: prefixation 183

Contents

xi

7.1.3.2. Operation on the base: apophony or umlaut 184 7.1.3.3. Operations in slot I: suffixation 186 7.1.3.4. Operations in slot Π: suffixation 188 7.1.4. Semantic organization of the denominal adjective paradigm 202 7.1.5. The deadjectival adjective paradigm 208 7.1.6. Lexico-semantic classes 213 7.1.6.1. The lexico-semantic class of Concrete Object Designations 213 7.1.6.2. The lexico-semantic class of Concrete Substance Designations 219 7.1.6.3. Pure Substance subclasses: the lexico-semantic classes of Metal Designations and Tree Designations 224 7.1.6.4. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Body Part Designations 229 7.1.6.5. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Landscape Feature Designations 233 7.1.6.6. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Animal Designations 237 7.1.6.7. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Food Designations 242 7.1.6.8. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Illness Designations 244 7.1.6.9. Pure Object classes: the lexico-semantic class of Measure Unit Designations 247 7.1.6.10. Pure Object classes: the lexico-semantic class of Person Designations 249 7.1.6.11. The lexico-semantic class of General Abstract Designations 255 7.1.6.12. The lexico-semantic class of Mental State, Attribute, and Process Designations 261 7.1.6.13. The lexico-semantic class of Process, Activity, and State Designations 274 7.1.6.14. The lexico-semantic class of Place and Institution Designations 281 7.1.6.15. The lexico-semantic class of Media Designations . . 284 7.1.6.16. The lexico-semantic class of Time Unit Designations 287 7.1.6.17. Conclusions 291

xii Contents

7.2. Period Π: 17th- and 18th-century German 291 7.2.1. Word-formation processes in denominal adjective formation 291 7.2.2. Rules and rule elements in the denominal adjective system . 293 7.2.3. Operations in the denominal adjective system 296 7.2.3.1. Operations in slot -I: prefixation 296 7.2.3.2. Operations on the base: apophony or umlaut 299 7.2.3.3. Operations in slot I: suffixation 300 7.2.3.4. Operations in slot Π: suffixation 301 7.2.4. Semantic organization of the denominal adjective paradigm 329 7.2.5. The deadjectival adjective paradigm 332 7.2.6. Lexico-semantic classes 337 7.2.6.1. The lexico-semantic class of Concrete Object Designations 337 7.2.6.2. The lexico-semantic class of Concrete Substance Designations 351 7.2.6.3. Pure Substance subclasses: the lexico-semantic classes of Metal/Precious Stone Designations and Tree Designations 363 7.2.6.4. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Body Part Designations 372 7.2.6.5. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Landscape Feature Designations 381 7.2.6.6. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Animal Designations 390 7.2.6.7. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Food Designations 401 7.2.6.8. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Illness Designations 407 7.2.6.9. Pure Object classes: the lexico-semantic class of Measure Unit Designations 411 7.2.6.10. Pure Object classes: the lexico-semantic class of Person Designations 415 7.2.6.11. The lexico-semantic class of General Abstract Designations 422 7.2.6.12. The lexico-semantic class of Mental State, Attribute, and Process Designations 433 7.2.6.13. The lexico-semantic class of Process, Activity, and State Designations 442 7.2.6.14. The lexico-semantic class of Place and Institution Designations 448

Contents

xiii

7.2.6.15. The lexico-semantic class of Media Designations . 458 7.2.6.16. The lexico-semantic class of Time Unit Designations 464 7.2.6.17. Conclusion 470 7.3. Period ΠΙ: late 18th — early 19th century German 471 7.3.1. Word-formation processes in denominal adjective formation 471 7.3.2. Rules and rule elements 473 7.3.3. Operations in the denominal adjective system 475 7.3.3.1. Operations in slot-I: prefixation 475 7.3.3.2. Operation on the base: apophony or umlaut 477 7.3.3.3. Operations in slot I: suffixation 478 7.3.3.4. Operations in slot Π: suffixation 479 7.3.4. Semantic organization of the denominal adjective paradigm 506 7.3.5. Deadjectival adjective formation in Ad 513 7.3.6. Lexico-semantic classes in Ad 518 7.3.6.1. The lexico-semantic class of Concrete Object Designations 518 7.3.6.2. The lexico-semantic class of Substance Designations 529 7.3.6.3. Pure Substance subclasses: the lexico-semantic class of Metal/Precious Stone and Tree Designations . . . 540 7.3.6.4. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Body Part Designations 547 7.3.6.5. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Landscape Designations 554 7.3.6.6. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Animal Designations 560 7.3.6.7. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Food Designations 566 7.3.6.8. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Illness Designations 571 7.3.6.9. Pure Object classes: the lexico-semantic class of Measure Unit Designations 576 7.3.6.10. Pure Object classes: the lexico-semantic class of Person Designations 579 7.3.6.11. The lexico-semantic class of General Abstract Designations 586 7.3.6.12. The lexico-semantic class of Mental State, Attribute, and Process Designations 594 7.3.6.13. The lexico-semantic class of Process, Activity, and State Designations 601

xiv

Contents

7.3.6.14. The lexico-semantic class of Place and Institution Designations 7.3.6.15. The lexico-semantic class of Media Designations 7.3.6.16. The lexico-semantic class of Time Unit Designations 7.3.6.17. Conclusions

608 616 621 625

8. Discussion and conclusions: word-formation morphology and the nature of change 8.1. Paths of change: structural levels 8.1.1. Word-formation processes in the denominal adjective domain 8.1.2. Elements of form rules in the denominal adjective formation system 8.1.3. Rules and operations 8.1.4. The word-formation paradigm 8.1.5. Lexical paradigms 8.1.6. The deadjectival adjective 8.2. Elaboration of formal concepts 8.2.1. The word-formation rule and the word-formation operation 8.2.2. The word-formation paradigm 8.2.3. The lexico-semantic class 8.3. Productivity 8.4. Standardization 8.5. Language change 8.6. Conclusion

655 658 662 666 679 687 697

Notes References Index

699 715 735

627 627 627 630 631 641 647 654 655

1. Introduction This book is one of broad scope, as its title indicates. It aims to make a contribution to theoretical morphology in general and word-formation morphology in particular by developing a comprehensive process-based model which is at least compatible with results of research in psycholinguistics. A detailed empirical investigation tests the applicability of the theoretical model to a word-formation subsystem in diachrony; the diachronic study attempts to distinguish system-internal and system-external causes for change, and in so doing explores the possibility that language standardization can have far-reaching effects on linguistic systems. In fact, it emerges that word-formation systems in standard languages are different in certain respects from those of non-standard or pre-standard languages, so that what may previously have appeared as inherent constraints on systems turn out not to be so. Thus the book combines a formal approach to word-formation morphology with consideration of relevant extra-linguistic phenomena; it is one of the strengths of the model that it provides for the insightful interpretation of standardization processes affecting word-formation. The theoretical model developed in the first part of the book can be placed within the tradition of "separationist" process morphology, whereby the relation between morphological form and meaning is considered to be indirect; it has much in common with the respective frameworks of I.A. Mel'cuk, its original inspiration, R. Beard, A. Zwicky, G. Stump, and M. Aronoff. It differs from some of these in assuming the existence of a dynamic morphological component responsible for both inflection and wordformation, interacting with a static lexicon. The present framework emphasizes the similarities between inflection and word-formation, to the point of elaborating the concept of paradigm for word-formation as well as inflection. The paradigm is conceived to be a dynamic structure, defined as the set of possible formation paths available to a given base resulting in a correct word-form for inflection, or lexeme for word-formation, in a language L. Parts of this structure may be specified by the lexicon; particularly in the case of word-formation, parts of the paradigm may be replicated there with additional non-systemic or non-systematic information, such as lexical semantic elements, restricted distribution etc. The lexicon itself is understood to have a strongly morphological organization (in addition to whatever other organizational principles it may have), such that morphologically related items are grouped together in a metaphorically local sense. Just as in

2

Introduction

inflectional paradigms, relations between members of the word-formation paradigm are considered to be of crucial importance; in this book, the focus is on synonymy, i.e. where two or more forms map onto the same meaning, and polysemy, where one form maps onto two or more meanings. A final feature of this framework is an elaborated system of formal description of word-formation semantics. While the theoretical discussion refers to Indo-European (English, French, German, and Russian, principally) and non-Indo-European languages (Inuktitut, principally), the empirical investigation focuses almost exclusively on German, with occasional side-excursions. Using the process-andparadigm model developed in the first part, detailed system descriptions of denominal adjective formation for each of three chronological periods between the mid-16th century and approximately 1800 are established, based on contemporary dictionary data as well as data from a fairly extensive collection of non-literary prose texts. As predicted by the model, the outcomes of both major and minor developments are determined to a large degree by relations of synonymy and polysemy at the systemic and lexical levels: the notion of paradigm turns out to be essential for an understanding of the functioning and development of word-formation systems. While this was not originally envisaged by the model, it appears that in German at least, the role of the lexico-semantic class of the base (e.g. "Person Designations", "Substance Designations", "Mental State Designations") as a domain of application for operations and processes is also a crucial one. The time span investigated corresponds to that of the standardization of the German language, so that it is important to determine to what extent the standardization process might have influenced the development of the denominal adjective subsystem. Here, keeping in mind the notions of "elaboration" and "control" featured by Joseph (1987), activities and attitudes of codifiers and prescriptivists relevant to denominal adjectives were examined and compared to actual usage as reflected by the contemporary prose texts. Our original hypothesis was that standardization, and in particular interventionist prescriptive activity, could not affect systemic language change in any significant way, although minor effects at the lexical level might indeed occur. The results of the investigation indicate that this hypothesis may well be untenable, and that there is a stronger link than one might suppose between standardization and functioning of word-formation systems. It is likely not insignificant that some changes of a similar type also affected French and Russian during the periods of their standardization. Common to all of these, for example, is a decreased tolerance for word-formation synonymy at both system and lexical levels (the famous "Blocking Effect"), as well as an

Introduction

3

increased reliance on the lexicon at the expense of the dynamic morphological component. The book begins with a survey and analysis of psycholinguistic literature relevant to inflectional and word-formation morphology, with some emphasis on the latter; while the theoretical framework was not inspired by psycholinguistic research, it seemed that one should make use of available indications as to the organization of the lexicon and processing of morphological items if one wanted to account for actual historical events, as in the diachronic investigation. Chapter 3 provides the bulk of the theoretical discussion and outlines the process-and-paradigm framework used. Chapter 4 is devoted to word-formation semantics, and the final theoretical chapter, Chapter 5, discusses notions of productivity and norm. Chapter 6 introduces the empirical investigation, including a description of the data sources used. Chapter 7 presents the system descriptions organized chronologically; comparisons between time periods are included in the descriptions. The results of the investigation are summarized and interpreted in Chapter 8, with reference to the framework developed initially. Chapter 8 also includes discussions of causality in word-formation systems and of the possible role of standardization, as mentioned above.

2. Psycholinguistic research in morphology 2.1. Introduction Beginning a work in formal morphology theory with a summary of psycholinguistic research implies a certain commitment to the potential contribution of experimental work to formal model-building. There are indeed several options here, ranging from ignoring such research completely to having its results form part of the foundation of a theoretical model. The first possibility is a perfectly legitimate choice: it is not required of a linguistic theory — as long as it does not itself make such claims — that it correspond to "psychological reality"; as a cybernetic model it will be satisfactory as long as it produces exactly the right results and can account for all potential data. In this case, the evaluation of competing analyses will be limited to independent criteria, sometimes merely aesthetic, sometimes more substantive, such as "elegance", economy, number of rules needed, use of ad-hoc rules, amount of residue (exceptions), and scope of applicability etc. The last possibility would seem premature at present, given the number of unresolved issues in current experimental research. Henderson (1989) expresses doubt as to the usefulness and applicability of research results or modelling in psycholinguistics to theoretical linguistics, partly due to different underlying assumptions in the respective fields concerning the lexicon, the role that certain processes play, etc. However, when dealing with a historical problem and thus faced with the necessity of accounting in a concrete way for speaker behaviour, any contribution that psycholinguistics can make is welcome; it may well be that some light can be shed on causality in historical linguistics from this source. Thus in addition to the independent evaluation criteria just mentioned, consonance with psycholinguistic evidence will form an additional criterion. The criterion of psychological reality has in some respects a constraining function: it will eliminate models that "work" but do not fulfil it. It may also override some of the formal criteria, particularly the aesthetic ones: for example, it may be that the correct analysis is formally less economical according to some measure than another one. Expressed more positively, the real speaker/hearer may operate under different measures of economy from those of a constructor of linguistic models; if this is the case, the former is still to be preferred. The general approach in this chapter consists in summarizing and evaluating relevant literature in experimental psycholinguistics. We shall be interested not so much in the actual statistical analyses or the details of the pro-

6 Psycholinguistic research in morphology

posed models, but rather in the general characteristics or properties of the lexicon and the relations between lexicon and morphology which emerge from the studies considered. In dealing with the experimental work some cautions are necessary. One general reserve has to do with the object language; in most cases, and certainly in the earlier work, this language is English, a language with very little inflectional morphology remaining, and a very hybrid derivational system whose vocabulary contains a great many words of foreign origin and complex structure which are not a priori assumed to be transparent to its speakers. This has implications for the data — often the status of test items chosen is dubious1 — and for the validity of results and their interpretations. For this reason, studies based on languages with more complex morphologies are likely to be more informative and their conclusions more generally applicable for morphological theory. In fact, the studies of German, Dutch, Italian, and Serbo-Croatian test hypotheses and theories originally established on the basis of English; we should then be prepared to give them more weight when considering the evidence. Additional sources of reserve have to do with the nature of the tasks and, given the discipline credo that spoken language is primary, the mode of experimentation: in most, but not all, cases, the written mode is chosen; it is perhaps not recommendable to base a theory of the lexicon on such results. However, it did appear in e.g. Fowler, Napps, and Feldman (1985), in which both oral and written modes were used, that the results did not differ significantly from mode to mode. As far as the tasks themselves are concerned, one of the usual objections is that they may require unusual strategies not normally called into play in production or analysis; we will however assume that the underlying research principles may be relied on, namely, that though the tasks themselves are unusual, they appeal to normal processing strategies. Particularly revealing, and most likely to involve such normal strategies, are things such as the letter-cancellation tasks2, the normal reading tasks for the deep-dyslexia studies, and the eye-movement studies; the latter are also valuable due to their sophistication and resulting ability to isolate individual steps in processing. Doubts may be in order about the lexical decision tasks, in which the subjects must decide whether an item is an element of the object language. The rationale behind the task is that the first stages of processing will be targeted. In a unilingual environment at least, this kind of decision is not usually required, the hearer/reader operating on the assumption that everything he hears/reads is in fact a word of that language. Especially in a test situation, and especially for English, a subject might be hesitant about whether a given item, particularly a graphemically

The lexicon

7

and phonologically legal and likely one, is or is not a word, thinking it may be so but that he is ignorant of it. This might very well happen if the word had a Latinate structure, for example. The problem of potential words lurks in many of these studies; generally speaking, morphologically legal complex items that by chance do not happen to be found in a dictionary, in other words are not officially attested, are considered non-words (and errors if said by the subjects to be words); a linguist for whom the lexicon as a theoretical construct is a potential and thus infinite store would consider these to be words, all the more so if productive processes are involved. Some examples of such "non-words" are: retext, deview, prefine (Rubin, Becker, and Freeman 1979). Anshen and Aronoff (1981, 1988) show that for affixations of high productivity, speakers are inclined to accept unattested words as "existing". Thus it is likely that the results of experiments involving lexical decision tasks will be distorted if test items are potential words; this added to other reservations concerning task type mean that results from these sorts of experiments should not be weighted as heavily.3 One last problem is that of opacity. Timing differences (e.g. in reaction time) are only indirect measures of mental activity, and one cannot necessarily say exactly what is going on to make item A take "longer" to process than item B, for example. One often hears of "processing cost", "difficulty", or "complexity"; there may however be no increased difficulty, but some other reason for the difference. Sometimes the reaction-time differences observed in one study and interpreted in this way are not found in another study testing the same hypotheses but under different conditions (e.g. Fowler, Napps, and Feldman 1985 vs. Stanners, Neiser, and Painton 1979).

2.2. The lexicon Much experimental research focuses on the lexicon. No current theoretical version of this component is particularly sophisticated, either with respect to its overall organization or the individual "entry", so there is the potential of profit here. A modern standard dictionary contains a list of entries, each headed by a lemma or "head-word"; it is assumed in theoretical and psycholinguistic models of the mental lexicon that it also has these features.

8 Psycholinguistic

research in morphology

2.2.1. The lemma (head word) and the lexical entry One goal of psycholinguistic research is to determine what corresponds to the dictionary element of the lemma or head-word; depending on one's view of the complexity of the lexical entry, one might call it the lexical point of entry, or in computationally-coloured terms, an address. However, the means of access to an entry should not be confused with the lemma-status of an item x, as we shall see. That is, it may be possible to reach an entry through various points, but there may also be a unit representative of the complete contents of the entry, namely the lemma. What is the morphological status of lemmas? Several hypotheses have been set forth, for example: 1) that every "word" (free form), including inflectional forms and word-formations, has its own entry and corresponds to a lemma; a weaker one is 2) that not all words have their own entry, i.e. "regular" inflectional forms and perhaps word-formations make up a part of the entry of the base and are accessed via that base; 3) that stems or roots, rather than free-standing forms, form the lemma, independently of whether other forms derived from these are "regular" or not. Experimental support for the first of these hypotheses is claimed by Rubin, Becker, and Freeman (1979) (cf. critique of method in e.g. Taft 1981) and Manelis and Tharp (1977). The second hypothesis is supported by work by e.g. Stanners, Neiser, and Painton (1979), Freyd and Baron (1982), Bradley (1980), de Bleser and Bayer (1990), Henderson, Wallis, and Knight (1984), Job and Sartori (1984), Laudanna and Burani (1985), Caramazza, Laudanna, and Romani (1988) (the latter two also allowing for the first hypothesis in a complex model). The third hypothesis is supported by e.g. MacKay (1976), Taft and Förster (1975) (cf. critique of method in e.g. Henderson, Wallis, and Knight 1984), Jarvella and Meijers (1983), Jarvella and Snodgrass (1974), Fowler, Napps, and Feldman (1985), and Feldman and Fowler (1987) (depending on how one defines "lexical entry"). Before examining more closely the proposals of the above researchers concerning the relations between morphology and the lexicon, it should be pointed out that these hypotheses are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, it is possible or even likely that a combination of hypotheses 1), 2), and 3) may hold: some word-forms may have a non-complex lemma representation, whereas other lemmas may be represented as stems, heading

The lexicon

9

complex entries in the lexicon of a given language. It seems intuitively plausible that an item might be complex for one speaker and simplex for another, as it consequently does that an item's status can change in either direction; once its complexity and relationship to other items has been realized it becomes analyzed or decomposed and perhaps "moved", or it becomes autonomous and the relations to others weakened (see Freyd and Baron 1982, who in an acquisition study also point out that an item may in a transitory phase have both kinds or representation and be found in two "places" at once). Some of the research results indicate that a relatively complex model of the lexicon is necessary, whereby certain kinds of complex items are found in "subentries", while others are autonomous (cf. e.g. Bradley 1980, who claims that ion-derivations are more autonomous (have their own entries) than, say, «ess-derivations, or inflections), and others find indications of different lexical status for various derivational suffixes and the corresponding form-meaning relations (Bayer and de Bleser ms.) and different strengths of connection (Laudanna and Burani 1985; Caramazza, Laudanna, and Romani 1988; Jarema and Kehayia 1992). In addition, the various conceptions of the organization of the lexicon itself and its complexity may result in a hypothesis 1) or 2) being translatable into hypothesis 3), for example. In this way then we may find that each of the listed hypotheses has its element of truth. Many or most of the studies are explicitly concerned with evaluating hypothesis 1) vs. hypothesis 2) and/or 3). The evidence seems to be overwhelmingly in favour of the latter. Both Rubin, Becker and Freeman (1979), and Manelis and Tharp (1977) work with derivational rather than inflectional morphology (the borderline case of comparison of adjectives does however turn up in Manelis and Tharp 1977), so that no study explicitly advances the claim that inflectional forms each form a lemma or correspond to a unique lemmatic representation. Stanners, Neiser, and Painton (1979) propose the "single entry hypothesis" for some derivations only. Rubin, Becker, and Freeman (1979) is a response to an influential type-3 proposal (Taft and Forster 1975, to be discussed below). On the basis of lexical-decision tasks whose object was structures consisting of (pseudo)prefix plus stem, the authors conclude that a simplex stem is in principle accessible, but only as a result of a "special strategy" provoked by a predominantly prefixed environment as in a test situation. Otherwise, the accessed object would be a "whole word", i.e. a complex stem. The items tested are partly of Latinate origin, partly of Germanic origin (e.g. impress, misery, mistake, unlike). In other words, a complex form would under special circumstances undergo morphological analysis, but the lemma is not a sim-

10 Psycholinguistic research in morphology

plex stem. As Taft (1981) points out, however, strategy effects may very well be responsible for Rubin, Becker, and Freeman's results also. The idea is that if pseudoprefixed words (i.e. such that contain a phoneme/grapheme sequence similar to that of a prefix but in fact part of the stem) take longer to respond to than genuinely prefixed words (e.g. beckon longer than befriend), then this is due to a decomposition and search taking place, so that the pseudoprefixed word takes longer to access for a root-lemma as an extra step is involved, for once the potential root is not found, a search for the whole must take place; this was found to be the case, but only in the "superprefixed" environment. However, in the one experiment in which there was no reaction time difference, and that consequently led to the rejection of the root-lemma hypothesis, all the non-words were non-prefixed just in order to provide an environment unsaturated with prefixes, which meant that the word - non-word decision could be made on the basis of the presence or absence of a prefix-like segment alone (which of course would require the same strategy the authors are attempting to disprove). In general the theoretical linguist might well feel that not all items tested were suitable for the task, many being what is understood by "highly lexicalized". The Manelis and Tharp (1977) study is concerned with suffixation and also used the lexical-decision technique. Again the issue is whether pseudoaffixed words have different (root lemma) or identical (whole-unit lemma) reaction times. It was found that there was no difference between words in pairs of similar structure, but when the members of pairs were unlike, the reaction time was longer. This latter finding would rather support a type-2 or -3 hypothesis, it would seem; the first is inconclusive, among other things because some of the "non-words" are in fact potential words as indicated above (e.g. lendy, terming, dirter), some others have non-roots (leab-, hoik-), while others have English roots in illegal or unlikely combination; it is not probable that these are processed alike, yet they were treated without differentiation. In a second experiment, subjects were required to state whether complex items contained a given stem or not; again, the stimuli are problematic (most of the "non-word" combinations are English stems in illegal or unlikely or even merely unattested combination with English suffixes, and these are all different from the suffixes used in the "real" word set), so that if the results mean anything at all, they would rather disfavour a type-1 hypothesis. The work of Stanners, Neiser, and Painton (1979) and Stanners et al. (1979) results in models combining type-1, type-2 and type-3 hypotheses, as stated above, with root-lemmas for "regular" inflection and unitary lemma representations for English strong preterites and other derivations; these

The lexicon 11

representations or the corresponding forms are however potentially decomposable. The experiments made use of "repetition" or "identity" priming in lexical-decision tasks; the idea is that having seen a word previously will reduce the reaction time when it is presented again. The object of the experiments is to see whether priming by an inflected form, by a strong preterite, or by an adjectival or nominal derivate would take place, and if so, whether such a form would be as strong a prime as the base verb itself. If it were, then one would conclude that the complex forms access a root lemma. If not, then another representation is accessed. In fact, regular inflectional forms primed just as well as the infinitive verb, whereas the other types of complex forms primed only partially. With their conflicting results, Stanners et al. (1979) decide that both roots and complex stems are accessed, with relations holding between e.g. ingress and -gress, progress and ingress, etc. This sounds, however, like something which could be translated into a hypothesis of type 2 or 3. The argumentation of these papers is criticized by Taft (1981), who feels that it is "uneconomical" to have both access of the stem representation and unitary access (p.290); the results conflict with Fowler, Napps, and Feldman (1985), in whose repetition priming experiments even "irregular" inflectional forms and derivations turn out to be primes no less strong than regular inflectional forms or infinitives. As indicated above, most of the studies support a hypothesis of type 2 or 3 in a more or less elaborated form. Taft and Förster in their 1975 paper and subsequent work argue for an exclusively root-lemma lexicon: using mostly Latinate and learned vocabulary (e.g. rejuvenate, undulate) in English, they show effectively on the basis of lexical decision tasks using prefixed and pseudoprefixed items that the minimal root is obligatorily accessed (one may assume that the suffixes would not be included in the stem, i.e. a lemma JUVEN and not JUVENATE, as in Taft and Forster 1975 and elsewhere). Those results that Rubin, Becker, and Freeman (1979) did not replicate were in effect that pseudoprefixed items took longer to process than prefixed ones and that the "not a word" decision took longer when the stem in question was in fact a stem of English (i.e. the legality and/or attestedness of the combination had to be checked; e.g. dejuvenate or juvenate, potential words) than when it was not (e.g. depertoire, constructed on the basis of repertoire or luvenate). Note here, as Taft and Förster do not, that not only is there a check on dejuvenate vs. rejuvenate and juvenate vs. rejuvenate but also juvenate vs. juvenile etc. It should be emphasized once more that the fact that results supporting a type-2 or -3 hypothesis are consistently attainable is highly significant. If such items as rejuvenate are in fact decomposed and stored under their roots

12 Psycholinguistic research in morphology

in English, in spite of all theoretical considerations, all superficial considerations of economy of storage over processing, speed of access, and semantic autonomy, then the case for (de)composition as the normal strategy will be all the stronger for Germanic and/or "transparent" vocabulary items on the one hand and for morphologically "healthier" languages on the other. It also serves as evidence that form is primary as a principle of organization of the lexicon, and that meaning, although important, is secondary. In a different type of task, examining production as well as analysis, MacKay (1976, 1978) provides more support for a type-3 over a type-1 hypothesis. Subjects had to produce preterites from English (Germanic) verb stems in the former study, and a derived noun from a base verb (Latinate or Germanic) in the latter. In both cases, reaction time differences were noted and errors analyzed. In addition to the question of whether strong preterites are formed by rule from the root represented by the lemma rather than accessed as unanalyzed wholes with lemma status, it was also inquired whether, and if so to what extent, derivational complexity is reflected in processing. For example, it could be asked e.g. whether "dental" preterites such as taught or left are also formed from such a stem and if so whether this formation is more "difficult" than a simple stem vowel change. Morphophonological details aside, the prediction is that if a preterite such as taught involves operations on the base of the present infinitive, corresponding to a type-3 lemma, then it should take longer than that of an ablaut preterite, e.g. dug, to produce; if, however, the preterite is represented as an unanalyzed whole, then there should be no difference in reaction time. The former possibility was found to be realized. In a second, similar, experiment, this time including the production of present infinitives from preterites, the analysis of "errors" revealed among other things a number of "creative" formations, i.e. legal but not lexically listed choices, e.g. rid from a stimulus ride (cf. HIDE)4. These errors, of which there were a considerable number, were never ungrammatical; in other words, the alternations or operations produced were appropriate for some other members of the lexicon (MacKay 1976: 174). Obviously, the "erroneous" forms do not exist in the lexicon in any form, but have to be explained. Proponents of a type-1 hypothesis might say that the existence of morphology had never been denied, and could always be relied upon as a special strategy. However, in all cases for which such a claim might be made, it rests upon its makers to show why this special strategy would be called upon when it is and not at other times — why for example in the present context the search for a preterite from a present or the inverse runs any differently from the procedure taking place, say, when in running conversation after using a present tense form of a verb JC in sentence

The lexicon

13

1 one needs a preterite form of the same verb in sentence 25. Put another way, one would have to show that there was some real difference between these experimental results and the so frequently occurring speech errors of normal communication, or between the strategies employed when making an error and retrieving a correct form. Further, it is difficult to imagine ontologically; why and especially how would this special strategy develop at all if holistic processing is the norm? Why would speakers go to the trouble of developing rules if they were not to be used constantly? The special strategy idea is to be found in theoretical literature too (cf. e.g. Bybee 1985, Aronoff 1976, Wolff 1984), with the same reasoning. MacKay (1976: 178-179) does suggest that perhaps both hypotheses 1) and 3) hold: ... words may be stored both as independent units and as morphological components with rules for vowel and consonant alternation ... given more than one memory system for words, it may be possible to retrieve irregular preterites as independent units from some other memory system not accessed in the present task. ... The present data only indicate that speakers can use derivational rules for forming preterites. Whether speakers normally use such rules in producing sentences is clearly an open question, although speech error data ... suggest that these rules do play a role in natural speech — at least for some of the speakers some of the time. The appeal to speech error data deserves attention; further examination of morphological errors from extensive corpora of English and German is undertaken in MacKay (1979), whereby the previous claims for English are strengthened. The same reasoning as before is applied in MacKay (1978) in error analysis: if non-attested, i.e. creative, forms are produced that could not have been stored as units (e.g. non-alternating in the stem, as in expelsion\ non-attested but possible suffix, as in excludement), then they must have been composed using some stem in combination with suffixes. Either a different suffix from the one ordered was retrieved, or the combinatorial information associated with the stem was "overlooked" and another, legal, formation produced, or another stem variant was chosen (as in the above examples). It is also significant that e.g. the "non-alternating" root forms such as expelsion were produced faster than the correct forms. It would be odd if an "independent unit" lemma were available for analysis only, but not for production. The studies of deep and phonological dyslexia in the morphologically more privileged languages of German and Italian respectively provide yet firmer evidence than the preceding for hypotheses of type 2 and 3. For the characteristics of these disorders see de Bleser and Bayer (1990)6. Symptoms

14 Psycholinguistic research in morphology differ from case to case, but the most essential for our present purpose are that the patient speaks almost normally but encounters enormous difficulty in reading (aloud); he may produce semantic paralexias, e.g. reading close as shut or in German tapfer 'brave' as mutig 'courageous', paraphrases, reading e.g. ledig 'single' as nicht verheiratet 'not married', performing poorly on function words, and often not producing correct inflections. The evidence indicates that comprehension, thus access and analysis, is good but that "the pieces cannot be reassembled". Also, deep dyslexics cannot read "nonwords". We shall have occasion to come back to the studies in question presently; essential for the moment is the fact that when inflections or derivations are to be read, the stem (usually) is produced but (usually) in combination with the wrong inflectional suffixes, e.g. Germ, lachte 'laugh', (l./3.sg.pret). is read as lachen 'laugh', (pres.inf.) (Bayer and de Bleser ms.) or Er schreien 'he scream' (infinitive form) for Er schrie 'he screamed' (de Bleser and Bayer 1990:33); a comparative or superlative adjective is read as a positive (e.g. kleinst 'smallest' is read as kleine 'small' (inflected form) (de Bleser and Bayer 1990: 46). In more straightforward cases of derivation, most errors involved either production of stem alone (if the stem was identical to a free form) or application of some other process. Two significant examples are (from de Bleser and Bayer 1990: 40): (1)

(2)

diminutive formation: a.

Türchen door, dim.

read as Tür ... kleine ...Türchen door little

b.

Männlein man, dim.

read as kleiner Mann ... Männchen little man

verb formation: entgiften read as giftig... nicht giftig jetzt aber früher war 'decontaminate' 'poisonous ... not poisonous now but before das giftig it was poisonous'

In (2), the base lexeme of ENTGIFTEN 'decontaminate, detoxify' and GIFTIG 'poisonous' is GIFT 'poison'. In both (1) and (2) we see that the morphological component is in place — complex derivatives can be produced (giftig, Türchen, perfectly correct forms); significant is the fact that

The lexicon 15 they are all reconstructed on the basis of semantics after analysis of the written form. The critical example is (lb), where the regionally more likely Männchen replaces the understood Männlein. Obviously, it is not a unitary lemma representation which is being accessed in all three cases, but a complex form is constructed on the basis of a simplex stem (root). It should also be noted that there were differences noted in the treatment of the various processes and domains, for example, and this might support a separate stem representation in English as well (see above); preterite forms were much more likely to be read correctly in the case of strong verbs. A possible and plausible supposition might be that these preterite stems are represented semi-autonomously, i.e. still under the main lemma, perhaps in decomposed form. Finally, it is significant that when inflections etc. were not read correctly, it was generally the (complex) citation forms that were produced. This may be seen as an indication that the lemma may not be a pure base, but is perhaps a complex (analyzed) form. In the case study presented in Job and Sartori (1984) of a patient with slightly different symptoms (phonological dyslexia), much the same kind of behaviour in reading tasks was observed. Not all morphological errors on finite verb stimuli involved substitution of citation-form infinitives (cf. p. 442); there are for example some substitutions of person-tense desinence, e.g. decisi 'decide' (l.sg.pret.) read as deciso (3.sg.pret.) and even root substitutions, e.g. riguardare 'look over, examine' (pres.inf.) read as riandare 'go back' (pres.inf.), or comprendere 'comprehend' (pres.inf.) read as condividono 'share out' (3.pl.pres.). Not all reading errors were such substitutions: some involved the addition of an (apparent) derivational affix (e.g. somma 'sum' read as insomma 'in sum') or the omission of one (e.g. antepongono 'put before, prefer' (3.pi.pres.) read as pongono 'put' (3.pl.pres.). As in the case reported by de Bleser and Bayer, the subject performed much better on irregular verb forms than regular ones, which suggested to the authors that such forms are stored as single units. Tasks in which non-words were to be read provided further evidence against a type-1 hypothesis as a general principle: if non-words cannot be read, then unattested complexes of real affix and real stem should not be any more readable than non-real stems under such a hypothesis; however, the Italian subject did much better on the former type. If one were to invoke the special strategy argument, one would have to counter the usual objections; as well, one would have to suppose that both complex words and the stems they contain constituted lemmas. Finally, in an eye-movement study by Lima (1987), it appeared that pseudo-prefixed words are treated differently from prefixed words (in nor-

16 Psycholinguistic

research in morphology

mal, fluent reading, it is worth noting, as opposed to the single-item presentation of most other experiments), corroborating the findings of Taft and Forster and others. Eye movement in reading consists in alternations of movement ("saccades") and "fixations", whereby the length of the fixation supposedly reflects the "momentary cognitive processing load" (p.85). There are two main indications that isolation and accessing of the bare stem occur: firstly, the fixation time was consistently longer for pseudo-prefixed words than for closely matched prefixed words, and secondly, the saccade length (a measure of distance) was shorter in leaving such words. On the basis of these studies, then, a type-2 or -3 hypothesis is more likely to correspond to actual conditions in the mental lexicon. The choice between hypotheses 2 and 3 and between 1 and 2/3 operating in parallel vs. a strict type-3 system will probably depend on what one supposed the entry itself to be, that is, on the complexity of the structure of the lexical entry (see 2.2.3. below).

2.2.2. The status of affixes as lexical units The question of whether affixes have lexical entries, and therefore lemma status, as is claimed in many syntactically-motivated generative accounts, is not generally considered (but see Job and Sartori 1984: 447). The function and nature of affixes, is, however, a subject of discussion in e.g. Smith and Sterling (1982), Jarvella and Meijers (1983), Job and Sartori (1984), Bayer and de Bleser (ms.), de Bleser and Bayer (1990), and Lima (1987). What emerges is that affixes, or more particularly prefixes, are identified as such in order for the stem to be isolated and matched to a lemma. The actual semantic or categorial contribution of the affix is not relevant at this early stage of the parse; possibly, there is a functionally separate list of such elements, a sort of "mini-lexicon" for affixes. The following basic principles can be proposed: 1) prelexical parsing and lookup focus on objects that are potential affixes; here, only form is of interest, while meaning becomes relevant at a later stage 2) affixes are not directly associated with meaning as lexical elements (roots) are 3) affixes are functionally different from lexical units 4) morphological meaning is, as a result of this, different from lexical meaning.

The lexicon 17

As an illustration of principles 2) and 4), consider Bayer and de Bleser (ms.: 6): "... HJ is completely unable to distinguish written instantiations of -chen and -lein as linguistic units. The reason is that she does not have access to their phonemic gestalt, and that on the other hand, the two items are bound to one and the same semantic representation in the mental lexicon [emphasis mine — AP]"and of principle 4) "...this suggests a surprising independence and abstractness of morphology". They further suggest that there are two classes (at least) of derivational affixes, one class more "lexical", i.e. associated more directly and less abstractly with meaning, such as affixation with -frei and -los (corresponding approximately to Engl, -free and -less), one class less so. Apparently the patient was "relatively successful with morphemes whose semantic contribution is less clear" — or perhaps, more ambiguous, in the sense that most suffixes correspond to several meanings. Examples of these are the suffixes -lieh, -ig, -isch, -heit, -ung. They have according to the authors "no separate semantic address" (p. 7), in that they are basically responsible for change of syntactic category. The discussion of inflectional morphology is carried out in the same spirit (p. 8-9), with again a conclusion echoing principle 4) above, namely that there must be a level of representation "which is clearly not lexical". For similar results see also Kay (1988). Job and Sartori (1984) claim that lexical and morphological material (i.e. specifically affixes) are processed differently. As mentioned above, the patient could not read non-word stems; however, if an affix was embedded in a non-word, that affix was read well. Affixes presented alone were also read well. Lexical decisions as to whether an item was a word or not were more accurate with the combination nonsense stem-legitimate affix than the combination real stem-nonsense affix. Thus it would seem that wherever affixes are "kept", they may have a different status from that of lexical stems. Thus we see that there is apparently a functional difference between roots or stems and affixes corresponding to the different roles and stages in which they are implicated in the processes of synthesis and analysis. If the goal of the initial parse in analysis is isolation of the root as the evidence suggests, then the affix of whatever type is not of any immediate interest beyond its status as a potential member of a class. There are various kinds of evidence for the differential treatment of these objects. For example, Jarvella and Meijers (1983) had subjects respond in several lexical decision tasks to Dutch past participles (e.g. ge-bel-d 'called', ge-blek-en 'seemed') and preterite forms (e.g. bel-d-e, bleek) embedded in sentences presented orally. Significant findings here were that lexical decisions on identity of stem of

18 Psycholinguistic research in morphology

two stimuli were faster than identification of forms (e.g. past participle vs. preterite) (p. 104), indicating the primacy of the stem search, both chronologically and functionally. Also, subjects were faster in making "different" judgements when the two stimuli had different roots than when the affixes differed (p. 105). If the two kinds of object were of equal status, one would expect the affix information to be processed first in a pure right-to-left search; these two results make clear that that is not the case. The authors also point out (p. 105) that due to parsing of syntactic structure it might well occur that the identity of the form (i.e. as preterite or participle) is secure before the stem can be correctly identified; however, the subjects did not seem to be able to capitalize on this. In the dyslexia studies, we find again the objects in question receiving a differentiated treatment. Job and Sartori's phonologically dyslexic subject could not read non-word stems, as mentioned above. However, if a non-word contained a real affix, this stood a good chance of being read well — in the authors' example (p. 456) ri-bit-are where -bit is the "pseudo-root" — whereas errors would arise in the attempt to read the stem, indicating to the authors that the two are processed differently; however, one would have to compare this with performance on a task in which the root was "real" but the affixes were not. Testing this, Job and Sartori found support for the idea that they are treated differently, but nothing proves that the representation is necessarily different or the "location" different. The functional difference in processing is not the only distinction involved; the difference in the relations between form and meaning is an even more compelling one. On the basis of the results reported above, Bayer and de Bleser (ms.: 7,10) conclude that this relation is, in most cases at least, not a direct one. In other words, if affix elements have entries in the lexicon, they are not associated there with a semantic representation, or if they are, then this must be very abstract. This is true for inflectional affixes and some derivations (e.g. -lieh, -ig), perhaps not for "suffixoids" like -frei ('-free'), -los ('less'), on which the subject performed differently. In the above examples of diminutives, we saw that what was semantically analyzed might be formally reconstructed differently from the input form. In other words, the link between morphological meaning and form is not direct and not isomorphic. It looks as though the affix has no separate or no complete entry at all, and is not accessible in the same way. Bayer and de Bleser (ms.: 7-8) point out that the change in meaning produced by an inflectional or derivational process is very often not at all lexical in nature, but rather either relevant to syntax (categorial change, inflection) or else, in other cases some semantic elements associated with a complex word lexeme cannot be attributed to the

The lexicon 19 suffix, i.e. where some degree of lexicalization has taken place. This point is relevant to the discussion in Chapters 3 and 4. The point is even more obvious when it comes to such things as "interfixes" or juncture morphs, as in Bien-en-honig 'bee honey', Rind-er-braten, Rind-s-braten 'roast b e e f , which Bayer and de Bleser (ms.) also discuss, English -ic-al derivations, or any other cases in which no serious claim can be made for the semantic contribution of an affix. For the present, we can conclude that lexical meaning and morphological meaning are two separate domains; morphological elements neither have the same status as lexical roots nor are of the same nature, as far as form-meaning relations are concerned, as lexical roots.

2.2.3. Structure of the lexical entry We may now begin to consider how a lexical entry might be structured. It contains the lemma, which in the normal case will be an abstract root. Given a type-2 or -3 hypothesis, we must expect to have beyond the lemma a lexical entry of complex hierarchical structure in a language with inflectional and derivational morphology. The basis of its organization is formal, in the sense that a formal analysis seems to be made even if a given form is semantically autonomous; this means that formal dependencies are more important than semantic ones, and closeness of relation is based on formal grounds (cf. e.g. Bradley 1980: 50,52). A basic plan according to which the stems associated with the lemma root, possibly themselves represented as root plus morphophonological operation, form primary nodes of organization is consonant with the research results reported; under these roots would be found the various combinations, i.e. combinatorial specifications for affixation, possible for that root. As it may very well be that several operations can be applied to form a complex stem, there is room for quite intricate branching here. It may thus be assumed that there is some sort of hierarchical structure or ordering among these operations. At some point, semantic grouping must play a role in addition to formal considerations; for example, consider the proposals for inflectional paradigmatics in the work of Lukatela et al. (1980), Feldman and Fowler (1987), Günther (1988), and Jarema and Kehayia (1992). As word-formation, and not inflection, is the focus of this book, we cannot discuss these in the detail they deserve. As an example, it was shown for Serbo-Croatian that the nominative case form is basic in that it is ac-

20 Psycholinguistic

research in morphology

cessed faster than oblique case forms, even when morphological and phonological complexity is no greater for the latter than for the nominative. Günther (1988) found relations for German nouns similar to those described by Lukatela et al. (1980) and Feldman and Fowler (1987) for Serbo-Croatian. In his investigations, an ambiguous word-form was identified as a nominative form of a stem even when this stem was less frequent than another resulting from a non-nominative analysis (remember that frequency is one of the most reliable factors affecting access time): for example, sag- is the stem of both the verb SAGEN 'say' and the noun SAGE 'saga'. The first lexeme is obviously more frequent, and sage (l.sg.pres. indie., among other things) extremely frequently occurring; nevertheless sage when heard in isolation was associated by subjects overwhelmingly to the noun SAGE. A further concern, shared by theoretical linguistics (see e.g. Wolff 1984), is whether the entry only contains the basis for productive morphological operations, while words formed according to no longer productive rules or "irregularly" formed ones are listed separately, i.e. with their own entry. As should be clear from the above discussion, this does not seem to be the case in general, partly due to the primacy of form. (See e.g. Fowler, Napps, and Feldman 1985: 251; Feldman and Fowler 1987: 11. See also Cutler 1983, Butterworth 1983: 15 for experimental support.) Related to the foregoing is the question of (stem) allomorphy. Given that there are various "subentries" or stems subsumed under one lemma, and given that both formal and semantic considerations determine the structure of a lexical entry, we must ask what happens when for example in a language with stem allomorphy a stem serves as base to both derivational and inflectional operations, or when an inflectional paradigm contains more than one stem. The logical possibilities include multiple representation of the stem(s) in question and unique representation with some way of accessing the desired combinations; in the former case, semantics is given more weight than in the latter. The problem is discussed in Caramazza, Laudanna, and Romani (1988), who suggest that stem allomorphy must result in a set of distinct entries. One of the essential difficulties involved here lies in making clear what it actually means to be "represented somewhere". That is, is the organization of lexical material, or information in memory generally, such that information can be said to be in "two places"? How much of a metaphor is there in the very idea of localization? Is it or is it not the same thing, to say that a piece of information can be accessed in two ways, or that there are various connec-

The lexicon

21

tions in which it participates, and to say that is found "in two different places"? It is clear that if all morphologically related members of a paradigm are subsumed in one lexical entry under a lemma, this last must be quite abstract. See here for pertinent comments Feldman and Fowler (1987: 11), Jarvella and Meijers (1983: 89), MacKay (1979: 496). Many authors (e.g. Caramazza, Laudanna, and Romani 1988) assume different representations or even lexica for written and oral modes; see however Taft (1984) who justifies the postulation of one abstract representation for both modes. We must view the lexicon as a flexible construct, and this applies of course to the contents of the lexical entry as well. If the entry is as complex as we have made out here, then it is easy to imagine that it undergoes constant restructuring throughout the life of the speaker: should a speaker learn a new complex word, it will be inserted in the structure, which may cause reshuffling of the elements already present, or new information acquired about an item may cause it to be transported elsewhere, figuratively speaking. Should he become aware of a morphological relationship between two items, this may entrain the incorporation of what was originally a separate lexical entry into another (cf. here Freyd and Baron 1982; MacKay 1978: 61).

It may also be added that if for example a strong preterite stem of English or another Germanic language is embedded in the entry of the abstract root, then the timing and priming differences observed in some experiments as indicated above may be explained in some way involving the paths to be chosen within that entry. It would however still remain a puzzle how the patient in Job and Sartori's (1984) study managed to perform so much better on "irregular" forms than on "regular" ones. We can assume that the "regular" formations do not require lexical specification of morphological operations to be applied, whereas the "irregular" ones do; perhaps there is some deficit in accessing the computational machinery involved for "default" cases.

2.2.4. Structure of the lexicon

In addition to most probably being organized on the basis of constellations around abstract root lemmata, the lexicon may have other principles of structure; as Henderson (1989) points out, this is not explored in the psycholinguistic literature to the extent that, say, access mechanisms and representations are. An exception is provided by Caramazza, Laudanna, and Romani

22 Psycholinguistic research in morphology

(1988), who suggest a complex model in which the lexicon consists of several sublexica, independent but interconnected components determined by mode and process, namely the orthographic input lexicon, phonological input lexicon, orthographic output lexicon, phonological output lexicon. This does seem intuitively to be rather too much of a good thing. It can be supposed that these can be collapsed into one lexicon, with the differences in analysis and synthesis being associated with the processes themselves, the same to apply for phonological and orthographic modes. Further, we expect the lexicon to contain phonological and orthographic representations, but also abstract structural and semantic representations that are neither; Caramazza, Laudanna, and Romani (1988: 229) surprisingly suggest that a linguistic representation like [[walk]w [ed\y, ] v _ is contained in the "orthographic lexicon", so that their model at once seems too complex and too simple. A verb stem in this lexicon contains stem class (conjugation) information, which maps onto an appropriate affix set; regular and "regular irregular" inflection is dealt with in this way, whereby in the latter case two stems must be made available in one entry. Suppletive forms are fully listed, presumably with their own entries. Systemically possible but incorrect mappings of stems to affix sets are effected by "inhibitory links", which in the normal case prevent incorrect inflection but may be overridden; in other words, they produce a "blocking" effect with irregular verbs. The proposed structures are tested by comparing reactions to different types of illegal inflections: for example, and most significantly, lexical decisions (word/nonword) on the systemically possible but non-attested or incorrect formations took longer than those non-systemically possible or non-decomposable, which indicates not only that morphological decomposition takes place, but also that a number of levels of analysis are available. Interestingly, it is assumed that derivational morphology involves a similar sort of paradigmatic synthesis (p. 314) to that suggested for inflection, and it would be useful to see similar experiments for derivation. Generally speaking, it is significant that these researchers see the lexicon as a many-levelled structure of considerable complexity. Some researchers have suggested that lexical entries are ordered in some way, for example according to frequency (cf. e.g. Taft and Forster 1975, 1976). It probably suffices, however, to suppose that access proceeds according to frequency, both within the lexical entry itself and on a larger scale among entries in the lexicon, without requiring actual spatial proximity in storage (whatever that means). Of considerable interest to current theoretical discussion is the evaluation of the concepts of economy or efficiency, as indicated in the introduction to

Morphological processes

23

this chapter. The conclusions of such experimental researchers can be summed up briefly as follows: in principle, a type-1 hypothesis would appear to favour (speed of) processing, considering probably foremostly analysis, whereas types 2 and 3 would favour economy of storage; however, this turns out to be an overly simplistic notion of economy, firstly, and secondly, the brain is efficient precisely because of a certain amount of redundancy which takes precedence over economy of storage. In other words, information is represented in several different places, or better, is available through different paths of access; this speeds up access and verification of operations. As Holyoak, Glass, and Mah (1976: 246-247) in the discussion of semantic representation put it, " It appears that "cognitive redundancy" is the rule rather than the exception in memory storage". Put crudely, there must be some very good reason why we choose to apply rules of limited scope, no longer productive, to stems rather than produce and access them holistically, or why word-formations with a degree of lexical semantic autonomy are formally associated with their stems and decomposed as if this were not the case.

2.3. Morphological processes In this section we shall briefly examine the dynamic version of the hypotheses presented in 2.2.1., where we were more concerned with the nature and status of the units accessed in the lexicon (and elsewhere, supposing that affixes are not located there). Here we shall consider more closely proposals regarding recognition of those units, lexical access mechanisms, and other mechanisms involved in analysis and synthesis, and more generally, how morphology makes use of information in the lexicon. Following the custom in psycholinguistic literature, we shall distinguish between processes involved in analysis, which will be examined first, and synthesis.

2.3.1.

Analysis

Typically, the analysis of complex words is considered to consist of at least three stages, namely recognition of units of various sizes, segmentation (if necessary), and interpretation (which would involve e.g. processing of semantic information). The various models differ as to the ordering of these major stages, and the subprocesses they contain.

24 Psycholinguistic

research in morphology

As will be clear from the preceding section, it is or was a matter of debate whether an initial parse precedes or follows access of a lexical entry if it takes place at all. According to type-3 hypotheses, an initial parse identifies potential affixes in order to isolate the stem/root; this root is then looked up in the lexicon. If it is found, the appropriateness or legitimacy of affix-androot combination is checked; then semantic processing takes place. If at any point a dead end should be reached, the search begins again, in a sequential model at least. If we assume a process (at least as likely) by which all avenues are explored simultaneously, then it will rather be a question of closing down one avenue after the other. Such dead-ends will occur when 1) the stem is not found in the lexicon, i.e. removing the affix(es) leaves over a non-existent stem, indicating that the "prelexical parse" was not correct, or 2) when the combination of root and affixes is not appropriate, meaning that the initial parse was again not correct or that a homophonous or homonymous stem or root is the correct choice. It is not clear whether all affixal material has the same status in processing; for example, Manelis and Tharp (1977) in a study of English suffixation could not find evidence for stripping. See also Laudanna and Burani (1985), Job and Sartori (1984), Lima (1987), and Beauvillain (1996) for comparisons of performance with prefixes and suffixes. Some maintain that only prefixes are relevant to the prelexical parse. That is, a stem can be identified once the prefixes if any are stripped, so that the suffixes if any may be stripped as a block. The logical necessity of this is illustrated with Turkish in Hankamer (1989). This ties in with the work of Hawkins and Cutler (1988), who connect the potentially quicker identification of a stem with suffixation (and absence of prefixation to a typological preference for suffixation). Beauvillain (1996) claims that the stripping of prefixes is, on the other hand, a late process; this could hold for the derivational material she uses, but is not likely for prefixational inflection. It is reasonable to assume that the higherlevel processing of both prefixes and suffixes — identification, checking of compatibility with stem, semantic processing — is the same. It is also not clear how the processing of non-concatenative or nonlinearly concatenative forms — e.g. ablaut forms, transfixation, infixation — might differ from this general scheme. As far as compounds are concerned, Taft and Forster (1976) claim to have produced evidence that the root components are not recognized simultaneously, but rather that the (serially or temporally) first element is searched for first; the following ones seem to be of secondary importance. Again, this makes sense if we interpret it as referring to a prelexical parse, after which of course higher-level analysis must take place.

Morphological processes

25

2.3.1.1. Recognition Recognition mechanisms are involved at several stages of the analysis process: before lexical access, as part of the lexical access complex, and in the final parse involving semantic processing. Further issues of concern include the following: 1) factors influencing speed of recognition 2) factors influencing order of search 3) manner of recognition Frequently-named factors affecting speed of recognition of lexical units negatively or positively include the following: 1) frequency: It has been convincingly and repeatedly demonstrated, in spite of the relatively crude measures of frequency available7, that frequency of lexeme has a definite effect on lexical access time (for both inflections and derivations). This may be interpreted as influencing the order in which entries are searched, supposing a sequential search (cf. e.g. Bradley 1980: 40-45; Laudanna and Burani 1985: 776-777). It also appears that frequency of individual inflected forms of a word can be significant. Experiments by e.g. Sereno and Jongman (1997) and Beauvillain (1996) make use of both frequency measures. 2) context: The role of context — semantic, pragmatic, syntactic, intonational, etc. — in access, recognition and segmentation is not quite clear. It would seem plausible that information gleaned from context would help guide the search and/or reject hypotheses as unlikely. The available evidence suggests however that as far as relative chronology is concerned, such information is not taken advantage of until fairly late. Initially, all avenues are activated, apparently, and those possibilities not supported by the context on various levels are very quickly shut down (cf. e.g. Tanenhaus and Leiman 1979). 3) ambiguity: A popular and perhaps intuitively attractive hypothesis is that ambiguity of various kinds, e.g. 1) stem homophony, 2) stem polysemy, 3) non-isomorphic form-meaning morphological mappings (i.e. when an affix corresponds to more than one morphological meaning or vice versa), is a hindrance to the access and recognition mechanisms, manifesting itself in longer processing times, etc. Virtually no experimental evidence has been found to support this hypothesis, however. Study after study has shown that ambiguous material is no more difficult or time-consuming

26 Psycholinguistic

research in morphology

than non-ambiguous material. The reason for this is related to the foregoing: all possible avenues are activated from the outset regardless of context, thus both entries in the case of a), all affix-meaning combinations in the case of c), and both subentries in the case of b). See 2.2.3.1. for discussion. 4) canonical expectations: It has been put forth by e.g. Smith and Sterling (1982) that recognition is facilitated by a high degree of correspondence to canonic expectations or templates of - what an affix looks like - what a root/stem looks like - how affixation or other processes combine with stems - the formal structures of a complex word-form - form-meaning relations. For a hybrid language like English, there may be several such templates or sets of canonical expectations, one each for "native" and "foreign" elements (cf. Smith and Sterling 1982: 704). 5) complexity of entry: It could be postulated that it takes longer to access the appropriate subentry in a more complex entry, meaning one that has more members than another. There is however no evidence to support this (cf. e.g. MacKay 1978: 69). I know of no study which compares items of varying morphological complexity, i.e. with a greater or smaller number of suffixes.

2.3.1.2. Manner of recognition There are several hypotheses that have been put forward in the kind of psycholinguistic literature presented here. In the earlier work, it was suggested for example that, for whatever morphological or lexical units, the search proceeds phoneme-by-phoneme or letter-by-letter. Others have suggested that the search proceeds by block, i.e. by morphological unit. Many researchers agree that recognition takes place in two steps, namely the first, initial search and "contact" with the appropriate lexical entry; as analysis at this stage is superficial, it is a question merely of identification; at a later stage, semantic analysis and precise identification of word-form and its properties take place (cf. e.g. Bradley 1980: 51; Bayer and de Bleser

Morphological processes

27

ms.; Caramazza, Laudanna, and Romani 1988; Jarvella and Meijers 1983: 89; Job and Sartori 1984: 453^54). Caramazza, Laudanna, and Romano (1988) and Laudanna and Burani (1985) present an "Augmented Access Model", in which both minimal morphological units and complete word-forms are accessed. If a given wordform has been stored, then the access procedures searching for both it and its component parts, again merely attempting formal identification, will find that word-form first. This initial contact will be followed in turn by the activation of the complete lexical entry, including related word-forms and lexemes. If the complex word-form has not been stored, then only the search for composite elements will be successful, the end-result being the same in both cases. Further, these researchers distinguish between such positive activation and inhibitory activation in which legal but unattested forms are excluded, e.g. when an irregular form exists in their place — in other words, inflectional blocking of the type discussed briefly above. This is an important point to which it will be necessary to return. Lastly, in connection with the foregoing, the authors propose that once contact has been made with an appropriate lexical unit, there is a partial inhibitory effect for any other units that might have been activated.

2.3.1.3. Stem recognition As has been made clear, stem (root) recognition is claimed to be the first object of the analysis procedure. The usual assumption is that the search proceeds "left to right" phone(me)-by-phone(me), graph(eme)-bygraph(eme), or whatever sequence the writing system requires, obviously. A matching process of signal to abstract (phonological, orthographic) representation ensues. Beauvillain (1996), however, suggests based on an eye-movement study that that stem/root recognition is the first object and first stage of analysis in reading only in suffixation of derived words; she makes the plausible assumption that recognition of both whole words and their parts take place at some point, and her results are consistent with an initial whole-word search for prefixation (with subsequent further analysis), and an intial root search for suffixation. Within a complex lexical entry, complex stems will presumably be located as necessary. If, as some authors suggest, paradigmatically related but non-identical roots are listed separately, then some sort of associative process between entries must take place, either a mere activation as proposed by

28 Psycholinguistic research in morphology

e.g. Stanners, Neiser, and Painton (1979), Laudanna and Burani (1985), or perhaps a cross-reference, such that some necessary processing information will be accessed in the "main" entry (cf. e.g. Jarvella and Meijers 1983). Further, certain authors (e.g. Laudanna and Burani 1985; Feldman and Fowler 1987; Caramazza, Laudanna, and Romani 1988) make explicit mention of the possibility that activation of one lemma and recognition of a complex word-form is followed by activation of all other paradigm members — inflectional and derivational forms.

2.3.1.4. Complex-word recognition We will have to distinguish here between inflection and derivation. In both cases, however, the recognition of a complex form involves the verification that stem/root and affix(es) or other modifications form a legitimate combination. It can be assumed that there is an added dimension to this: a hitherto unattested but legal combination must be recognizable and interpretable. Systematic knowledge of morphological principles will be called into play here. At the second level of recognition, semantic and other lexical information will be processed in order to identify the form completely. Rejection of the original analyses may occur even at this late stage, if semantic or pragmatic incongruity results.

2.3.1.5. Affix recognition and segmentation processes As should be clear from the preceding, this occurs in two stages. In the first stage, a unit is recognized as a potential affix; later, its combinatory properties and more precise identity will be specified. We will not be concerned with the actual segmentation processes for the time being. Note however that these will necessarily involve the "undoing" of morphophonological processes at morph boundaries etc.

Morphological processes

29

2.3.2. Synthesis

2.3.2.1. Role of the lexicon Reference has already been made to the suggestion that lemmas may not necessarily be identical in the case of synthesis and analysis, for example, that an "input lexicon" may need to have skeletal cross-referencing entries for "irregular" stems etc. These would presumably not be called into play in production, since access to the correct lexical entry would take place via a semantic route. The procedures for synthesis of complex items must be such that they allow for both formation "according to recipe" for previously attested forms that thus might be represented in some way in the lexicon, and for the creation of new forms that have no such representation. One must also ask then how the lexicon itself is affected when a new word — inflectional or derivational — is created. Will the "recipe" for its production immediately be encoded in the appropriate entry? If not, how many such creation events would be necessary? This leads us to the important question of whether there should be a theoretical or formal distinction between synthesis and new formation, beyond that categorically claimed by many theoretical accounts (cf. e.g. Aronoff 1976), whereby attested forms are not synthesized but "produced by rote", and only the occasional new creation makes use of available production mechanisms. Such a claim is of course parallel to that made for analysis, see above (2.2.1.). MacKay (1978: 62) insists on such a separation, the justification for this being that the sets of rules involved are not necessarily identical. For example, he finds evidence that derivates such as DECISION are formed by rule from their bases, here DECIDE, or irregular preterites such as DUG from DIG (MacKay 1976), whereas new creation does not call on the same rules. Note that MacKay does not exclude possible holistic storage of such items as well (MacKay 1978: 70; MacKay 1976: 179). To the extent that the new creation does not take place as an analogical formation, i.e. is not modelled on an existing formation, active, productive rules are almost always involved, whereas this is not a necessary condition on synthesis. There seems therefore to be a difference between productive and available rules, both of which are regularly put to use. This does not however answer the question of whether the actual mechanisms themselves are any different or whether it is merely a question of choice of rules, the mode of their application, or of productivity. Without

30 Psycholinguistic research in morphology further discussion, I will henceforward assume that the actual processes are equivalent.

2.3.2.2. Synthesis processes The model postulated by MacKay corresponds in its structure to the analysis mentioned above. There are three main steps involved: 1) "lexical retrieval" corresponding to search and recognition in analysis, followed by "lexical insertion" (MacKay 1979: 477); 2) rule application (rules referring here to morphophonological processes); 3) "serial output" — the actual physical production of the complex wordform. MacKay (1978) also discusses two other models, one, an "associative model" in which affixes are attached to stems through "unlabelled associative bonds" (p. 69). Here one is to imagine that there are a number of possible associative pathways for a given stem, one of which is to be chosen; if these are attempted in sequential order, then the time necessary to select the proper affix would be dependent on the total number of possible paths. Of course if the pathways are tested simultaneously, as was suggested above for analysis, then this would not necessarily be the case. The experimental results did not confirm the hypothesis. In the "affix-testing model" all possibilities are tested: all possible suffixes are tested until the right combination is found. Although MacKay's results did not support such a hypothesis, it is probable, judging from actual speaker behaviour, that such a model represents a possible strategy to be used in certain situations.

2.3.3. Semantic analysis and synthesis The semantic aspect of analysis and synthesis processes receives occasional attention in the context of psycholinguistic investigation. Significantly, it is assumed that there are separate formal and semantic rules (e.g. Freyd and Baron 1982; Stanners, Neiser, and Painton 1979; MacKay 1976, 1978, 1979).

Morphological processes

31

2.3.3.1. Semantic ambiguity Along the lines of the discussion of whether morphologically related words should share the same lexical entry or not, the question of separate versus integrated entries for homonyms has also been debated. Most researchers postulate separate entries for homonyms (e.g. MacKay 1976: 174; Perfetti and Lindsay 1974: 76), while however supposing that there are connections between the entries that can play a role in processing. In general, researchers investigating semantic ambiguity — polysemy and homophony — are led to conclude that it does not represent any processing difficulty on the lexical level (cf. e.g. Perfetti and Lindsay 1974: 88; Hogaboam and Perfetti 1975: 274; Cutler 1983; Mehler, Segui, and Carey 1978: 29; MacKay 1976: 68,70; Tanenhaus and Leiman 1979: 437). The experiments involve phoneme monitoring tasks, that is, timing the detection of a specified target phoneme in a word following the ambiguous item (the logic being that if processing difficulty is increased, detection should take longer than following a semantically unambigous item) (Mehler, Segui, and Carey 1978, experiments by Foss (1970) reported in Hogaboam and Perfetti 1975); recognition tasks testing how well monosemous and polysemous words were remembered when previously presented in isolation or in disambiguating sentence contexts (Perfetti and Lindsay 1974); naming latency tasks in which the subject heard a sentence in which the final word was ambiguous, although disambiguated by context, and was then required to pronounce a target word related to one of the meanings presented at a specified interval afterwards (it would be significant if it could be shown that naming the target was facilitated even if related to the contextually inappropriate meaning) (Tanenhaus and Leiman 1979). Finally, in another series of experiments (Hogaboam and Perfetti 1975), the subjects were asked if items were ambiguous when presented in a variety of sentence contexts (more frequent meaning, less frequent meaning of the ambiguous item). (See also Cutler 1983: 46^8.)

2.3.3.2. Semantics and analysis processes Central to the discussion of semantics and analysis processes is the problem complex of recognition. That is, not only is a word-form to be identified with an abstract formal representation, but the correct form-meaning correspondence must be identified. Here it is of concern what the role of context of various kinds is in this identification, and, related to this, whether all form-

32 Psycholinguistic

research in morphology

meaning correspondences are verified or accessed — and if not, where the search terminates. Various models have been proposed here. Hogaboam and Perfetti (1975) present the "Garden Path Hypothesis" for a sort of network strategy. Here one follows along possibly branching paths until compatibility of form and meaning is found; if an error is arrived at, one retreats to the last node. A meaning is accessed and verified; if it passes the test, no other meanings are accessed. They also present a "Prior Decision Model" (based on Foss and Jenkins 1973: 265) in which context plays a determining role, such that only the contextually appropriate meaning would be accessed. The initial intuitive appeal of such a model is noted, the consideration being that speakers/hearers do not usually seem to be aware of potential ambiguity. It would on the basis of experimental results appear rather to be the case that an "Exhaustive Computation Hypothesis" (Tanenhaus and Leiman 1979, Perfetti and Lindsay 1974) provides a closer approximation to actual processes. In the corresponding model, all meanings are searched for and accessed and at a later stage verified against the context. The inappropriate matchings are very quickly suppressed, so that the speaker is not normally aware of their activation. Tanenhaus and Leiman (1979) point out that even if all are accessed, some meanings may still be more "privileged" than others (e.g. on the basis of frequency). This would possibly determine the order of search supposing a sequential ordering; whereas it has often been assumed that this order is arbitrary, Hogaboam and Perfetti (1975: 266) suggest that context or general frequency may play a role. If one of the meanings is always checked first, independently of context, it may be that this order varies with different speakers. These researchers also discuss the possibility (p. 272) that different ordered and non-ordered processes are located on different levels of analysis, i.e. that the whole analysis system must be very complex, more so than any of the models mentioned thus far would suggest. Tanenhaus and Leiman (1979:427) suggest that there may be several search processes activated non-simultaneously, as their tests of speakers' reactions after different time intervals show. They distinguish "veiled control processes" as opposed to "conscious control processes", the former being opaque to conscious introspection, faster than the conscious control processes, and less demanding cognitively. The veiled control processes would serve to suppress inappropriate readings after all meanings had been initially and indiscriminately activated.

Conclusion

33

2.4. Conclusion The purpose of including a chapter on psycholinguistic research in morphology was to determine whether there are any principles that it would be desirable to incorporate into a formal model which is intended to handle the fine tuning of dynamic-historical phenomena. While there is no absolutely conclusive evidence for any one principle, certain ones do seem to be strongly supported, and, equally importantly, these form a fairly coherent picture. General characteristics of the lexicon that we will want to retain include its plasticity and flexibility, as well as the ensuing potential for reorganization throughout the life of the speaker. The basic organization of the lexicon is morphological. Entries are available for word-like units, but not for affixes. Affixes may be addressed, even independently of words in which they are found, but not in the same way. We can interpret this by having them belong to a component distinct from the lexicon. General characteristics of the lexical entry include potential complexity, as several stems can form nodes within it, and a hierarchical structure, as such nodes may have different statuses. The organization of the entry appears to be primarily based on form; it is fundamentally paradigmatic for both inflection and word-formation. Affixes do not reflect a direct association between form and meaning as the lexical units do; the kinds of meanings involved with morphological processes are accessed differently from lexical meanings. Analysis and synthesis processes take place as a rule, rather than as an exception; they may take place even in the case of formal or semantic deviation with respect to the root or in the case of low productivity of a given linguistic operation. In addition to isolating the stem and locating the appropriate entry/entries, these processes are responsible for testing and assembling/reassembling combinations of morphological material.

3. Formal concepts: model-building 3.1. Introduction The aim of the present chapter is to propose elements of the morphological component of the grammar (more particularly, the word-formational subcomponent) and the relevant parts of the lexicon. These elements will include those suggested in 2.4. where possible. We will begin with a general characterization of the component, then introduce the formal units of analysis in lexicon and morphology and discuss the dynamic notions of rule and process, and conclude with an exploration of paradigmatic organization. As the semantics of word-formation morphology is a relatively untouched topic, an entire chapter (Chapter 4) will be devoted to it.

3.2. Elements of a model of the morphological component

3.2.1.

Introduction

The present section endeavours to situate morphology within the grammar, delimiting it with respect to syntax, the lexicon, and phonology. It also discusses the problem of delimiting word-formation and inflection within morphology. Finally, general characteristics of word-formation morphology, such as its static and dynamic dimensions, are briefly discussed.

3.2.2. Morphology as a component of grammar

As indicated in Chapter 1, we will be considering morphology here as morphology, and not as phonology or syntax. To a certain extent, the existence of a morphological component is something that can only be stipulated; if we do not recognize one, after all, we can distribute what might have been its domain amongst syntax, phonology, and lexicon, as is indeed often done. There have been attempts to show that the formal aspects of morphology, principally due to the common concatenative structures, are similar to, if not identical with, those of syntax (cf. e.g. Jensen and Stong-Jensen 1984; Di Sciullo and Williams 1987; Baker 1988a,b; Lieber 1992; Miller 1993) and

36 Formal concepts:

model-building

on the other hand, claims that morphology is "more like" phonology than syntax (cf. e.g. Janda 1983). Many linguists, principally syntacticians, would separate inflection from word-formation, putting the former, or some of it, in the syntax and the latter, or most of it, in the lexicon. We will in the following consider aspects of morphology which set it apart from the rest of the grammar, concluding that inflectional and word-formational morphology together form an autonomous component, with, of course, important relations with the other components. The delimitation of morphology and phonology is relatively simple to deal with, at least on a superficial level: phonology makes reference to form and not meaning, whereas meaning is essential to morphology8. Let us further assume that one of the roles of morphology is to give commands to the phonology, e.g. "Carry out Reduplication Rule #2!", the morphology having given the phonology the base on which the rule is to operate, and specifying what is to happen; the phonology will carry out the mechanics of the operation, as it were. The morphology is the executive, phonology the executor. While the domains of morphology and phonology overlap, they function at different levels, and certainly cannot be equated (see discussion in Ford, Singh, and Martohardjono 1997: 20-29). To a certain extent, the same relation holds between syntax and morphology, or inflectional morphology at least; we can conceive of syntax as requiring the morphology to provide certain things, such as agreement devices, but it is indifferent as to how the morphology does it. The issue of the delimitation of the domains of morphology and syntax is complicated by the fact that there is an overlap in terms of semantics. The problem here is more one of how to deal with the fact that the formal expression of abstract categories and properties can, depending on the language and the language type, be found in the lexicon, the morphology, and/or the syntax. One could propose here that, for example, there exists a semantic component which each of these maps onto; the advantage of this conception is that the overlap just referred to follows naturally. Other possibilities include semantic representation at each level, which has the disadvantage of appearing uneconomical, because it entails repetition just where that overlap occurs. At the same time, there is no explanation why the overlap should exist, unless we suggest that underlying all is a prelinguistic conceptual level of meaning, such as that proposed in Jackendoff (1990). Certainly, we usually conceive of lexical semantics being represented in the lexicon, and most models allow for a place for representation of certain semantic elements in the syntax. In this kind of model, then, we could say that semantic representation of some kind is present in (or available to) each component, because the manner of repre-

Elements of a model of the morphological component 37

senting a mapping of form to content may differ, depending on the general type and relation found in each. Therefore in speaking of the delimitation between morphology and syntax, we shall say under this conception that some phenomena have both syntactic and morphological reality, which must be recognized due to the different type of form-content relations involved. As far as the formal side is concerned, we can simply say for the time being that syntax is concerned with the sentence and morphology with the word; the size of these domains varies, of course, depending on individual language and language type. For example, some phenomena will be morphological in a polysynthetic and/or agglutinative language which are syntactic in more isolating languages. The delimitation question has often taken the form of whether or not morphology can be indeed entirely or partially reduced to syntax, thereby achieving a certain economy. Such a reduction has been proposed in a number of frameworks, most prominently in those of a generativist type (see Schultink 1988 for earlier voices). There are quite a number of reasons why morphology as syntax is neither desirable nor justifiable, some related to the following: the nature of morphological objects, properties of morphology that have no counterpart in syntax, the nature of form-meaning relations in morphology, and the non-applicability of syntactic principles to the formal side of morphology. They do not include, as has often been proposed, differences in regularity, productivity, or idiomaticity. We shall consider these in turn, although briefly, as proper discussion would depend on notions to be developed later in this chapter. Morphological objects are words and subword units (morphs, morphemes); morphology is concerned with the structure of words inasfar as they consist of the subword units mentioned, but does not concern itself with the structure of those subword units, which is the domain of phonology. Syntax is concerned with the structure of sentences, and we might expect that it would not concern itself with the structure of its component atoms, i.e. words, as being outside of its domain. However, if it could be shown that the structure of words was subject to exactly the same principles as those underlying sentences and only those, then it would clearly not be necessary that two components or the corresponding subdisciplines be recognized (in spite of the claim by Di Sciullo and Williams 1987:46 that the mere distinction of target object should suffice here). If, on the other hand, word and sentence structures turn out to be different in some essential way or ways, then we must recognize their distinct domains. First of all, one must ask whether morphological complexes have any properties that sentences do not; this itself will decide the question of whether two separate components must be recognized. There is at least a

38 Formal concepts: model-building superficial formal similarity between syntax and morphology of a certain kind; compounding and most affixation involve a linear sequencing of objects, as does syntax at some level at any rate. Even if we suppose, however, that the linear sequencing can ultimately be described in the same manner, the fact that much of morphology is not concatenative and that the resulting structures have no counterpart in syntax is vitally significant. The existence of such formal processes as apophony (umlaut, for example), conversion, metathesis, and subtraction is clearly embarrassing to syntactic "imperialism", and attempts have been made to assimilate some of these to affixation (cf. e.g. Olsen 1990; Lieber 1992) or to deny their status (e.g. Lieber 1981 for conversion). The point is, clearly, that the content associated with these processes is no different from that associated with affixation, so that they all constitute a unified system and thus must be treated in a uniform manner; there is no syntactic mechanism available to effect non-concatenative processes (see here also Janda 1983; Matthews 1974: 116-122; Anderson 1992a: 60-63; Beard 1995: Chapter 2). Both syntax and morphology deal with form-meaning relations; some of the typical form-meaning relations found in morphology seem to lack good parallels in syntax. Isomorphic relations — one form, one meaning — appear easy enough. However, identity relations, in which there is form but no meaning, have no official place in familiar syntactic structures (sentences may well contain "dummy" elements with no referential, discourse, or other semantic value, but then they are considered to be filling a structural position). They are, however, a fairly commonplace feature of morphology, e.g. English «/-suffixation in ANALYTICAL, where the ic-suffixation has already done the job, so to speak (see also Chapter 2), or in inflection (Eastern Arctic) Inuktitut -ti (here optional) in inuttut, inuttitut, both simulative case forms 'like an Inuk'. Similarly, a common morphological relation holds between meaning and identity of form in morphology, whereas this is not characteristic of syntax; in generative theory, at any rate, any "syntactic" meaning is accorded a position or projection in sentence structure; if it is not filled or projected, then the meaning is not present in the sentence, barring cases of ellipsis, etc. Examples of systematic meaning without form in morphology are: conversion (his body knifed through the waves, comparison relation), compounding (EGGHEAD, comparison relation), and in inflection, e.g. Russian ruk (gen.pl., homophonous with stem ruk- 'hand'; cf. e.g. nom.pl. ruki). Attempts have been made, as mentioned, to deal with such phenomena by postulating "zero-affixes" (see below); however, to my knowledge no-one

Elements of a model of the morphological component 39 has proposed a "zero-affix" for a common word-formation meaning between members of a compound. Objections to zero morphemes are familiar, and include the potential of unconstrained proliferation, and the impossibility of determining whether the "zero" item is a prefix or a suffix in some cases. For example, in German, derivation may be effected by prefixation or suffixation, so that on the basis of prefixed analoga such as BEDACHEN 'roof v ' from DACH ' r o o f , BESCHATTEN 'shade v ' from SCHATTEN 'shadow', VERKORKEN 'cork v ' from KORKEN 'cork', and suffixed analoga such as STEINIGEN 'stone v ' from STEIN 'stone', PEINIGEN 'torture v , torment v ' from PEIN 'pain, torment', as well as formations with both prefix and suffix, like VERKÖSTIGEN 'feed (s.o.), give board' from KOST 'food, board', BEGNADIGEN 'pardon v ' from GNADE 'grace, pardon', it is not clear whether to postulate a zero prefix or suffix in the case of e.g. PEITSCHEN 'whip v ' from PEITSCHE 'whip', FOLTERN 'torture v ' from FOLTER 'rack', SALBEN 'apply ointment' from SALBE 'ointment', etc.). A further objection is based on the lack of an analogon in some cases, e.g. the creation of verbs from proper names in English (cf. Sanders 1988). We can add to these objections the fact that whereas the traditional zero-affix analysis depends on an assumption that zeroes exist where an affix would be expected, conversion exists where no affixation occurs, i.e. in early stages of a pidgin (Mühlhäusler 1979,1983) and in early stages of child language (Clark 1978, 1982), and in languages without other derivational morphology; in other words, logical precedence is assumed for affixation, but that turns out not to be correct. Another common morphological phenomenon not well accommodated in syntax is "multiple expression" of meaning, i.e. a situation where more than one affix or process is involved in forming a word such that each expresses a common semantic value, e.g. German participle formation, with prefix and suffix: ge-lach-t 'laughed', ge-blieb-en 'stayed' or some (Eastern) Inuktitut nominal forms, such as ulu-vu-t 'our knife/knives', in which the first suffix corresponds to possessor agreement values for Number and Person, the second to a possessor agreement value of Number. If multiple expressions of functional meaning exist at the sentence level independently of morphology, then they are at least not typical syntactic phenomena.9 Clearly, then, many typical structures in morphology are not typical of syntax, or expressible within current syntactic conventions. Beyond this, we have not yet explored the premise that concatenation itself can well be accounted for as linear sequencing in syntax. In other words, we must ask whether formal sequencing mechanisms themselves can be considered

40 Formal concepts: model-building

identical. Achieving a correct surface sequence in syntax depends, in generative grammar, on insertion or projection in a tree and possibly movement; it is claimed for example that sequences of affixes in inflectional morphology are the result of "head-to-head-movement" by which an affixal "head" moves into a empty head position in a higher-level functional phrase. This is a rather curious procedure as currently practised, at any rate, as it is circular: the analyst generally orders the functional nodes according to the order of grammatical categories in the inflected word-forms of the language, thus actually letting the morphology determine syntactic structure. It would, then, be difficult to show that morphological sequencing obeys different principles in cases in which inflectional grammatical categories are represented in the same position with respect to the stem in all forms; where they are not, however, a syntactic account has some scrambling to do, as in the Georgian forms presented by Anderson (1986: 6-14): (3)

a.

v-lilav

Ί kill' b.

g-lclav

Ί kill you (sg.)' Here, the contents of the first prefix slot result in the expression of subject agreement values in (3a), object agreement values in (3b). (4)

a.

v-Jclav-t

'we kill' b.

g-Ulav-t

Ί kill you (pi.)' Similarly in this case, the contents of the suffix slot express subject agreement for Number in (4a), but object agreement for Number in (4b). Further examples of this phenomenon may be found in Noyer (1992: Chapter 1) in a discussion of Arabic verb morphology, where the suffix position may have affixes expressing tense/mood or agreement values, depending on the form, with agreement values also appearing in the prefix slot. In conclusion, then, many typical morphological structures and formmeaning relations cannot be handled with the mechanisms available for sentence representation. Therefore, at most we can hope that morphological representation will be compatible with syntax. We can envisage, for exam-

Elements of a model of the morphological component 41

pie, that if it is desirable to include "functional categories" — or semantic representations — in syntactic structure, then these and their terminals should remain abstract throughout a syntactic derivation; the relevant information may be passed on to the inflectional morphology, which will postsyntactically produce the correct forms (for a similar, and more detailed, proposal see Beard 1995). The framework itself, then, does not actually require morphology to be created in the syntax. See also Di Sciullo and Williams (1987: Chapter 3) and Anderson (1992a: Chapter 2) for nonsyntactic accounts of causativization, reflexivization, incorporation and other phenomena, often suggested as candidates for syntactic analysis (e.g. Baker 1988a; Lieber 1992). It should be remarked that even those accounts that appear quite straightforward are problematic, e.g. the equation of verbal inflectional suffixes with pronouns ("bound pronouns"), familiar from treatments of "pro-drop" languages10. The equation simply does not work: if these affixes were pronouns, then we would expect them to be constant for all tenses, moods, morphological classes, etc. as pronouns are, which is of course not the case, cf. e.g. Germ, er geht 'he goes'(compare wir gehen 'we go') vs. er ging 'he went' (compare wir gingen) or Lat. portös 'you (sg.) carry' vs. portävisti 'you (sg.) have carried'. Furthermore, these bound pronouns suddenly become resumptive pronouns when an NP subject or object is also present. It is often the case that not even the same categories are available, e.g. Gender is an agreement category for pronouns but not for verbs in an IndoEuropean language11, so the supposed equivalence is already suspect from this point of view. We would also then have to consider adjective agreement pronominal, which to my knowledge no-one has proposed, e.g. Germ, gut-er 'good' (nom.sg.masc. / gen.pl. / gen.sg.fem. / dat.sg.fem.). One of the reasons why the amalgamation of morphological and syntactic phenomena is a popular goal is semantic overlap, as indicated above. Tense and Case values, for example, expressed morphologically, are passed through syntactic mechanisms to phrases or even the clause as a whole, and further, many grammatical categories are given syntactic or lexical expression in one language and morphological expression in another, compare e.g. (5)

Yapese (from Mithun 1984: 850) Gu bea chuwqiy ea mareaw I PRES-buy CONN copra

42 Formal concepts:

(6)

model-building

German Ich kaufte Brot I bought bread

where -t in the German example indicates preterite Tense. It is especially tempting to consider syntax and morphology identical when confronted by polysynthetic languages, in which complex words do much of the work we are used to associating with syntactic or lexical means, e.g. causatives, reflexives, adverbial modification, etc. However, it is crucial to remember that the polysynthetic sentence is, ignoring the internal structure of component words, no different in essential ways from a sentence in a more isolating language, as is clear from (7): (7)

Blackfoot (from Mithun 1984: 858) Iihpok0n.sskaawa noko'sa ball-acquire-3.SG l.SGpoSS-child 'My child got a ball'

Here, the sentence has the simple structure V NP, just like a sentence / babysat. It is not the case either that the components of complex words in polysynthetic languages are "words" merely having the interesting property that they are obligatorily bound, such that a complex word would be a trivial equivalent of a sentence in a more isolating language. Anderson (1992a: 2737) shows that the order of elements within the word and within the sentence in Kwakw'ala obey quite different principles in each case. A movement analysis would then be necessary to produce the correct order of elements within the word; it has been clearly shown that for incorporation, at least, this is not always possible to manipulate (Mithun 1984, Di Sciullo and Williams 1987, Anderson 1992a), and alternative analyses are always possible for the constructions for which syntactic analyses are claimed (Di Sciullo and Williams 1987). It is preferable, then, to view polysynthetic words as morphological constructions and accept that morphology may bear a greater burden in some languages than in others. See also Ford, Singh, and Martohardjono (1997: 62-70) and Mithun and Corbett (1999) for detailed arguments against a syntactic analysis of incorporation along these lines. What we must assume in all these cases is that there is a common semantic stock at a pre-syntactic level, call it cognitive or conceptual structure. Each language will "choose" which elements it will express syntactically,

Elements of a model of the morphological component

43

which morphologically, and which lexically, overlap being possible; the manner in which these semantic or grammatical elements will be computed or interpreted will vary according to the level(s) at which they are expressed. Finally, there is another important aspect of morphology which has no syntactic counterpart, namely, its paradigmaticity (see also Chapter 2 for experimental support of this idea). One of the essential tasks of morphology is to create formal and semantic relationships between words or other morphological elements, e.g. between stem and derived or inflected forms, between various inflected forms from the same stem, between derived words from the same base, etc. There is no real counterpart to this in syntax, nor can morphological paradigms be dealt with syntactically. The more properties of paradigms we can isolate, the clearer it becomes that morphology is distinct from syntax in essential ways. To be included here are morphological realities such as the existence of inflectional classes (and the fact that these sometimes receive morphological expression, such as in Lat. am-a-t 'love', 3.sg.pres.indic. vs. aud-i-t 'hear', 3.sg.pres.indic.), leading to the question of how to affix something which has no possible grammatical or sentence-syntactic source (cf. Aronoff 1994). For discussion of the (in)applicability of a number of crucial syntactic notions to morphology, see e.g. Janda (1983), Zwicky (1985), Di Sciullo and Williams (1987: 23-25), Bauer (1990). In principle, the fact that syntax contains mechanisms that are not applicable to morphology does not constitute a direct proof that the domain of syntax does not include morphology. Given the above arguments, we will conclude that syntax and morphology, while they have much in common in the expression plane, and interact with each other in important ways, constitute distinct domains, such that their representation and description will necessarily also be distinct. We will assume with others that no syntactic mechanism is responsible for the formation of an inflected, derived, or compounded word, or has access to any piece of internal formal structure of such words. Semantic and categorial information provided by inflected or derived words is available to syntax and most importantly to logical interpretation or computation of a sentence. We thus agree with the position Di Sciullo and Williams (1987) take, as illustrated in the following quote (p.48): ...although syntactic rules can access the categorial status and argument structure of a lexical item, they will never depend on how that categorial status or argument structure was arrived at through morphological derivation or on the internal constituency or words. The rules of syntax can see that a word has such and such properties, but they cannot see how it came to have those properties.

44 Formal concepts: model-building It is also important to remember that the semantic value of a given function or concept may be different on the separate levels of word and sentence; in other words, the morphological and syntactic components may interpret values differently as a function of their domains. For example, 'Causative' may be expressed lexically, morphologically, and/or syntactically. At the lexical and morphological levels, the semantic concept of causation is relevant, whereas syntax is interested in the added argument. In addition, the content of syntactic and morphological structures is occasionally incongruent, such as in the case of Latin deponent verbs, or of some ergative structures (for discussion see e.g. Anderson 1992b). Finally, we come to another important point to be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5, namely productivity. It has been the practice of some linguists to treat "productive" morphological processes as syntactic, which means, generally, inflection and perhaps compounding, while "non-productive" morphology, by which is meant derivation, is consigned to the lexicon as the repository of the idiosyncratic. However, inflectional systems may contain much that is non-productive, while word-formation patterns are often highly productive. Low productivity of a particular process or rule may be due to a number of factors, but may not be associated with the inherent nature of either word-formation or inflection. If we suppose that productive processes are to be effected by the syntax, whereas the lexicon provides analysis at least of less productive ones, then we need two sets of mechanisms to describe constructions of identical formal and semantic type, which is surely not desirable. Productivity, then, should not be considered a diagnostic of the "location" of a morphological device.

3.2.3. Word-formation and the lexicon While many researchers have accepted the "atomicity of syntax" with respect to morphology, in other words that at least some morphology does not belong within the domain of syntax, most have assumed that the only alternative is the lexicon. Even they, that is, have not granted morphology its own component. Interestingly, this applies to some researchers adopting a process approach to morphology as well (e.g. Anderson 1982, 1992a; Beard 1987, 1995). Anderson (1982), for example, makes a clear and convincing case for the legitimacy of morphology as an object of study, effectively showing that it is not merely to be absorbed into either syntax or phonology. However, his study of inflectional and word-formation phenomena concludes with the statement (p. 610-611) that there is no necessity for a morphological compo-

Elements of a model of the morphological component

45

nent — that all relevant phenomena are to be treated in the syntax ("construction of morphosyntactic representations"), phonology (inflection), and lexicon (word-formation); this distribution leaves us pretty much where we were to begin with; the morphologist can continue on the beach for a few more years, apparently, awaiting a new era of recognition. A case must therefore be made for the delimitation of morphology and the lexicon and the autonomy of morphology. The lexicon is considered to be the repository of the non-predictable generally; words as symbolic signs, in which form is arbitrarily associated with meaning, have their natural home there. Now, much of morphology is in fact predictable; it also is active or dynamic, in the sense that in the normal case, every time a complex word is used, it is synthesized or analyzed from its base, at least according to the results produced by psycholinguistic research described in Chapter 2. Therefore it makes sense to designate the lexicon as the home of the base, together with any non-predictable information necessary to create words from that base; the dynamic synthesis and analysis mechanisms, however, belong to the morphology. In other words, the static lexicon provides the base on which the dynamic morphology operates. Non-predictable information relevant to morphology, such as inflectional class assignment, specification of rules to apply, suppletive stems in inflection, and idiosyncratic elements of meaning or restrictions of reference in word-formation, will be included in the lexicon. It must not be forgotten that, as Aronoff (1976: 18) says, these nonpredictable properties follow from the word-formations being words, and as lexical items they will have all the normal properties of a word: autonomy, ability to participate in further development (i.e. the lexical processes of semantic change are in principle the same as with simplex items), ability to participate in further word-formation (a formed word can, depending on global restrictions, serve as the base for further word-formation operations) and finally, the ability to inflect. However, the domain of morphology is that of rules of all kinds (see below), including semantic rules, which are not identical to lexical semantics (see 4.1.); these rules are perfectly systematic. Thus, for example, the German compound KATZENWURST has the potential meanings 'sausage from cats' (i.e. 'made out o f ) and 'sausage for cats', among others; the limitation to the second of these does not depend on the morphological component but rather on the lexical one, as well as on pragmatics and cultural facts. The "idiosyncratic" information associated with an item should not lead to neglect of its systematic features; a partial or even complete morphological description — i.e. rule specifications — will almost always be possible.

46 Formal concepts: model-building One may wish to distinguish between an abstract, "minimal" or basically non-redundant lexicon that is adequate for predicting all morphology, and a "full" lexicon with possibly redundantly recorded information, and, for some, even potential as opposed to established lexemes. Zwicky (1990a,b) claims that it is the "full" lexicon, or that which contains all information about all words, that should be our focus, while admitting that a "kernel" of non-predictable information from which the rest can be derived is also of theoretical interest. Morphology, under this view, is the set of generalizations of a certain type that can be made on the basis of the "full" lexicon. It is true that the lexicon of an individual speaker is highly redundant, with the redundancies varying from speaker to speaker; it is conceivable that we might want to refer to such a lexicon and some of these redundancies. However, we would then want to contrast it with the "abstract", minimal lexicon. If we are dealing with a historical problem, as we will be doing here, then questions of just what is stored for at least some speakers may indeed be relevant, leading to questions of how that information undergoes change.

3.2.4. The morphological component

3.2.4.1. Word-formation vs. inflection In the present framework, word-formational and inflectional morphology constitute together the level of linguistic investigation whose object is the complex word. Actually, both inflection and word-formation have to do with the formation of words, in the sense that in inflection words of certain classes must appear in a complex, i.e. "constructed" form in order to appear legitimately in a sentence. Such a word must be brought from its abstract form to a concrete form usable in a sentence. Word-formation, makes an abstract unit not sentence-worthy but word-worthy, and thus logically precedes inflection. It is not excluded that an inflectional form may serve as the base for a word-formation; it does not, of course, count as an inflection in the resulting word, which must be subsequently inflected like any other. There is a transitional area between both sub-components, a region in which it is difficult to delimit them, e.g. participle formation in Indo-European languages, which can be claimed to be category-changing, but also has a certain place in the inflectional paradigm. In this particular case, one alternative would be to say that the participle is an inflected form (a verb), but may be converted to an adjective (word-formation). Given the fact that participles

Elements of a model of the morphological component 47 often agree with the subject in Gender like an adjective (and not like a verb), we might want to declare them word-formational outright. Or, as Aronoff (1994: 127) does for Hebrew binyanim, we could say that they have aspects of both. Many lists of differentiating criteria have been drawn up with the goal of delimiting the domains of word-formation and inflection (cf. e.g. Anderson 1992a: Chapter 4; Scalise 1988: 562-563; Matthews 1974: Chapter3). There are probably no absolute criteria, so that many morphologists do not feel that the two traditional divisions should be maintained (cf. e.g. di Sciullo and Williams 1987; Ford, Singh, and Martohardjono 1997). Formally, there appear to be few differences, with one and the same process having both functions in a given language, e.g. in German suffixation, "umlaut", "ablaut" (but with prefixation and compounding available only to word-formation), and often the same affixes being available to both in a given language. At most we can say that compounding belongs to word-formation alone. Semantically, the difference appears to be more clearcut, but again, is not absolute. The general tendency is for categories of greater abstractness and breadth of scope — meaning applicability to a maximum number of members of a lexico-syntactic category (Noun, Verb, etc.) — to be inflectional. Thus, Tense, Case, and Number are likely candidates for inflection, although they may not be inflectional in a particular language; Tense, for example, is derivational in Inuktitut. At the other end of the scale, it is not excluded that a quite concrete meaning might be inflectional; Anderson (1992a: 80-82) gives the example of Size or Evaluation as an agreement category in Fula, where 'augmentative' and 'diminutive' appear to be inflectional values. Here, there are about 25 "inflectional classes", marked by a suffix, with some apparently reserved for augmentative and diminutive (one singular and one plural class for the former, three singulars and a plural class for the latter). There is apparently no distinction between Gender and Inflectional Class, that is, the Gender defines the Inflectional Class uniquely. In this particular case, it may be that the interpretation of the noun system was not sufficiently subtle, and that the creation of a lexeme with a meaning 'diminutive' or 'augmentative' (word-formation) is accompanied by an assignment to an inflectional class or a gender assignment; it would then be the inflectional class that is agreed with. In other words, agreement with Evaluation values is only apparent, and 'diminutive', 'augmentative' etc. are in fact derivational. See here Aronoff (1994: Chapter 5) for discussion of comparable problems in Hebrew. Note that wherever agreement is present (by definition the morphological reflection of a syntactic process or relation), the morphology is classified as inflectional; however, the category or meaning

48 Formal concepts:

model-building

involved is not necessarily itself "morphological" or "inflectional". That is, the gender or inflectional class of a lexeme is a lexical property, not a morphological meaning. As Aronoff (1994: 127) makes clear, the class or Gender value has morphological consequences; it defines the inflectional behaviour of the lexeme. Thus Gender is relevant for morphology, but is not itself morphological; this may be opposed to Number of the noun which is morphological in the sense that it (usually) involves "inherent" semantics. At any rate, even if 'diminutive' should not be interpreted as inflectional in Fula, the fact remains that semantics cannot provide an absolute guide to the status of morphological processes. We are left with the property of obligatoriness. Tense is inflectionally marked in e.g. German, as all inflected verbs must show Tense, but not in Inuktitut, because morphological expression of a Tense value is optional there. Any category which is obligatorily marked on an item in order for it to be correctly inserted in a sentence is inflectional, and any morphology involved in agreement is inflectional.12 The obligatoriness criterion may be difficult to uphold even beyond the domain of agreement phenomena: in diachrony, we may observe a process becoming obligatory, or losing obligatoriness, (and ultimately, then, no longer being a productive inflectional process). Chelliah (1992) describes a set of processes in Manipuri which appear to be inflectional according to some criteria, and are distinct from clearly derivational processes, but are apparently not obligatory. The categories involved are Mood and Aspect, likely enough to be inflectional. One might solve the problem by proposing that for each, there is a zeromarked neutral value for the category; this is certainly common enough in highly-inflected languages with these categories. Still, it looks as if even obligatoriness is not a completely robust criterion. The last criterion is the well-known dictum that if a change of lexicosyntactic category is involved, then only a word-formation process is possible. Mel'cuk (1976) shows that other systematic changes of lexical properties also qualify, such as change of inflectional class or Gender (see above). Scalise (1988: 564-565) has mere change of syntactic combinability or distribution in mind and maintains that any word-formation operation is bound to alter combinatorics, giving examples such as English MAN, MANHOOD (where, for example, the first is "countable" and the second is not, with resulting restrictions in syntactic combinability). Here, however, this seems to be due to semantics, and generally, we should not be concerned with modifications of individual lexeme combinatorics not generalizable to a well-defined class.

Elements of a model of the morphological component

49

A clear demarcation in terms of the devices and content involved being impossible, and the similarities so great, we must conclude that wordformation and inflection belong in the same component, and must be described semantically and formally in basically the same manner. The focus in the following discussion will be on word-formation; much that is said will therefore apply to inflection if no specific reference is made.

3.2.4.2. Dimensionality of word-formation Word-formation is both dynamic and static in nature; for a number of reasons, for example the choice of language on which to base a theory, the dynamic aspect has often been underrated. Once one considers languages such as Turkish, Inuktitut, or Russian, the importance of the dynamic becomes very clear. The dynamic aspect corresponds to word-formation as process, i.e. the actual formation of lexical items in the language by means of existing rules, an act that is identifiable in place and time. As we have seen in Chapter 2, it is very likely that active analysis and synthesis accompany the use of even "listed" or established word-formations, so long as they have some identifiable word-formational characteristics, so that the processual, dynamic character goes beyond the creation and interpretation of new words. The static side is both morphological and lexical. On the one hand, it may be thought of as comprising the set of rules and conditions on rules holding in a given language at any one time, which is entirely within the domain of morphology. On the other hand, various aspects of existing word-formations in the lexicon, including the relations between such words, might also be thought of as static. To a certain extent, these correspond to the dynamic rules, as above, but, as we shall see later on, complex words often have extra elements of meaning beyond those provided by the semantic dimension of the morphological component, and have restrictions of semantic and syntactic context associated with them that are not systematically provided for by the morphology. Language could also be said to have dimensionality in the opposition between diachrony and synchrony; these are both relevant to the dynamic and static nature of morphology. Taking the dynamic first, every "wordformation act" affects the whole system, including the lexicon, in a minute but historically relevant way, for example by adding to frequencies. In addition to such general effects, new applications of rules to existing words in synthesis and analysis may differ from the original form-meaning relations, i.e. reanalysis, effecting change on the lexicon in a different way. On the

50 Formal concepts: model-building static side, changes may occur to the rules themselves, particularly regarding productivity and conditions on application; as a result of the reanalysis, static relations between word formations will change. Examples of all of these will be amply illustrated in the empirical study. For further discussion of dimensionality in word-formation see Dokulil (1968: 206).

3.3. Form and meaning relations in word-formation

3.3.1. The separation of form and meaning A generally widespread view holds that the relationship between form and meaning in morphology, and especially in word-formation morphology, is (ideally) isomorphic (Beard, who consistently pleads for a separation, is an exception (1987, 1995 and elsewhere; likewise Stump 1991, 1992). A serious claim can, however, be made for considering the relations between form and meaning as less fixed or direct where morphology is concerned. Indications that form and meaning should be considered separately in morphology are provided by the following facts, some of which were already mentioned for a different purpose in 3.2.2.: 1) the prevalence of many-to-one and many-to-many form-meaning relations: Morphological systems typically contain — often many — affixes which correspond to more than one — often many — meanings. An example here is German -en, which is heavily used in inflection (default dative plural for nouns, most "weak" forms of agreeing adjectives, most forms of "weak" nouns, plural in verbs, default plural for feminine nouns, etc.) and is used in derivation as well (e.g. GOLDEN from GOLD), and as a juncture morph in compounding (e.g. KAMILLENTEE, 'chamomile tea'). They also typically contain a multiplicity of formal means for expressing some morphological meaning, as in e.g. German 'plural', which may be realized by suffixation of -er, -e, -en, -s, and/or "umlaut", as well as by a "zero" process, or in word-formation the ornative meaning of a verb, done by prefixing ver- or be- (e.g. VERSCHLEIERN 'veil v ', BEDACHEN 'roof v ', SALZEN 'salt v '), etc. Frequently, these overlap, so that a given affix both corresponds to a number of meanings and shares functions with other processes. As Beard (1985) shows, these relations often obtain in "agglutinative" languages as well, contrary to what one might expect. Polysemy and synonymy exist in the absence of morphol-

Form and meaning relations in word-formation

51

ogy as well, of course, so this fact does not constitute absolute proof. However, the prevalence of such relations is sufficient to furnish suspicion that what in fact results is an economy of form at the price of systemic ambiguity (cf. Chapter 2 for an evaluation of such ambiguity in processing). In other words, it appears that we have mappings between a set of forms and a set of meanings, rather than a series of form-meaning objects. 2) the existence of zero morphology: This fact provides some of the strongest evidence for the separation of form and meaning in description and representation. As mentioned in section 3.2.2., there are various types of zero-morphology that can be distinguished. In the case of zero form corresponding to meaning, as in English conversion, (e.g. CLEAN^j CLEANV) perceptible form is not necessary to indicate a morphological meaning. It is not sufficient to say that meanings are supplied pragmatically, as Aronoff (1980) proposes, for these are regular meanings, found elsewhere in the German word-formation system and in that of other languages. We also have the reverse case, in which form corresponds to no meaning, e.g. -al in ELECTRICAL vs. ELECTRIC and many other such pairs, as well as in compounding, as referred to in sections 2.2.1.2., 3.2.2. We will modify our interpretation of zero processes in 3.5., but the facts remain. There is no counterpart to zero morphology amongst lexical items, that is, it does not occur that a lexeme has no meaning or at least function, or that lexical meaning is present in the absence of form.13 These examples serve to show that form and meaning are not necessarily bound to each other — they can exist without each other, and are in that sense separable. 3) the existence of non-affixal morphology: Again, these processes were mentioned in the description of the delimitation between syntax and morphology. The existence of formal modificatory processes, such as apophony (umlaut and ablaut, for example), matching with the same sorts of meanings as affixal morphology, provides some of the best support for the claim that affixes have no direct content. There is no segment in modificatory processes that can be said to "have" the morphological meaning in question, yet it is there. If affixes have meaning and processes are associated with the same meaning (types) but cannot be said to "have" it in the same way, then we would need two different types of semantic representation for the same meanings. If there is a way to represent both affixes and processes uniformly, then that would be preferable. We cannot represent processes as affixes, but it is easy to represent affixes as

52 Formal concepts: model-building

processes, namely by associating a process of affixation with meaning, just we associate a process of vocalic alternation with meaning. The process interpretation of affixation is an obvious and simple solution to the problem; it requires that meaning not be bound to form in affixes as with lexemes. (See also Zwanenburg 1995; Ford, Singh, and Martohardjono 1997). 4) the nature of word-formation systems cross-linguistically: Crosslinguistically, it is clear that there is a huge number of formal "-fixes", if we consider them all together; however, there is, comparatively speaking, a far smaller number of morphological meanings (cf. Chapter 4). We can even presume this set to be so small as to be relatively easily listable. The claim can even be made (cf. also Beard 1988, 1990) that there is one universal set of such meanings, from which each language selects. There is thus no symmetry between the sets of morphological forms and morphological meanings, cross-linguistically speaking. 5) diachrony: As is well-known, and will be illustrated in the latter part of the present work, form-meaning relations can and do change over time; form changes while meaning is constant, or meaning changes while form is constant. That this is possible, and in morphology happens in a systematic manner, we consider to be further evidence for the separation of form and meaning. 6) asymmetric opacity: It was shown in Chapter 2 that words are formally analyzable, and are analyzed, even when they are semantically relatively untransparent. This is clearly seen in such things as pronunciation of German prefix formations, where the rules respect formal morphological boundaries long after lexicalization has obscured morphological semantics (cf. e.g. Pounder and Kommenda 1986). For example, the German derived words BEREIT 'ready', BESCHEIDEN 'modest', BEFEHLEN 'command' are not obviously connected semantically to the meaning of the lexemic base if this is identifiable (REITEN 'ride', SCHEIDEN 'divide, separate' respectively for the first two), but are recognized as prefixed constructions with the appropriate pronunciation (stress assignment and concomitants). On the basis of these arguments, then, we affirm that morphological meaning and morphological form must be mapped on to each other in systematic ways, but considered as two sets. The relations between them are thus mediated, not direct. The obvious consequence of this is that affixes do not "have" meaning. For similar discussion see e.g. Beard (1987 and elsewhere), Anderson (1992a: Chapter 3), Aronoff (1976, 1994: Chapter 1).

Form and meaning relations in word-formation 53 3.3.2. Semiotics and word-formation A number of linguists (e.g. Dressier 1987; Andersen 1980; Shapiro 1969) have explicitly called for the integration of linguistics generally and morphology specifically into a broader semiotic framework. Others do not explicitly discuss properties of linguistic signs as such, but do indeed rely on a fabric of assumptions about the relations between the form of morphological and lexical objects and their function or content. First of all, whether or not there is a need to treat linguistics as part of a larger communicative whole, an elaborated linguistic theory of semiotics is as yet outstanding. Even when one seeks to depend on an established theory, as for example Dressier looks to Peirce, the enterprise cannot be overly successful, since even after many exegetical volumes, numerous elements of that philosopher's work remain obscure. However, in discussing on a fairly primitive level a number of relationships between form and meaning in semiotic terms, we will at least be able to point out the aforementioned commonly held underlying assumptions and to isolate certain problems related to these. We will also be able to illustrate just what it is that morphological objects do.

3.3.2.1. The (linguistic) sign If "sign" means some sort of communicative form-to-meaning mapping, how does the form in a linguistic sign identify the content? How direct, or how fixed, is the relation between form and meaning? The answer to this depends partly on the sort of meaning involved, and we will be anticipating Chapter 4 somewhat here. Peircean semiotics and Natural Morphology stress three basic sign types, namely symbol, index, and icon. All linguistic signs are symbols; this is the basic sign type. Whatever else is present, there is an arbitrary relation between form and content. The closest we come to a pure symbol is what one might call the content word, or a lexeme, e.g. Engl. SHOE, ΗΓΓ, GREEN. This sort of sign is the prototypical sign concept, usually associated with de Saussure, with an indissoluble association between form and meaning ("two sides of a sheet of paper"). The index is a sign of strongly symbolic character whose function it is to signal the presence of something (a category, for example, or an association to another sign) indirectly, analogous to pointing a finger. Some examples would be the personal pronoun, e.g. you, she, or markers of subordination, e.g. Engl. that. With the icon, although an element of arbitrariness is present, the form also resembles the content in some way, e.g. Engl, bang, in which the form imi-

54 Formal concepts: model-building tates the sound figuring in the content of the word. This sign type is often singled out as being of especial relevance to morphology in particular, in connection with the concept of diagrammaticity. Diagrammaticity refers to a mapping of form and meaning in which the elements of form in a morphological complex mirror in some obvious way the supposed relations of meaning, e.g. stem + affix (as in English shoe + s) vs. a stem with zero (as in shoe) as a reflection of the "more" of plural vs. the "less" of singular. Such an analysis involves certain not uncontroversial interpretations of the nature of morphological meaning, however (cf. Chapter 4). For the moment, let us simply point out that the icon is not really in the same class as the other sign types; it has to do with a possible motivation of the form-meaning relation, but does not actually characterize the nature — direct or indirect — of that relationship more closely. In other words, the icon does not represent a function, as such, but rather, is a name for a form-meaning relation that has no systemic value. It may have some other value; for example, it may serve as a mnemonic aid relevant to the organization and accessing of morphological paradigms. For this reason, it is of an auxiliary nature, and its value is tied to the individual speaker/hearer. If a structure is potentially "diagrammatically iconic", the speaker need not be aware of the fact in order for the element or subsystem to function perfectly14. Symbols of all kinds (e.g. lexemes as referential symbols) and indexes as symbols with a special function seem to be inherent, obligatory elements of natural languages and their respective properties should have a formal representation in the model. The icon, however, seems to belong to another level of linguistic description, and will not play any role in the present study. The concept of diagrammatic iconicity has been invoked in connection with the morphological process. Natural Morphology maintains for example that affixation, and affixation only, is maximally diagrammatically iconic and thus an optimal instrument of expression (cf. e.g. Dressier 1987, Mayerthaler 1981). This attitude is mirrored, although not made explicit in these terms, in generative-lexicalist frameworks, in which concatenative morphology stands as the prototype for all morphology. Such a conception assumes that the meaning of a complex concatenative morphological structure is compositional, (according to the formula Ά ' + Έ ' = Ά + B'. Moreover, it presumes that Ά ' and Έ ' are like objects that can be added; if Ά ' , the lexical base, is a pure symbol, then Έ \ the affix, must also be a pure symbol. However, it appears clear on the basis of what has been said up to now that Ά ' and Ή ' are not like objects. Β does not have meaning as A does, and therefore, although A and Β can be added to each other, Ά ' and Έ ' cannot. The form-meaning relation between Β and

Form and meaning relations in word-formation

55

'B' is of a more indirect nature. In other words, it is an indexical relation. The index has initially only the function of indicating the presence of some operation on the stem (e.g. involving a modification of stem content), so that a non-concatenative modificatory process is actually no less diagrammatic than affixation. In fact, such modificatory processes have a further function in that they also serve as syntagmatic indexes. That is, because they point to a particular subset of the complete inflectional or word-formation paradigm, i.e. only those forms with the stem in question, the possibilities of combination with further elements in the word and/or in the sentence are limited, so that they support rapid processing of the sentence by the hearer (cf. Anttila 1975: 10). If modificatory processes are in a certain sense inferior to affixation, this is not due to their semiotic value or suitability but rather to the fact that the relevant morphophonological prerequisite conditions must be fulfilled, i.e. that their application is more limited. That is, if the canonical phonological form or structure of words or stems in a language is such that it will allow processes to be applied to a very large number of bases, then it will potentially be an efficient process, semiotically speaking. The same applies to "suprasegmental" processes, such as morphological tone or stress alternation. Another point at which the concept of sign might be invoked is that of the level of abstraction in dealing with morphological objects. Remember the need to postulate an abstract lemma, abstract stems, and morphological elements (affixes) with which the concrete morphological product to be synthesized or analyzed must be identified. The trouble is that although it is recognized that many signs lie between form and content (cf. Dressier 1985a: 283, who speaks of "signs on signs on signs"), the number of levels required is not settled on, and it is not evident that this can be constrained in any way. Thus one could consider that if a perceived sound sequence qualifies as a linguistic sign (symbol), then it is an index for an abstracter formal (phonetic and phonological) "model" in the speaker. This model stands for a still abstracter model (morpheme sequence), whereby connections to different paradigmatic constellations arise. Finally, at the level of referential content, it is also a question of restriction of the symbol, i.e. the content of the "target" sign is reduced to the particular context (e.g. generic vs. specific reference, culturally and otherwise conditioned associations that may or may not be a part of the language). See here Sebeok (1971: 40-41): ... the designata of some signs must be sought at the level of semiotic rather than at the level of thing-language itself; in a given discourse such signs simply indicate (but do not designate) relations of the other signs to one another or to the interpreter ... The strata of signs are as complex and as

56 Formal concepts: model-building difficult to unravel as geological strata; the scientific and psychological efforts of unravelling them may be as great in the former case as it has been in the latter. In conclusion, it can be said that semiotics makes available useful categories and names for relations and could possibly be taken into consideration as part of a descriptive framework for psychologically important phenomena. If this were to be done, at the very least it would have to take into account the relative systemic primacy of symbol and index with respect to the icon. The complexity of the corresponding semiotic theory must be able to match the complexity of the linguistic phenomena. In any case it is important that the terms be translatable into other conceptual systems and that they not lead to a restrictive interpretation of purely linguistic or extra-linguistic relationships. For the time being, then, we will conclude that although detailed study of sign theory will probably not be of much use to us, we can adopt the idea that there are two types of linguistic sign that will be relevant for morphology, namely the index and the symbol. Indexical relations in particular will be of central interest.

3.3.2.2 . Structure of the sign Probably the most common image of sign structure is the Saussurean association of form (signifiant) and meaning (signifie). The sign model used in the present work is the "three-sided" one, original with Morris (Sebeok 1971) and elaborated by Mel'cuk (1976, 1982). It has certain obvious similarities to the ordered triple presented in Hoeksema (1985). In the formal representation of the sign I initially follow Mel'cuk (1976, 1982: 40), who has adopted Morris's concept of the three-sided sign. This sign < X > has the formal representation: < X ; 'Χ'; Σ > where X is the signifiant, 'X' the signifie and Σ the "syntactics" of the sign.15 The signifiant or form-side, and the signifie or content side of the linguistic sign correspond more or less to de Saussure's conception of it, at least for lexemic, symbolic signs. We shall see in the following section how these can be expanded for other types of sign. Mel'cuk's linguistic sign differs from more familiar models in its third "side", namely the syntactics (see for example Mel'cuk 1982: 24). The syntactics is a set containing all information and

Units of analysis in word-formation 57 specifications concerning syntactic and possibly also semantic combinability of the form-meaning correspondence. This includes, for a symbolic sign at least, lexico-syntactic and morphological class membership, obligatory complements, collocations, gender specification in nouns, assignment to particular morphological rules etc. Note that in more recent work, Mel'cuk (1993-1997) has changed the order of elements in the ordered triple, such that the signifie is now placed first. I have decided to leave things as they are; considering that Hoeksema's triple has yet another order (with the element corresponding to the syntactics second), it is likely not to be crucial — and might lead one to wonder just how ordered the triple is... Perhaps the most important thing is that there be a mutual implication at least between signifiant and signifie.

3.4. Units of analysis in word-formation The following section will present the formal notions of the framework used in the empirical investigation. We will begin with an enumeration of the various lexical and morphological units of analysis, then go on to an examination of the rules and operations affecting or involving these. The present state of research in morphology is such that one cannot take definitions of sign units or units of analysis for granted; every framework has its own concepts, well-defined and generally translatable. The system of Mel'cuk (1982), which is based on a particular sign theory and is also characterized by a strict formal unity, serves as a point of departure in the following presentation.

3.4.1. Lexical units

3.4.1.1. The word-form We will begin our catalogue with lexical units, that is, units which are represented in the lexicon or are derivable from other units found there. The first of these is the word-form; the word-form corresponds to the concept of word that is most immediately, metalinguistically accessible. It may be understood as a text-word, e.g. as a minimal utterance between pauses (see Mel'öuk 1982: 30), that is, as an actually occurring, concrete, countable item. Thus in the German sentence Ein blinder Mann und eine blinde Frau gingen zu-

58 Formal concepts:

model-building

sammen ('a blind man and a blind woman were walking together') there are nine word-forms. As we see in this example, a word-form may be an inflected form and is distinct from other related inflected forms (e.g. ein, eine; blinder, blinde). We will rarely need to refer to the word-form in the scope of the present work, as word-formation is its principal focus. We will assume that there is normally no direct representation of the word-form in the lexicon; however, each utterance or occurrence of the word-form will serve to reinforce the lexical structure from which it is derived as the effects of frequency in historical linguistics and psycholinguistics show (cf. e.g. Bybee 1985).

3.4.1.2. The lexeme The lexeme is the fundamental unit of the lexicon. It exists on an abstracter level than the word-form. The lexeme is an abstract unit and is thus not directly accessible; its mediating or representative form is the familiar citation form, i.e. some representative inflected or otherwise freely occurring form (infinitive, l.sg. of a verb, nominative of a noun, etc.). A lexeme can be morphologically complex, i.e. all word-formations are lexemes in the same way as morphologically simplex items are (e.g. BEANBAG, GREEDY, BEHEAD, SOUP). Mel'öuk (e.g. 1982: 41) considers the lexeme to be a set, like any -emic unit according to structuralist tradition (e.g. HOUSE = {house, houses}: a set of word-forms). Because it is a set, he claims, it cannot be a sign. I will argue here that a) if the lexeme is a set, then it can still be a sign, b) if the lexeme is a set, or primarily defined as a set, then this will have undesirable consequences, and c) a definition or characterization of a lexeme as an abstract sign corresponding to a concrete word-form sign is preferable to that of a set and does not have these undesirable consequences. Firstly, Mel'cuk says elsewhere, and it is held in semiotics generally, that almost anything can be a sign. For example, a rule or an operation can be a sign (Mel'cuk 1976: 302) or a syntactic construction (Mel'öuk 1982: 24). At some level, a set could be held to be an "object", and therefore given a sign interpretation. Given that levels of abstraction are not absolute, and given that behind a concrete sign lurks a more abstract one ("signs on signs on signs...", cf. 3.3.2.1.), virtually any object we propose will be a set in Mel'cuk's sense. For example, a word-form or a morph (see below) is itself abstract, when compared with text-words or text-morphs, and we would be no less justified in saying that these are also sets, e.g. schuhe = {schuhe,,

Units of analysis in word-formation

59

schuhe2...}. Therefore, if a word-form is a sign, then a lexeme can be considered a sign. A lexeme can be said to have an abstract form; it has a meaning that is more general than that of word-forms, as it has no sentence relevance; it has lexico-syntactic properties such as class, gender etc. It would be unfortunate not to be able to recognize this. The meanings of the word-forms are not identical, which they should be according to Mel'cuk's "-eme"-definition (Mel'cuk 1982:120). However, if we define the lexeme as a set of word-forms, it is difficult to explain the invariance of properties of these word-forms. For example, why should all members of a lexeme have the same Gender? It is not an accident; rather, it is a property of the lexeme. In other words, the lexeme does have properties, which affect the word-forms, or better, determine their nature. In fact, it does not make much sense to say that a word-form. e.g. Germ. schuhes 'shoe' (gen.sg.) is masculine. Rather, we say that it represents a masculine noun. The lexeme is masculine, not the word-form. The same applies to other syntactic properties. It thus would appear that the lexeme is not merely a set of word-forms. Another problem has to do with the question of logical precedence. One cannot have a word-form without a lexeme, yet the set definition would force the lexeme to presuppose the word-form. A problem arises when we consider word-formation, i.e. lexeme formation. Namely, it is the lexeme that is formed, and not a word-form, or a set of word-forms. A lexemic meaning is created based on the meaning of the original lexeme; the word is assigned syntactic properties; it is given an abstract form. This part of the creation of a new word is complicated, as in fact the base used is a concrete one. For example, if a German noun is formed on the base of the past tense of the verb, that semantic element will be irrelevant for the meaning of the noun; it is the lexemic meaning only which is transferred, e.g. RITT 'ride', from REITEN, preterite stem ritt-, TRITT 'kick' from TRETEN, preterite stem tritt. Word-formation does not consist of the creation of a set, but of an abstract item. Based on the above, we conclude that although a set might be capable of receiving a sign interpretation, it is preferable to think of word-forms and lexemes as concrete and abstract signs respectively. The word-forms are concrete manifestations of the abstract lexeme. Mel'cuk (1982; 1993-1997,1: 342) also proposes the lex as an intermediate unit, which would include such complex forms as have eaten, will see. I prefer not to consider these part of the lexeme, so that eaten and see will be "taken" from the lexical entry and combined (syntactically) with forms from

60 Formal concepts:

model-building

HAVE and WILL respectively; in other words, these constructions do not belong to morphology alone. There has been some discussion as to whether there should be any difference recognized between actual and potential members of the lexicon (see e.g. Aronoff 1976, 1994: 10; Di Sciullo and Williams 1987:17-21). Let us state here that the lexicon on the one hand is an open, potentially infinite list, to which can always be added, so that yes, there is a difference, and it does not make much sense to say that the lexicon contains potential lexemes. They exist in an abstract but real sense; however, they do not exist in the lexicon. Potential lexemes, while they many not be "in" the lexicon, are justified objects of study, just as are potential sentences. (See also 3.2.3.) As far as representation is concerned, it will certainly be necessary to include current lexemes, however formed, and lexes or word-forms that are not completely regularly formed or are suppletive etc. It is of course true that the lexicon contains units larger than the lexeme, such as idiomatic phrases. This will be of no concern to us here.

3,4.2. Morphological units

3.4.2.1. The morph The morph is the most concrete of the morphological units. Mel'cuk (1982: 63) defines the morph as an "elementary segmental sign", whereby one might well want to lift the restriction to segmental signs only. "Elementary" means, more or less, formally non-analyzable or non-complex, or, as Mel'cuk (1982: 45) says, not representable as a combination of other signs.

3.4.2.2. The morpheme The morpheme is the abstract elementary morphological sign. Again, according to Mel'duk (1982: 41), it is a set of morphs, which interpretation, as explained above for the lexeme, we would prefer to downplay. In the present system, the definition of "-eme" as a set does not fit anyway, as the morph is considered to have a merely indexical meaning. In other words, the meaning of TEUER ('expensive') is not the same as STEUER', the signifie of both teuer and teur. Likewise, the meanings of non-lexical morphs -en and -n are V-en', while the meaning of the morpheme -en is '^FR3', i.e. indexing the

Units of analysis in word-formation 61

rule in which it appears. Thus we shall make a distinction between lexical and non-lexical morphemes: lexical morphemes have symbolic or referential content, while non-lexical morphemes have no meaning or at least no referential content, but are "merely" indexes that directly (prepositions, conjunctions) or indirectly (affixes, etc.) point to relations, or rules. Where a lexical morph is involved, meaning will be allowed to play a role in the decision as to whether two morphs correspond to the same morpheme; in cases where two morphs are relatable by means of a phonological rule valid for at least one other pair in the language, whether currently productive or not, and are identical in meaning, then we may consider them allomorphs of the same morpheme. Further, if two non-lexical morphs are formally so relatable, then we may consider them to be allomorphs of the same morpheme. Note that as affixes have no direct meaning, any two morphs that can be shown to be phonologically relatable as so defined belong to the same morpheme, regardless of their semantic associations, or of questions of derivation vs. inflection. For example, I would say, as do most, that there is one morpheme -s in English, with allomorphs [z], [s], and [Θζ], as their respective environments can be defined phonologically. However, I would also claim that there is one morpheme -s in English and not three, mapping onto to the morphological meanings 'plural' and 'possessive' and onto 3.sg. Subject Agreement under appropriately stated conditions in each case. It will be clear from the above that the morph and the morpheme in the present framework are notions mainly concerned with form, and thus it is important to recognize that this has little in common with some other popular morpheme concepts. For example, in some frameworks, e.g. that of Matthews (1974) or Mel'cuk (1982), the non-lexical morpheme, to the extent that it is allowed to exist, is a semantic unit, e.g. 'PAST', 'PLURAL', '3.PERSON' and the like; its allomorphs would then be the forms associated with these meanings in a given language, whether formally relatable or not (which thus establishes a major distinction between lexical and non-lexical morph on another basis, for lexical synonymy is not otherwise considered grounds for postulating allomorphy). This notion of morpheme is also met with, at least implicitly, in some generative work. The emphasis on form obviates the problems Matthews (1972, 1974) brings up with respect to the "traditional" morpheme, namely cases in which there is no one-to-one correspondence between form and meaning in morphology. A segmentation or composition on the basis of morphs does not require an isomorphic decomposition into elements of morphological description. It is important to note that if the morph and the morpheme are basic formal units of analysis in morphology, there is no claim being made here

62 Formal concepts: model-building

that, for example, a morphologically complex form is exhaustively analyzable into morphs or morphemes. In non-concatenative morphology, for example with processes of apophony such as umlaut, a form may be complex but not so divisible. For example, German Väter, plural of VATER 'father' is complex and therefore not a morph; the umlauted vowel itself is not a morph either, mirror, a verb derived from a noun, is also complex, but is not completely analyzable, in the sense of segmentable, into morphs. For the above reasons, the units morph and morpheme are not in themselves so important; as is common practice elsewhere, we will much more frequently use the more specific functional labels of stem (or base), root, and affix; we will also use rule-element, of which class affixes form a subset. As far as questions of representation are concerned, we will assume that the non-lexemic morph of the "syntactic" type, i.e. conjunctions and the like, are represented in the lexicon, or in a "functional" lexicon or sublexicon. What about "morphological morphs", i.e. affixes? In generative theories, lexicalist or otherwise, it is assumed that affixes have lexical entries, indeed, are like lexemes in every sense except that of being bound (cf. e.g. Lieber 1981, 1992; Di Sciullo and Williams 1987). However, given that we have both a morphology and a lexicon, given also that affixes have no meaning as do lexemes, and given the results of psycholinguistic experimentation, as in Chapter 2, whereby lexical matter and morphological matter appear to receive different treatment, then we will stipulate that morphemes do not belong in the lexicon like lexemes. Rather, to the extent that they are accessibly represented anywhere, they are to be found in the morphological component where some indication is also provided of what rules they appear in.

3.4.2.3. The stem The stem is, on one level, a morpheme or morpheme complex, on the next, a morph or morph complex. The (simplex) stem is a lexical morph (-eme), or expressed differently (ä la Mel'cuk), a morph(-eme) that is not an affix. The difference between the two is at first a semiotic one: while other morph(eme)s are indexes, simplex stems are primarily symbols, for their indexical value is limited to pointing to a subset of the relevant inflectional and or word-formation paradigm and then further, indirectly, to the paradigm as a whole (cf. Chapter 2 here). The simplex stem may also be distinguished from other morph(eme)s by virtue of its combinatorial properties (cf. Mel'cuk 1982:131-132).

Units of analysis in word-formation 63 Stems may, as indicated, also be morphologically complex, i.e. derived by means of some inflectional or word-formation operation, as in German kinder 'child' (pi.) with case rule not yet applied (e.g. to give kind-er-n , dat. pi.)., or horseflesh-, teacher-, cleanv- etc. "Stem", at least at the most concrete level, is here used synonymously with "base" (see below). A lexeme may have several stems associated with it, subdividing the inflectional paradigm formally. As far as representation is concerned, we assume that lexical representation is in fact stem representation. A lexical (sub-) entry will consist of at least an abstract lexeme with any nonpredictable inflectional stems associated with it; the stems will be accompanied by "instructions" for forming the inflectional paradigm if necessary. In the case of word-formations, as we shall see, "instructions" for forming complex lexemes will accompany the relevant stems, at least for those word-formations which have achieved "lexical", i.e. "listed" status. The most basic or abstract stem, if determinable, we will call the roof, this will be morphologically simplex. The root will be the closest thing to the "lemma" representation, as discussed in Chapter 2.

3.4.2.4. The affix Mel'cuk (1982: 77-80) characterizes the affix as a segmental morph that is not a stem, or as a "regular" morph, i.e. a morph which has a "regular" meaning (see below). In the present framework, however, affixes as indexes have no immediate meaning, so that this last will not be relevant, but rather the form is bound to a more specific function by means of a general function or relation. One can, however, differentiate the affix from other non-lexical and lexical morphs by means of its formal combinability on the one hand and its semiotic value on the other. Prepositions, conjunctions, and particles are also non-lexemic and are primarily of indexical nature, but the relations concerned are directer than those of affixes (see above). A further difference between affixes and stems is that the set of affixes in a given language is finite and especially quantitatively very much smaller than that of stems. Thus their morphological status is easy to recognize (see 2.3.1.1. on the identifiability of affixes). For the time being at least, we will define the affix as a morphological unit, non-lexical, without lexical meaning, and whose syntactics consists of an assignment to a rule or rules of the morphological system. It is represented in the morphological component. The designation of an affix as a rule

64 Formal concepts:

model-building

element indicates that its representation is located within the representation of the rule, i.e. it has no direct lexical representation.

3.4.3. Formal representation of lexical and morphological units

3.4.3.1. The signifiant of the linguistic sign In the present study a lexeme will be treated as a sign, its label written in capital letters (e.g. MOUSE). This label will correspond to the modern citation form of the lexeme. The signifiants of morphs and morphemes will be represented by means of italics; there will be no formal distinction made between the two representations, e.g. shoe-, -en. Whether a graphemic or phonological representation is chosen depends on practical considerations. In the present case, where phonology is never directly an issue, a graphemic representation is always used.

3.4.3.2. The signifie of the linguistic sign The representation of indexes must express this value or function. It was pointed out above that there exists direct and indirect indexicality. Prepositions, particles, conjunctions etc. are direct indexes; consequently, the relation or speaker attitude will be expressed directly: < dass; 4/-subordination' ; Σ εθΜΡ ... > = DASS ('that') The arrow is intended to express the function of the unit as a signal. As far as affixes and other rule-elements (alternations, modifications) are concerned, it is the presence of an at first unspecified relation that is pointed to, for example for the German suffix -ung: < ung ; '/Form Rule Z' ; e Form Rule Ζ >

The morphological operation

65

3.4.3.3. The syntactics of the linguistic sign The respective syntactics of the relevant sign units differ widely from one another and so can serve to define or to specify more clearly these units themselves. The syntactics is a very practical element of analysis for morphological items, as it permits a clear separation between semantic and grammatical information within the linguistic sign. The syntactics of a lexeme contains classificatory information, such as Gender, inflectional class if relevant, indications of non-predictable morphological combinatorics (i.e. specification of rules), and information relevant to syntagmatics (such as subcategorization), etc. For example, consider the German noun SCHUH 'shoe', with the following representation: < SCHUH; 'shoe'; Nmasc ...>. As its inflection is perfectly predictable given the Gender specification — it has the default pattern for Masculine nouns —, there is no need to mention it in Σ. The syntactics of an affix, as we have seen, consists uniquely of the rule in which it appears.

3.5. The morphological operation Whereas we have claimed that an affix has no intrinsic meaning, or does not correspond directly with morphological meaning, and whereas we have also claimed that affixation is on a par with other formal morphological means and all are to be treated in a uniform manner, we are committing ourselves to a process framework of morphology. The basic principle underlying a process framework is that a stem is formally modified in some way, and that this maps onto semantic and/or syntactic modifications. Thus, not the affix, but the act of affixing something is significant. Put another way, the modification indicates first of all that a word-formation or a lexeme has been derived/created, and thus that systematic modifications of semantic and syntactic properties, not themselves visible, have taken place. Thus the basic formative mechanism is the rule, as mentioned in passing above; as will be illustrated below, rules are mapped onto each other in the present system in an operation. Note here that this usage of the terms "rule" and "operation" differs from that of other process frameworks, e.g. Zwicky (1985 and elsewhere), where the operation is the formal modification, combining with other elements to form a rule. In the following, various aspects of the morphological operation and rule will be systematically presented, together with a catalogue of rule types in word-formation.

66 Formal concepts:

model-building

3.5.1. Base of the operation A frequently discussed problem concerns the morphological and lexical status of the base of the morphological operation: is it a word or a smaller unit? This is the form the question usually takes (cf. Aronoff 1976: 21; Booij 1977: 37-38; Plank 1981: 221, among others); it should be interpreted as a question about the concreteness of the formal analysis, also in the psychological sense; in other words, does the operation apply to a concrete or an abstract item? The fact that the discussion was at least originally based on English probably obscured the matter; Aronoff s (1976) strong claim that the basis of word-formation rules could only be the word should be taken to mean the stem before inflection, or the lexemic base (see discussion to this effect in Aronoff (1994: 7) On a higher level of analysis, however, the difference between stem and word is irrelevant, if one accepts (see above 2.2.2.) that analysis and synthesis involve access to an abstract representation in the lexicon, whereby even the smallest morphological structural units are recognized. Thus the stem is to be taken as the base for operations; the stem may be identical to a word on a lower level. In this way, the stem (in Mel'cuk 1982 or Hägen 1982 = root) will be taken as the ultimate point of departure in the present framework. This does not prevent the operation from being applied to even larger textual units that thus become complex morphological units; the analysis or synthesis referred to takes place here as well (cf. Häusermann 1977). It must be clear that what this means is that the stem "operated on" is an example, or a concrete manifestation, of the lexeme, and that saying the stem is the basis of the operation usually is restricted to a formal base, not the syntactics or semantics of that base. In the case of word-formation, a lexeme is formed from a lexeme, and it is the lexemic semantics and syntactics which are affected. In a sense, there is a "mixture of levels"; the formal act must be concrete, while the semantic and syntactic modifications can take place, or remain, at the abstract level. This sounds curious, but becomes more meaningful when we consider that in inflection for example what we really are doing is "concretizing" the lexeme to fit it to a concrete sentence.

3.5.2. Nature of the morphological operation In general theories of semiotics a morphological rule or morphological operation is also considered a sign, although it belongs to a yet abstracter level than do lexemes, word-forms, morphemes, etc. (cf. Sebeok 1971).

The morphological operation

67

Correspondingly, Mel'cuk uses the same formalism for operations as for the general sign (see Mel'cuk 1982: 77-78). This cannot be done without difficulty; he does not expressly mention the various levels of abstraction and there seems to be no difference between the representation of a rule element (i.e. an affix) and that of a rule: (8)

a.

-sak = (from Mel'cuk 1982: 63)

b.

ADIMV-V: = < /V/ - /V:/ ; 'diminutive' ; Σ > (from Mel'öuk 1982: 100).

This is excluded in the present system, as has previously been indicated. In what functional sense is an operation or a rule a sign? Broadly, an operation affects form, meaning, and syntactic properties of another sign — this visible or at least detectable "thing" would constitute the form — and at the same time these changes have their own "meaning" within the morphological system, and also are subject to conditions of application as a set, so that they may be considered as constituting the formal side of a three-sided sign with very abstract semantics and a syntactics (cf. discussion in Mel'cuk 1976: 297-298). It is true that the semantics of the operation is much more concrete in Mel'cuk's system; in fact, it corresponds to the semantic rule proposed here (see below) as part of the signifiant. The reasons for this will be given in 3.5.3.1. If the interpretation of the operation as a sign seems farfetched for some, we can consider that all we are saying is that the mapping of rules onto each other is associated with a value in the system and that it occurs under certain specified conditions. We will define the operation as a linguistic sign of the general form < Χ; 'X' ; Σ > In Mel'cuk's system there are operations on the signifiant and on the syntactics of a sign; strangely enough, he does not consider that operations on the signifie could exist. This is due to the fact that he gives the "meaning" that would actually have to be the signifiant of the semantic operation as the signifie of the formal operation. He does not formally relate the semantics of the operation to the meaning of the lexeme (but see Mel'cuk 1976: 291); more discussion of this will follow in Chapter 4. In the present framework, the operation is more abstract by one degree than in Mel'cuk's system, so that formal, semantic, or syntactic operations are not valid concepts. The

68 Formal concepts: model-building signifiant of an operation maps three elements onto each other: a form rule (corresponding to Mel'cuk's formal operation), a semantic rule, and a syntactic rule (corresponding to the syntactics of a formal operation or syntactic operation in Mel'cuk's system). Another name for this signifiant is "rulemapping". The signifie of a word-formation operation is certainly very general; it could be understood as the place of that particular operation in the word-formation system, including information on availability, productivity, and so on (and similarly in inflection, where the signifie of the operation would be something like 'inflectional operation in language L' with additional indications of productivity, etc.). The syntactics of the operation contains all conditions that are relevant to the mapping of the three rules contained in the signifiant. For example, it may be stated that the operation applies to nouns, say, or that it applies to stems ending in a consonant, or that it has certain phonological consequences.

3.5.3. The signifiant of the operation: form rules Form rules are rules affecting the signifiant of a lexical or morphological sign. A form rule can itself be considered a sign and, using the notation introduced here, has the general form: FRX = < X - Y; 'FR,' ; Σ> The formal relationship between two lexical or morphological items is expressed in the signifiant or first part of the form rule. It should be read "X becomes Y". The formal modification is usually the most obvious indication of a morphological operation taking place, the exception being "identity" morphology, of course. The syntactics of the rule is the set of conditions on its application, principally formal or lexical ones. Thus it is clearly distinct from the syntactics of "object" signs such as lexical morphemes. These can be divided into stem conditions and operation conditions, the former being lexical, phonological, and/or semantic conditions the stem has to meet to qualify as a candidate for the rule, the latter being conditions of application of the rule, such as the phonological consequences referred to above. In the following, different types of form rule will be presented.

The morphological operation

69

3.5.3.1. Conversion The simplest form rule is the "zero-rule" or identity relation, i.e. a rule in which the signifiant is X - Y and X = Y. One may also write X - X. In this way, the base and product stems are formally identical; the usual name for this relation in word-formation is conversion. A further possibility would be to say that conversion is an operation in which no form rule, but only a syntactic and perhaps also a semantic one are present. I prefer the solution with the identity rule, since the indexical effect is expressed in it: one form points to the other, so that the speaker/hearer is made aware of a family relationship. If no form rule is present, this type of connection is lost. Notice that the above formulations do not admit an analysis under which formally additive processes attach a morphological zero-element to the stem. Should one not wish to give up this possibility, then one could use the expression

(cf. e.g. Pullum and Zwicky 1991 for arguments against the concept of a zero-affix). However, the preferable analysis involves a form rule with result identical to the input, which one could compare to multiplying by one. In other words, it is important and should be reflected in the rule that something has happened to the base; it is merely not immediately perceptible. The effects of the operation are perceptible, of course, in the reflection of the changed syntactics, namely new sentence-syntactic combinability and a new inflectional paradigm, if relevant, of the new formation. Mel'cuk's treatment of conversion, as has been indicated, lies at the base of the adaptation of his system untertaken here. Let us consider the two types of operation Mel'cuk proposes: (9)

a.

< be ·, 'expose to the effects of ; derivative prefix, verb... >

b.

< Ν => V ; 'expose to the effects of ; Σ >,

where operation (9a) produces German verbs like BEDACHEN 'roof and operation (9b) German verbs like SALZEN 'salt'. In (9a), the affix is considered the "bearer" of the meaning; in (9b) the changes in the syntactics, in the absence of an affix, perform this function. The justification of this is a hierarchy according to which various signifiants are ranked as "principal bearers of meaning" (Mel'cuk 1982: 79). At the top ranks the affix, at the bottom conversion; if any other formal means is lacking, a process is identi-

70 Formal concepts: model-building fied as conversion. However, such an approach obscures some important facts. First of all, the change of syntactic properties is common to both operations: both involve the creation of a verb from a noun. It is not sensible to describe one as merely a specification "verb" in the syntactics — without, moreover, reference to the base category — and the other as a modification rule. Let us say that the change in lexico-syntactic class and thus combinatory behaviour of the item (both in terms of interaction with other sentence elements and of inflection) function in both cases as an indication of the fact that a word-formation operation has taken place. In the case of conversion, these "clues" stand, perhaps, in greater relief—but their nature and function are not different. Therefore, they should be represented in the same manner. The choice in (9b) is the more appropriate, as it reflects the modification of (lexico-)syntactic properties explicitly. Note also that it is not clear from (9a) how the derived lexeme gets its new properties (Mel'cuk does not hold that affixes themselves have these properties). Furthermore, if the change of properties, and the resulting sentential consequences serve as a signal, then in fact yes, they should form part of the signifiant of the operation, as (9b) suggests. Secondly, in the case of conversion, it is not true that the change of syntactic properties is the only indication of a word-formation relation. There is a very important contribution on the "form" side: the identity of the stem. That is, in the case of SALZEN, the inflection alerts us to the fact that an operation has taken place (er salzte die Suppe, 'he salted the soup'): salzte must be a verb, but at the same time, the presence of salz- shows us that this new word must be related to the lexeme SALZ, and therefore there is a good chance that a modification of meaning is involved as well. The indexical value of the formal relation must, then, also be expressed. It follows also that it belongs in the signifiant. Thirdly, we must consider the signifie of the operation in Mel'cuk's system. He claims that the affix in (9a) is the bearer of the morphological meaning 'expose to the effects of (or, more specifically, we could say 'provide with'), which sounds plausible enough. In (9b), the bearer of this same meaning is supposedly the change in syntactic properties. However, this change is common to all denominal verb formations — how can it be the bearer of that meaning? What it does indicate is that a word-formation operation has taken place, which means that a formal and a semantic relation between two lexemes also exist. Therefore, the relation between the syntactic modification and the "meaning" is indirect; the signifie seems to be the abstract one of 'a word-formation operation has taken place!'. This leads us to the conclusion that, if operations (9a) and (9b) are parallel, the signifie of

The morphological operation 71 (9a) must be the same, and therefore, that the affix cannot be itself the bearer of the meaning 'expose to the effects o f . The relation between the affix and this meaning must be indirect, which is of course the conclusion we arrived at in 3.3.2.1., supported by some psycholinguistic literature as summarized in Chapter 2. How, then, to deal with this meaning? The answer lies in considering the fact that word-formation consists in modification of lexemic meaning, in addition to modification of form and lexico-syntactic properties. In the cases above, for example, the base 'salt' or 'roof is modified to produce 'provide with salt', 'provide with (a) r o o f . The semantic change, then, is of the same status as the formal and syntactic changes: it is deducible from context, it indicates, as one of a finite set of regular modifications, the presence of a word-formation operation, and thus implies the presence of a relation of form and of syntactic properties. Therefore, it should form part of the signifiant like the formal and syntactic rules. We will then say that there is a reciprocal mapping of the three rules (signifiant), which has a certain value within the set of word-formation operations (signifie) and is subject to a number of conditions of application (syntactics). The conversion operation in (9b) will then be rewritten as: "

< X - X ; 'FRX' ; N/V/Adj...> ; 'word-formation operation,' ; Ν ... > < WITH('X'); 'SR/ ; Ν > < ΣΝ - Σ ν ; 'SR/ ; Ν >

where WITH('X') is the formal expression of the meaning 'provide with'.

3.5.3.2. Segmental form rules

3.5.3.2.1. Concatenation (affixation) Concatenative rules express the fact that the stem is formally modified by the attachment of a segmental object. The representation of the signifiant of these rules has the general form: FRX = < X - X ® 7 , 'FRX' ; Σ > where y is an affix and θ the sign for what Mel'cuk calls "union", that is, for the actual mechanism binding form elements according to the language-

72 Formal concepts: model-building

specific morphophonological principles of a given language, which are themselves uninteresting on this level (see here in a similar vein W o l f f s 1984: 165-166 word-formation process which contains no more precise conditions besides combination; see also Zwanenburg 1995). If the syntactics of the rule combined with the syntactics of the affix are so formulated as to express the position of the affix with respect to the stem or other elements, as one would expect, then one sort of form rule for prefixation, suffixation, infixation, transfixation, and possibly reduplication, depending on how one analyzes that, will do. Alternatively, the position could be expressed in the form rule, so that one would have a number of variations on the above scheme (i.e. y θ X for prefixation, and so on). The syntactics of the rule contain stem conditions and rule conditions, as described above. Note that, as the rule stands, there is no indication of where and how the affixation is to take place relative to the stem. If we wish to maintain maximum generality at this rule level, i.e. having a minimum of rules involving a particular affix, then this information can be provided at the level of the operation, see below. For example, the same rule will do for both prefixation and suffixation of -er in German. An abbreviated form of the signifiant of the rule is Χ Φ y. I generally use this for convenience; the longer form expresses more explicitly, of course, the relation between base and product.

3.5.3.2.2. Modificatory form rules Naturally, all form rules are by definition modificatory; modificatory is meant here in the usual sense, that is, as a characteristic of non-concatenative processes. The functional value of modificatory rules is debatable. On the one hand, there is no reason to suppose that they are less perceptible than affixations, particularly when they form a regular part of the system; on the other hand, there seems to be some feeling that they can only be of auxiliary nature. Noyer (1992: 28-29), for example, maintains that the operations such processes appear in can never be the main index to the morphological meaning, which function is reserved uniquely for affixation. The existence of forms created by modificatory processes without affixation would seem to contradict this view; the only solution, to assign the primary function to a "zero affix", does not seem generally satisfactory. Mel'cuk, too, as mentioned in the previous section, claims primary status for modificatory rules (operations) in the absence of affixation, making them mere concomitants otherwise. Zwicky (1988) on the other hand considers all components of modification of a base form to be of equal value. We will take the position

The morphological operation

73

here that several operations may be required to produce a word-formation or lexeme and some of these may be non-affixational. One operation may entail the application of another; this fact must be noted in the syntactics of the second of these. For example, in German inflection, some pluralizations require an affixation and a modificatory umlaut operation. The syntactics (stem conditions) of the umlaut operation will indicate that it must apply if an operation mapping the affixation of -er onto the plural rule is applied. We will not consider in such cases that there is a difference of status of operation type, or form rule type, in terms of contribution to the whole. In other cases, there may be subtle differences. Consider the case of German wordformation. Here, umlaut operations accompany quite a number of affixational word-formation operations; rarely, if ever, is there an absolute association of an affixation operation with umlaut operation in this language, although one option is often markedly more productive than another. Although an umlaut is sometimes the only word-formation operation required, as in the verbs WÄHLEN 'choose' (synchronically) from WAHL 'choice', DRÜCKEN 'press' from DRUCK 'pressure, press', in the case of accompaniment the common intuition is that the operation does not contribute in the same way as the affixation. Compare for example FAHRER 'driver'(from FAHREN 'drive') and JÄGER 'hunter' (from JAGEN 'hunt'). Clearly, these are formations of the same type, and clearly, the principal mapping seems to take place between the affixation and the semantic and syntactic rules. The umlaut does appear to play an auxiliary role here. This is different from the case of inflection, as there umlaut is associated with plural only, so that it does map onto a particular semantic rule. Let us consider that the word-formation operation maps a modificatory form rule onto a semantic and a syntactic identity rule in cases such as the derivation of JÄGER, its principal contribution being the reinforcing signalling of the presence of a word-formation operation. A modificatory rule has the general form: FRX = < a - b\ 'FRX' ; Σ > where a and b are submorphemic segments; it can be expressed more concretely for each specific type (e.g. < Vbk - V.bk ; ...> for "umlaut").

3.5.3.3. Non-segmental form rules Non-segmental modifications concern non-segmental (i.e. suprasegmental) features of the morphological items in question. Typical such modifications

74 Formal concepts: model-building are accent alternation and tone alternation (for examples see Mel'cuk 1982: 98-99). An example of a non-segmental modificatory rule can be found in the English accentual alternation in some verb-noun pairs such as (per'mit, 'permit), (con 'vict, 'convict). The general representation of non-segmental modifications is FRX = < Xa - X b ; 'FRX' ; Σ > where a and b are suprasegmental elements. Just as for segmental modificatory rules, Mel'cuk (1982:98-99) uses formulations without expression for the stem operated on, e.g. w
.

A more up-to-date equivalent can be found in Ford, Singh, and Martohardjono 1997: 28), giving: .

3.5.3.4. Compounding The first part of the compounding rule shows the binding of two lexeme stems; it is an additive process. The rule has the following representation: FRX = < Χ θ Y; 'FRX' ; Σ > where X and Y are stems and θ the means of binding them together. Should certain phonological processes be associated with compounding in the language in question, this will be included in the mechanisms represented by the sign Θ. Should an additional (secondary) operation be necessary, e.g. in order to insert juncture elements, this will also be specified in the syntactics of the stem in question, for a language like German, at least, where such operations are idiosyncratic.

3.5.4. The signifiant of the operation: semantic rules The semantic rule, the second element of the signifiant of the operation, is the poor cousin of morphological research. There is as yet no complete

The morphological operation

75

theory of the meaning of word-formations, and no descriptive language that makes describing word-formation meanings possible. For this reason, the topic of word-formation semantics will be treated in a separate chapter in more detail (Chapter 4). For the present the following characterization should suffice: semantic word-formation rules cover only a part of the semantics relevant to word-formation: they are restricted to a finite list of relations that are familiar to speakers and that are also independent of lexical items. This means that word-formation operations index sets of lexical content — the stem content of the base, and perhaps the additional content of the formed word, which is, however, not further accounted for by the semantic rule. This apparent paradox is most clearly evident in compounding, where the form rule expresses a relation between two stems and the semantic rule expresses a relation between lexical meaning and the meaning derived from it, both with respect to one stem only. There is thus here no isomorphic reflection of the modification shown by the form rule. For example, there exists in Germ. STADTMAUER 'city wall' a form relation between the stems stadt and mauer, but the semantic relation of interest exists here between 'STADT-' and 'STADT', i.e. 'of (the) city', 'city', just as between 'STÄDTISCH' 'civic', 'urban', 'of the city', and 'STADT'. As with the formal rules, the simplest semantic rule is the identity rule. This means that the operation contains only a "full" formal rule and/or a syntactic rule. The semantic side is of course not empty; rather, the function of the lexical meaning of the stem concerned is an identity function that does not modify this meaning16. This occurs in "syntactic" derivation (transposition), with or without non-identity formal rules (e.g. the English pair R U N V and derived RUN n ) and in purely "additive" compounding (e.g. Germ. M Ä H D R E S C H E N 'combine v ', the component lexeme stems in question meaning 'mow' and 'thresh' respectively). The semantic rule can be considered a sign consisting of signifiant, signifie, and syntactics, as do all other signs. As before, we may prefer to consider it simply a description of the semantic modification and the accompanying conditions. The signifiant of the semantic rule names the relation. The representation of the rule has the general form: SRX = so that there is no exact parallel between the representations of the respective signifiants of the form rules and the semantic rules17. The representation of

76 Formal concepts: model-building the meaning of the complex(er) item as a function of the meaning of the basic item will be discussed in detail in Chapter 4. In the following, "morphological meaning" and "semantic rule" will be used synonymously. The meaning of the semantic rule or the signifie of the sign can be interpreted as an indication of the presence of a word-formation operation, just as with the formal rules, and more specifically, meaning the place of the rule in the morphological system of the language. The syntactics of the semantic rule is structured according to the same general principles as in the case of other signs, including the formal rule. It includes information as to what semantic lexical classes the rule applies to, and also to what lexico-syntactic classes the rule applies. For example, a comparison relation, responsible for such formations as APEV, KINGLY, SUGARY can be represented as SRX = < LIKE('X'); 'SRX' ; s.c.: Ν, V ... > where s.c. stands for "stem conditions", i.e. information qualifying candidates as eligible for the rule.

3.5.5. The signifiant of the operation: syntactic rules The third element of the signifiant of the operation consists of the syntactic rule. Like semantic and formal rules, it may be considered a sign consisting of signifiant, signifie, and syntactics. The signifiant of the syntactic rule in word-formation expresses a modification of the syntactic properties of a lexeme in producing a new lexeme; the rule has the general representation: ZRX = < Σ χ - Σ γ ; 'ERX' ; Σ > Often it involves a grammatical category such as lexico-syntactic class (e.g. < Σ ν - Σ ν ;... >, where Ν = noun, V = verb18. Other examples are the rules for gender-class change or change in transitivity. Cf. Mel'cuk (1976) for examples of syntactic rules (according to him, operations) of this type. The relation qualifying here as primary syntactic rule is in Mel'cuk only the syntactics of a form operation and is only considered as a rule (operation) in conversion. This inconsistency is one of the most important reasons why his system requires revision.

The morphological operation

77

Similar to that of formal and semantic rules, part of the signifie of syntactic rules is the presence of a morphological operation, and more specifically, it refers to the place of the rule within the system. The fact that all rules have the general meaning should not be understood as redundancy: all rules of an operation do indeed have the same primary function and serve as indexes for each other reciprocally. The presence of one rule implies the presence of the others. The syntactic side of the syntactic rule is determined according to the same principles as that of other signs, especially of rule signs. The relevant set contains the general mechanisms according to which the change of syntactic category takes place and the stem conditions specify the sorts of objects the rule may apply to.

3.5.6. The signifiant of the operation: rule-mappings The signifiant of the word-formation operation consists of a mapping of "full" and identity rules; it must contain at least one full rule, or in other words, up to two identity rules are possible. The fact that one full rule is sufficient in order to make the indication of the relation possible suggests the great power of the reciprocal support of the rules. It shows that a full formal rule is in a certain sense redundant, if at least one other full rule is present; remember that this identity rule is not empty, i.e. that the relevant forms are evidently associated with each other. Thus there is no reason to consider conversion (see 3.2.2.) a priori as an "inferior" process (cf. Dressier 1987; Mayerthaler 1981: 112-113). Conversion and other processes have a different distribution in different languages, so that certain languages "prefer" to avoid, or perhaps better, tolerate, redundant word-formation operations whereas others value them more highly. See here Winther (1982: 358, 363). In conversion there are, besides the identity form-rule, two possibilities: 1) there is a full semantic and a full syntactic rule, e.g. with English ( C R O W N N , CROWN v ) and 2) there is a full syntactic and semantic identity rule, as in English (RUNV, RUN N ). What is traditionally called compounding is the mapping of a compounding form rule (necessarily full), full or identity semantic rule, and identity syntactic rule. In the case of a semantic identity rule, the lexical meaning of the motivating stem remains unchanged, which produces copulative compounds (e.g. Germ. MÄHDRESCHEN 'combine v ' as opposed to e.g. HOLZLÖFFEL 'wooden spoon', where a full semantic rule is present). It could be argued that no syntactic rule is necessary, that in fact compounding only

78 Formal concepts:

model-building

maps a form rule onto a semantic rule. I will not attempt to resolve the matter at present. What is traditionally called derivation is the combination of a full formal rule, full or identity semantic rule, and full or identity syntactic rule. The combination of three full rules is possible, e.g. German "

< Χ θ en ; 'FRX' ; Σ >

...

.

< OF('X'); 'SRX' ; Σ > < ΣΝ - ΣΑ The juncture operations used in compounding in some languages (e.g. German, Russian) also show this type of mapping. The following shows an operation for the German juncture element -en: ' .

< Χ θ en ; 'FRX' ; Σ > < I('X'); 'SRX' ; Σ > < Ι(Σ ν ) ; ^ R x ' ; Σ >

...

whereby the syntactic rule as given here is equivalent to that in the preceding example.

The morphological operation 79 The combination of a full formal rule, full semantic rule, and syntactic zero rule produces derivation in which the syntactic properties remain identical and a semantic word-formation relation is present, e.g. in the German pair (GELB 'yellow', GELBLICH 'yellowish'). Here the representation would be: "

< Χ φ lieh ; 'FRX' ; Σ > ... < DIM('X') ; 'SR,' ; Σ > - < ΣΑ L < Σχ - Σγ ; ^ R x ' ; Σ >

' J

Summary 81

where the signifiant or first part is a mapping of three signs that are rules, and where the signifie and the syntactics are language-specifically determined (i.e. in the case of the signifie, the place of that operation in the system or subsystem, and in the case of the syntactics, the conditions on the rule mapping). The signifie may be more specific than that given here, as in the case of a juncture operation in compounding:

L

< Χ θ en ; 'FRX' ; Σ > ; 'compounding operation' ; Σ > < I('X'); 'SRX' ; Σ > < Ι(Σ ν ) ; . The signifiant of the rule element represents one or more morphs having the general form < X; VY' ; Σ >, where Y represents the morpheme (rule element). b) semantic rule: a sign of the form < /('X')' ; 'SRX' ; Σ > where the signifiant is a function, of which there is a finite set in a given language.

82 Formal concepts: model-building c) syntactic rule: a sign of the form < Σ χ - Σ γ ; ;Σ > where the signifiant is a relation between the syntactics of two lexical items. 3) Lexical and morphological notions a) The rule-elements form a subset of the non-lexemic morphemes. The set of lexemic morphemes contains stems. b) Lexemes are signs of the form < X ; 'X' ; Σ >, where the signifiant is a set of lexical morphs (or morph complexes). c) Stems are morphological units, and may be simplex or complex. d) The concretest (structurally most superficial) word unit is the word20 form. 3.7. The word-formation paradigm

3.7.1. The existence of the word-formation paradigm One of the principal goals of the present investigation is to determine whether the organization of word-formation morphology can be said to be paradigmatic, and if so, to determine what the structure of the wordformation paradigm might be and what its effects, if any, on the historical development of word-formation (sub)systems are. The paradigmatic character of inflectional morphology has often been mentioned as a critical feature differentiating it from the morphology of word-formation (cf. e.g. Aronoff 1976: 2). This means, aside from formal questions of structure, to which we shall presently turn, that there exist important associations not only between the members of individual base word-form pairs, but also between the members of the set of word-forms produced on the basis of a lexeme. A typical such association is formal identity, e.g. Germ, will 'want' (l./3.sg.pres.indic.) which may be opposed to other patterns in the system, e.g. Germ, gehe 'go' (l.sg.pres.indic.) vs. geht (3.sg.pres.indic.). In the larger scheme of things, semantic identity, or availability of several operations with a common semantic rule, is also crucial. Any traditional history of German, English, Latin etc. will provide ample

The word-formation paradigm

83

evidence for the effects paradigmatically-related formal and semantic identities produce in the development of inflectional systems. It was also clear from the psycholinguistic experiments described in Chapter 2 that the associations between members of paradigms are real, in the sense that the activation of one member of a paradigm resulted in the activation of all inflectionally related word-forms. Now, there is some evidence that the accessing of a derived or compound word results in the activation of others (Chapter 2); this would indicate that word-formation, too, is paradigmatic. The present investigation will explore relations of formal identity (e.g. between SUGARY 'with sugar' and SUGARY 'like sugar', or KINGLY 'belonging to a king', KINGLY 'like a king') and semantic identity (e.g. between German FURCHTBAR, FÜRCHTERLICH 'terrible' from FURCHT 'fear') to see whether any interesting generalizations for a paradigm can be made, both for diachrony and synchrony; some indications that this is likely to be the case are provided by historical accounts of Russian (Mal'ceva 1966; Schupbach 1984) and French (Gawelko 1977) word-formation subsystems. These studies all showed that a number of operations with a common semantic rule, producing synonymous lexemes, were in competition with each other and that the questions of which was to emerge the victor and if both survived, with what meaning(s), was at least partly dependent on relations holding between the complete set of lexemes related to the same base. In addition to psycholinguistic and historical evidence, a number of researchers have shown that paradigmatic relations between word-formations sharing a lexemic root are exploited as a cohesive device in texts. See in this regard the studies of Brethauer (1931), Hausmann (1974),, Vladova (1975), Lev (1978), Sved (1978), Schröder (1978), Uluxanov (1979), Aphek and Tobin (1981), Rettig (1981), Kastovsky (1982), Jelitte (1991). The first occurrence of a formed word in a conversation or written text seems to function as an activating signal for all further word formation activity, and may provoke the use of the a form of the lexeme base later in the text; the distribution and order of occurrence of words related through wordformation can be consciously manipulated as a stylistic device or as support of the development of an argument or thought; further, the frequent or regular occurrence of different formations related through word-formation functions as a (text) coherence device; plays on words in texts are made possible by delexicalizing or deidiomatizing words in order to use them in connection with other words; semantic features of lexical items that are e.g. the result of lexicalization can also be neutralized; words can be given new concrete and/or non-lexicalized meanings according to the context in order to empha-

84 Formal concepts: model-building size the semantic relationship with their stems; further, the "usual", lexically fixed form-meaning combination can be replaced by another in order to obtain a series of similarly sounding formations (e.g. all stems with the same affix, with the same "ablaut" etc.); this strategy is connected to another sort of word-formation paradigmaticity, namely that of the set of lexemes in the same lexico-semantic class created by the same operation or at least by means of the same form rule. Some German examples of textual exploitation of relations between word-formations are given in (10): (10)

a.

...denn seine Nägel wollen und wollen nicht zu Glänze kommen. Unsereinem frißt der Sauerteig das Glänzige hinfort...(E. Strittmatter, Der Laden, p. 75) '...for his nails just don't want to come to a shine. With our kind the sourdough eats the shiny [-ness] away ...'

b.

Mal riecht es zwiebelig, mal gewürzkörnig, mal lorbeerblättrig oder sauermilchig...(E. Strittmatter, Der Laden, p.104-105)21 'Sometimes it smells oniony, sometimes spicecorny..., sometimes bayleafy or sourmilky'

In all these and other cases, the text-related phenomena make sense to the receiver of the text only when they are based upon a paradigmatic structural principle; this is also valid — or even especially so — for the case of offenses against "normality", as only measured against this can such freedoms or creativity be appreciated. Pending the investigation reported in Chapter 7, we will hypothesize that word-formation paradigms are necessary constructs in morphology, and in the following sections, shall set about making proposals for their structure.

3.7.2. The nature of the word-formation paradigm In this section, we will consider more closely what a paradigm is and attempt to determine, based on a characterization of the inflectional paradigm and the essential differences between inflection and word-formation as discussed in 3.2.4.1., the nature of the word-formation paradigm. We will begin from the assumption that the two constructs are as similar as they can be given these differences. First of all, the term "paradigm" corresponds to several different theoretical notions — traditionally, the "exemplary paradigm" as a pattern

The word-formation paradigm 85

valid for a lexico-syntactic class (nouns, for example) or a subclass, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the set of forms (or operations) corresponding to one lexeme, e.g. the paradigm of the French verb FAIRE, unique in French verbal morphology. We will thus differentiate between the paradigm as a morphological structure, represented as a set of paths between a base and appropriate operations, and the individual, "lexical" paradigm, represented as a structured pattern of "instructions" for operations on stems, where feasible. Let us consider first the "lexical" version of the paradigm. In inflection, at least one stem must be specified, but possibly no more; for a language with inflectional classes, class specification may be sufficient to allow the requisite choices of path in the greater inflectional paradigm to be made. The specification of individual items such as suppletive elements is relatively rare. In other words, under the assumption of a "minimal" lexicon, the inflectional paradigm has minimal representation there. If we ask for forms of the "individual" paradigm, normally we are accessing the morphological paradigm to produce them (see Pounder 1996 for a proposal of a corresponding structure for German noun inflection). We can expect, though, that the situation will be different with wordformation, seeing as the function of word-formation is to create lexemes — lexical items. We can expect there to be greater lexical representation of the paradigm, meaning "attested" or currently circulating formations will be contained in the lexicon, as well as any formation with additional idiosyncratic elements. Relations obtaining within the individual paradigm, meaning the set of word-formations with a common lexeme base, are crucial. The description of word-formation paradigms in a given language, therefore, must be a description of both lexical and morphological versions of the structures and the relationship between them. The morphological version is not less important than in inflection, but the lexical version is more so. Suppletion, a non-predictable stem or word-form member of the paradigm by virtue of its meaning but whose form is not representable as one or more operations on a base of a lexeme, is typically associated with the (lexical) inflectional paradigm (e.g. the stem war in the German paradigm of SEIN 'be'). Is it a property of the word-formation paradigm too? If suppletion can be used to mean that a given stem is not completely representable as an operation on a base, but that the base is still present, then yes, suppletion in word-formation does exist. For example, consider German GEFAHR 'danger', GEFÄHRDEN 'endanger', where the /d/ in the derived stem is epithetic. This anomaly of stem creation must be specified, but otherwise — formally, syntactically, semantically — the derivation is normal. However, the

86 Formal concepts: model-building answer is not so immediate when we consider formations with a different lexical base altogether. For example, it has been proposed (e.g. by Dressier 1985b) that an adjective of origin such as STEPHANOIS used with a place whose modern official name is different, here ST. ETIENNE (France), is suppletional. The origin of the adjective is a "learned", classical Latin base as opposed to that derived "naturally" from the popular (other examples of "place-name suppletion" in French: CASTROTHEODORICEEN for CHÄTEAU-THIERRY, AREDIEN for SAINT-YRffiIX-LA-PERCHE, BELLIFONTAIN for FONTAESTEBLEAU, CAROLOREGIEN for CHARLEROI). In inflection, we expect that all the possible paths in the (morphological) paradigm structure will be taken for an individual lexeme; in other words, every operation will apply that can do so, given the information in the syntactics of the lexeme, of the base, and of the operations in question. This entails that there will be one operation for every appropriate semantic rule. This fact makes possible "paradigmatic cohesion" of the type required for suppletion to work; there is an obligatory path "missing", to be supplied by a non-related stem or a complete, at least partially unanalyzable word-form. In the case of word-formation, however, selection of paths is not obligatory; there is no expectation that a path must be selected to produce a formation for each possible or appropriate semantic rule. Therefore, if a derived lexeme is available to the speaker whose meaning stands in a relation to that of another equivalent to a semantic rule, it is not necessarily the case that a word-formation relation exists between the two. The lack of obligatoriness in word-formation, as opposed to inflection, means that a shared lexemic origin must be present for the establishment of a word-formation relation, or, in other words, some regular relation of form must be present. STEPHANOIS and SAINT-ETIENNE are no more members of the same paradigm than are, say, BROOM and SWEEP, the semantic and syntactic relations between which parallel those holding between many a word-formation pair (e.g. OPEN, OPENER). We will thus stipulate that a suppletion relation, or a suppletional member of the word-formation paradigm has a prerequisite of form that an inflectional paradigm does not22. We are implying, moreover, that whatever the phenomenon of "paradigmatic cohesion" is, it is inherently stronger in the inflectional paradigm. The same reasoning applies to "paradigmatic gaps" or defective paradigms as they are traditionally known in inflection. The term is used to refer to formations corresponding to correct paths in the morphological paradigm but which are not attested in the lexical paradigm. As an inflectional form does not need to be attested or even to have been produced in order to exist — the morphological paradigm being defining — the only time a defective

The word-formation paradigm

87

paradigm can exist in inflection is when a lexically necessary element is missing, such as a stem or even a word-form in a highly "suppletional" paradigm. Again, "defectivity" is a property of the lexical version of the paradigm. In word-formation, due once more to the lack of obligatoriness, there cannot be a defective lexical paradigm; there is no system-defined number of members, or type of members, it must contain. We may interpret a "gap" as a disparity between the lexical and morphological paradigm; it may be filled in at any time, by applying a correct sequence of operations in an appropriate path in the morphological paradigm. Thus it can be seen that at least some of the essential differences between the inflectional paradigm and the word-formation paradigm have to do with the property of obligatoriness defining inflection, and the function of word-formation as creation of lexemes. There are no particular implications of these differences for the structure of the paradigm, however.

3.7.3. Modelling the word-formation

paradigm

We now turn to the question of how the the lexical and morphological paradigms associated with the word-formation subcomponent may be formally represented. A number of proposals have been made in the literature, which we shall briefly review.

3.7.3.1. Redundancy rules: the lexical paradigm The paradigm — inflectional or word-formational — as such plays no real role in generative approaches (with the exception of Williams 1981, which does not seem to have had sufficient resonance), in which morphology usually has no autonomous status anyway. Almost without exception, only those word-formation relationships existing between lexical elements that consist of the pair base - derivate are studied, as opposed to relationships between derivates of the same base, for example. In some lexicalist approaches to word-formation morphology, complex lexical elements that are not merely related by means of productive rules without additional lexical meaning elements, so that they appear in the lexicon, are connected to each other by means of so-called "redundancy rules" (Jackendoff 1975; Gragg 1978). Note that here it is two entries that are being related, rather than two elements of the same entry. In Chapter 2 this suggestion was rejected or rather relativized; on the other hand, redundancy rules could be understood

88 Formal concepts:

model-building

as such associations that were suggested in the equivalent model (i.e. instead of the image in which information is stored in several places in the physical sense, the idea that there are relays between elements of information that function in such a way that they are reachable from many points). The following aspects are to be evaluated positively: 1) "rules" or associations of this type are not obligatory, i.e. individual speaker differences may be expressed. This is surely correct. 2) even where non-predictability exists, important systematic aspects must be recognized, so that both systematic and non-systematic phenomena are expressible and can be taken into account. In other words, this represents an improvement over the common instant relegation of a word-formation to the lexicon as an unanalyzed object once some part of it is recognized as being idiosyncratic. On the other hand, the concept of the redundancy rule may be criticized (see also Wolff 1984: 6) in that only static paradigmatic relations are expressed, and as is generally the case in lexicalist approaches, the dynamic creative aspect of word-formation is not done justice to, if mentioned at all: in other words, there is no morphological version of the paradigm. Also, the definition of "idiosyncratic" is too arbitrary or remains undefined; there is no separation effected between lexical semantic and word-formation semantic elements; in general only relations between base and first degree formations are treated, as mentioned above — and then only one formation — so that all other paradigmatic relationships, semantic as well as formal ones, are neglected. Further, the lexical entries are "fully specified"; that is, they also contain explicit expression of the information provided by the redundancy rule. There appears, therefore, to be little real gain in using such a model.

3.7.3.2. Van Marie (1985): On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity In van Marie's treatment of the paradigmatic aspects of word-formation morphology, the dynamic-creative (morphological) and static-relational (lexical) aspects of word-formation component are given equal treatment, and the dependency relationship between the two is described in detail. In van Marie (1985: 122-123), operations, rules, and the like are brought into connection with the paradigm; although word-formation semantics is not formalized, a separation of form and meaning on the one hand and between

The word-formation paradigm

89

word-formation semantics and lexical semantics on the other hand is made at least implicitly (cf. e.g. van Marie 1985: 284). Importantly, not only relations between base and formation, but also whole networks of a syntactic and semantic type are investigated. Also complex formation is discussed (words with several suffixes, for example). Van Marie uses diagrams such as that shown in Figure 1 (based on van Marie 1985: 142): Here, each figure represents words of a lexico-syntactic category. Relations must then be established between words with a common base found in each of these sets, as shown. In other words, there is a relation between the adjective base GROEN 'green' and the derived adjective GROENIG 'green, greenish' on the one hand, and another relation between GROEN and the derived noun GROENHEID 'green, greenness'. In these diagrams, no semantic representations are provided (as already indicated, semantics has not been formalized). Note that the formal representation is very concrete; for example, words are used without any explicit reference to their structure.

Adjectives

Nouns

Figure 1: Paradigms and paradigm relations in van Marie (1985) In sum, this model provides a useful framework for discussing paradigmatic relations between word-formations. However, there are some problems with it, in addition to the relative weakness of the semantic side: for one thing, it is not clear why the levels noted in the diagrams — of simplex words at the innermost level, of complex words of the same category at the next level — should be distinguished. In this way, the set of lexemes with one affix is in a distinct set from that of lexemes with two affixes, and so on. Although one might be able to think of questions where this might be relevant (e.g. does a given complex base qualify for further derivation?), it is not evident that there is any particular behaviour distinguishing such sets.

90 Formal concepts: model-building 3.7.3.3. Guilbert (1975): La creativite lexicale Guilbert 1975 contains a formal model of the word-formation paradigm, in which the principles of structure of the formal representation are explicitly outlined. In principle, Guilbert includes "virtual", i.e. possible but not yet accomplished formations in the paradigm as well. It is of course of interest from a diachronic point of view when a new member is introduced into the paradigm; this event would escape our attention if the formation as a "virtual" member were to enjoy the same status as the others. The same holds for paradigm members that with or without any paradigmatic replacement disappear from the paradigm; according to Guilbert, these ought to be retained as theoretically possible or acceptable (Guilbert 1975: 198). The question remains as to how potentiality is to be represented. What solves the problem is the fact that the word-formation paradigm as a potential structure exists in the morphological component; any formation may take place according to the relevant conditions and restrictions. As far as the structure of the word-formation paradigm is concerned, the Guilbertian paradigms are of very simple structure, which is principally made possible by the fact that semantic criteria have no place in them. The possible formations (or "transformations") from a given stem are listed, with an arrow indicating directionality:

X+c where X a base, a,b, and c affixes Figure 2: Paradigm structure in Guilbert (1975) The stem in Guilbert's model may be morphologically complex. His paradigms are of relatively small size, i.e. for one thing, only one member or one formation from one part of speech should be possible (Guilbert 1975: 178; he contradicts himself later, cf. p. 182-185), and for another, further development of one paradigm member or node is not permitted, but rather such a phenomenon must be treated as a "bud" for a new paradigm (p. 178). This last corresponds to our morphological paradigm, but not to the lexical paradigm. He contradicts himself here again in a concrete example (Guilbert 1975: 188). In the case of every meaning of a polysemous stem a new para-

The word-formation paradigm

91

digm is involved, which is justified by the fact that a word-formation must not necessarily refer to all meanings of a polysemous lexical item, and even if this were the case, the connection to the respective meaning of the stem would not be unequivocal (Guilbert 1975: 194). Since the relations between the lexical meanings of polysemous bases and formations, although occasionally very complex, are extremely important for diachronic development, and in other respects form an important structural variable, it seems preferable to include them in the lexical paradigm, and indeed in one established with respect to one polysemous item. Guilbert offers a typology of derivational paradigms, comprising the following types: 1) paradigms of fan-shape, in which every node departs from the stem, as in Figure 2 above. 2) paradigms "en cumuls successifs" (from now on "cumulative series"), in which every member is formally built upon the preceding one, as in Figure 3. X->X + a-v(X + a) + b PLAY - PLAYFUL - PLAYFULNESS where X a base, a,b, and c affixes Figure 3: Paradigm structure with cumulative series Here neither compounds nor prefixations are taken into consideration, nor are other types of formation. A complete formal model would need to contain these as well. It is easily imaginable that a typical lexical paradigm form would be mixed, manifesting fanlike branchings as well as cumulative series starting from these, as modelled in Figure 4. Formal and semantic relations in the complex lexical paradigm are of potential interest in word-formation morphology, so that the formal representation of the lexical paradigm should be flexible enough to allow a high degree of complexity.

92 Formal concepts:

model-building

X+a X

X+b X+c

(X + c) + d (X + c) + e

Figure 4: Potential complexity in lexical paradigms

Further criteria for typologizing would include the "size" of the paradigm (i.e. number of nodes, number and complexity of branchings, patterns of formal and semantic interrelationships between nodes, and lexico-syntactic class of the base.

3.7.4. Model of the word-formation paradigm In the present framework, the formal representation of word-formation paradigms have the same general structure as those of Guilbert. This means that every paradigm or sub-paradigm has a base consisting of the stem, and departing from this stem are listed the individual formations or operations. Thus the paradigm has a form-based organization. Naturally there must be further specifications; the following points determine content and structure of the paradigm: 1) lexico-syntactic class: for ease of reading, the operations (nodes) should be organized according to syntactic rule (i.e. all verb formations together, all adjective formations together) within sets of operations of one formal type 2) semantic rules: where possible, operations showing a common semantic rule will be placed in proximity to each other 3) secondary formal rules: if relevant, will also be specified 4) lexical paradigm: all information belonging to a complex lexeme as lexical unit, may also be provided, such as: a) elements of lexical meaning (semantic — referential — distribution): regular elements of meaning ('habitual', 'human', 'object' etc.) b) contents of the syntactics of the lexeme arising from the morphological operation: syntactic distribution etc.

The word-formation paradigm 93 c) stylistic marking d) expressive-emotional colouring From these specifications it should be possible to trace all formal, semantic, and other relationships between two or more members of the lexical paradigm. The morphological paradigm provides a structure against which the lexical relations can be measured.

3.7.5. Problems Admittedly, there remain many unsolved problems with this simple scheme. To begin with, it has already been intimated that the formal representation must adapt itself to the task at hand, so that the structural principles must be very flexible. For example, certain specifications may be irrelevant to a given analysis, such as stylistic information or even particular branches of the entire paradigm.

3.7.5.1. Degree of abstraction of the representation This is wholly dependent on the problem set and/or presentation. In principle the most abstract form of the lexical item should be specified with its morphological structure as the stem, with as nodes simply the rule specifications according to number or another symbolic label. Depending on the aims and conditions of a given study, instead of rule-labels the relevant rule-element or even the lexemic representation of the result of the operation concerned might be used, as long as it remains clear that this is only a concreticization of the abstract object.

3.7.5.2. Membership in the paradigm: the operation It is not quite clear what position compounding is to take up in the word-formation paradigm. In the work of Guilbert and most of the other authors, the paradigm or the equivalent concept is limited to one process type, namely derivation, but actually all processes available in a given language should appear in the paradigm. It is for example important in the case of denominal derivation whether, in addition to suffix formations such as

94 Formal concepts:

model-building

from German PECH- 'pitch', PECfflG 'pitchy' compounds like PECHARTIG 'pitch-like' are also possible. The problem arises from the fact that, as explained in 3.5.4., the semantic relation of interest holds between the "first" or modifying element and its base, whereas in lexical terms, the definition of the lexeme is based on the meaning of the second element. That is, we would want to include ADLER NASE 'eagle nose' in amongst the other types of 'nose' (BLATTNASE 'leaf nose', MOPSNASE 'pugnose', HIMMELFAHRTSNASE 'ascension nose', i.e. 'ski-jump nose', SCHNAPSNASE 'schnaps nose', i.e. 'nose red from drinking', etc.); at the same time, we want to describe the relation between ADLER 'eagle' and ADLER(NASE), i.e. 'of an eagle'. Therefore there seem to be two "places" where the compound should be recorded. The solution I will adopt here will be that at least the compounding stems and the corresponding operations will be included in the paradigm of the lexeme. The lexical paradigm will also contain compounds such as PECHARTIG. However, compounds such as ADLERNASE will be recorded in full elsewhere, either in a separate entry associated with the entry of the second base, or contained in the entry of the second base as a "subsidiary" lexeme.

3.7.5.3. Base of the paradigm: lexical semantic criteria The stem serving as the base of the paradigm is not only form, but also a sign with signifie and syntactics. The treatment of the polysemous stem remains problematic. It was shown above why the setting up of a new paradigm for each new form-meaning relation cannot be justified. In synchronic and diachronic dynamics, this subset can expand or diminish. Also the formations themselves can be polysemous, both relative to word-formation and lexical semantics, so that in order to be consistent, one would have to break up the diagram to begin a new paradigm. It is especially polysemy that plays an extremely important role in relations between paradigm members, and determines the direction of language change to a certain extent.

3.7.5.4. Individual differences One respect in which the word-formation paradigm is abstract is the fact that it is usually an average of all relations in a given speaker community. As is well-known, individual and superindividual variation are important for diachrony in the synchronic cross-section, so that differences in motivation,

The word-formation paradigm 95

paradigm membership, structure, and all other points can be included when considering the lexical version of the paradigm.

3.7.6. Paradigm structures in the process-and-paradigm

model

Figure 5 shows a sketch of the systemic word-formation paradigm contained in the morphological component as proposed here, for a lexemic base of category χ . We consider the paradigm as the set of possible paths defined by series of operations applicable to a given base of a given lexico-syntactic category producing correct/possible complex lexemes. This results in a structure containing paths from a base to potential prefixation operations assigned to slots, to stem operations (e.g. apophonies or conversions) applying to the base, and to suffixation operations also assigned to slots. Each operation in the structure will contain conditions legitimizing a given path. A product of the paradigm, i.e. a complex lexeme, may be eligible to enter the systemic word-formation paradigm of its new lexico-syntactic category if there is one, or to enter the same word-formation paradigm recursively. As appropriate for the language concerned, it will also be eligible to enter inflectional paradigms, also contained in the morphological component. Thus a base such as PLAY would enter the word-formation paradigm for verbs in English, where it would undergo a conversion operation; the noun PLAY could enter the word-formation paradigm for nouns in English, where it could undergo an adjectivizing operation involving a semantic function WITH('X') resulting in a lexeme PLAYFUL; this complex adjective would be eligible to enter the adjective word-formation paradigm where it could undergo a suffixation operation creating the noun PLAYFULNESS.

stem operations Slot -I

Slot I

Figure 5: Model of the systemic word-formation paradigm

96 Formal concepts: model-building

The word-formation paradigm in the lexicon is based on the systemic paradigm(s), but contains only those paths that are actually used, i.e. that the speaker has stored. Whereas the derivation of PLAYFULNESS involves three separate processes, or passes through systemic word-formation paradigms three times, it will be reflected as three stages within one complex network at the lexical level, as in Figure 4. As mentioned previously, additional information not provided by operations can be included here. Based on the findings presented in Chapter 2 and the theoretical deliberations of earlier sections of the present chapter, we are here assuming that in fact the lexical paradigm contains instructions for paths to follow in the morphological component, rather than complete, unanalyzed forms. It will often be the case in future representations of lexical paradigms that the complex lexemes resulting from derivation will be represented as such, but this is only for the sake of convenience.

3.8. Conclusion In this chapter the relevant variables in word-formation — lexical and morphological units, relations binding lexicon and morphology such as operations and paradigms — have been introduced and formal representations for them have been suggested. Central to these sign-based representations were principles for the separation of form and meaning, analysis on several defined levels of abstraction, content of affixes as a signal instead of meaning, interpretation of static and dynamic relations, and the concept of the syntactics as the third side of the linguistic sign.

4. The semantics of word-formation 4.1. Introduction Although extensive catalogues of derivational meanings have been put forward in recent years (Mel'öuk 1993-1997,2; Beard 1995), there does not yet exist an integral theory of word-formation semantics; this situation in turn limits progress in word-formation theory23. We need first to establish what word-formation semantics must encompass, and, in consideration of the foregoing chapters, what part of that will be dealt with by the morphological component: or in other words, what part the semantic rules referred to in Chapter 3 will account for. We also need to find a suitable means of formal expression of at least part of word-formation meaning, or a metalanguage for its description (see here the list of conditions on a semantic metalanguage in Apresjan 1969; see also Uluxanov 1977: 17). In the present chapter we will first consider how to distinguish word-formation meaning in the narrow sense from lexical meaning, make some stipulations as to what we want a semantic metalanguage for word-formation to do, consider some of the currently available options, and present a brief sketch of some elements of a system conforming to our requirements. We will conclude by discussing how to deal with what we will call lexical elements of the meanings of wordformations.

4.2. Word-formation meaning vs. lexical meaning Speaking of a metalanguage for word-formation meaning presupposes that there is such a thing as a word-formation meaning in some way delimitable from lexical meaning. A strict separation of word-formation meaning from lexical meaning is rarely observed in the literature. By devoting his attention to the "ready-made" formation, the finished product, as a whole, the linguist tends not to recognize the possibility of such a separation. Should he on the other hand treat word-formation as a processual, dynamic phenomenon and take paradigmatic relations into consideration, the opposition between word-formation meaning and lexical meaning becomes more evident. Isolating word-formation from lexical meaning does not mean that the two are disjoint. One could consider that all meanings come out of the same pot; that is, we can also find the sort of meanings we find in word-formation between

98 The semantics of word-formation

items not related by word-formation. In that sense, the two are not distinct: word-formation meaning is a subset of lexical meaning. One could also say that in a given language, certain meanings are typically expressed by means of word-formation, or associated with word-formation operations or processes; these would then be part of a dynamic morphological component, and these would be the word-formation meanings of the language. First of all, let us stipulate that the meaning of a complex lexical item must be a function of the meaning of the base. This follows from the pattern established in Chapter 3 for all components of the word-formation process: form, meaning, and syntactics. It will then be essential that the description of the meanings of complex lexical items make explicit reference to others. If we consider the proposals for representation of lexical meaning presented in Jackendoff (1990), for example, we see that although they contain potentially useful primitives, there is no reference made to other lexical items. Consider the suggested (partial, adapted) representation for the converted deadjectival verb YELLOW (p. 91): [GOIdent ([™ng ], [TOIdent ( [ p ^ YELLOW])])] Here, YELLOW is a meaning, not a word, and there is no explicit tie to the base adjective. It is thus no different from the representation for BUY (p. 61):

GOPoss ([ ]jf FROM [ ] k ) TO[ ι EXCH [GOPoss ([MONEY], FROM [ ];)]] TO[ ]k Here, the semantic argument MONEY is specified, but could in a sentence be expressed as $5.00, a lot etc.; there is, obviously, no relation established between two lexemes here. There is no difference between the semantic representation of word-formation products and simplexes. In other words, Jackendoff s system has no place for what we are here claiming to be essential. If we try to isolate the word-formation meaning of a lexical item from other semantic components, we can perhaps begin by stripping off the "categorial meaning", i.e. the meaning a word has by virtue of being noun or verb etc. (cf. Uluxanov 1977: 10). For example, the semantic difference between a verb infinitive and a derived "transposed" noun could be said to

Word-formation meaning vs. lexical meaning 99

be mainly such a "categorial", rather than a word-formation meaning, e.g. as in R U N V and R U N n (in the sense of I'm going for a run or a run for charity). It is hard to draw the line between such categorial meaning and pragmatic expectation based on the sorts of things we typically associate with nouns or verbs; e.g. a derived noun will, we can expect, typically denote a person, or a thing, or a place related to the situation associated with the verb meaning, e.g. SLEEPER, which can be any of the three. What is the categorial meaning here? Or a denominal verb will, we predict, denote a state or activity/process associated with the entity referred to by the noun. To begin with, we will assume that such elements as 'state', 'person', 'activity', etc. are not part of word-formation meaning (specifying them would be part of the domain of the lexicon). That would mean that a semantic "identity rule" has been applied in such cases as R U N V - R U N n or in deadjectival adverb formation, in other words that 'manner' does not need to be explicitly accounted for either (e.g. in the pair QUICK, QUICKLY). Further elements to be stripped away would be those providing extralinguistic information, i.e. referring to the perceived world (cf. here Crome 1979: 51). This extra-linguistic information is important, as it makes predictions possible as to the actual or potential relationship between two elements. For example, when a base lexeme is a designation for a type of metal, it belongs to the general semantic class of designations of matter, and his knowledge of the world tells the speaker/hearer that it is probable that an object can consist of this substance, so that he can expect or predict that a corresponding word-formation meaning (expressing origin) may appear in appropriate collocations, should that be part of the system, e.g. German STAHLMESSER, EISENSTANGE, SILBERRING etc. ('steel knife', 'iron bar', 'silver ring'). The concept 'metal' will form no part of the word-formation meaning, and neither will the part meaning 'made (out of)'; this relation ought, according to this programme, to be considered equivalent to any other sort of origin (e.g. geographical or other), as the specific type of origin will be predictable, given world knowledge and the meaning of the base. As a result of removing extralinguistic information and categorial meaning from the meaning of word-formations, word-formation meaning turns out to be more abstract than lexical meaning generally is, and more general in being common to a large number of items. Add to this the requirement that they are a function of the base meaning, and we can postulate the following as a set of criteria for distinguishing word-formation meaning from lexical meaning:

100 The semantics of word-formation

1) word-formation meaning is relational (is a function of the meaning of the base; 2) word-formation meaning shows greater generality and abstraction (and thus a tendency towards the formation of large "classes" of derivations sharing the same meaning); 3) the exclusion of extra-linguistic information from word-formation meaning. Word-formation meaning is abstract because it represents a relation between sets of lexical meanings (cf. Uluxanov 1977: 18). It is not unique to to any single formation, but rather defines a class. This naturally does not mean that these relations cannot also exist between lexical items that are not related through word-formation. If word-formation meanings are abstract, and are derived from relations between classes of lexical items, then we can expect that there will be a finite and relatively small number of wordformation meanings, which provides a marked contrast to lexical meanings, which are potentially infinitely many. We can hypothesize that the set of word-formation meanings is universal, that is, that languages make a selection from a large, available set, and that there will be considerable overlaps observable amongst languages with respect to these selections. Such a hypothesis motivates the catalogues of morphological meanings provided by Beard (1995) and Mel'öuk (1993-1997, 2). It should be noted that there is some disagreement as to the claim that word-formation meaning should be abstract (cf. e.g. Plank 1981: 128). The criteria of abstraction and generality are not unproblematic in a number of respects. It is, for example, easy enough to say that word-formation meaning should be general and abstract — but exactly how abstract, how general? When is the "right" degree of abstraction reached? In setting the lower limit one may consider for example the question whether in "agent" designations (e.g. WRESTLER, ELECTRICIAN, UPHOLSTERER), the elements or features 'professional(ly)' or at least 'habitual(ly)' should be accepted. In some analyses, instruments (inanimate) and human "agents" are accounted for separately (e.g. Beard 1990); also, professional and non-professional "agents" may be distinguished. On a higher level of abstraction, however, these could all be considered the same. The animacy/inanimacy of the referent would then be a secondary question which would only become important at the lexical level. More crucially, and we will come back to this point below, such elements are components of meanings of the product words, and not of the relations between two lexemes or stems. Partly for this reason, it will be assumed that the distinctions referred to are not part of word-

Word-formation meaning vs. lexical meaning 101 formation meaning. Even eliminating these elements, however, will not eliminate all problems in judging the appropriate degree of abstraction. There must also be an upper limit drawn: can a proposed word-formation meaning be too abstract or too general? Some would even propose limiting systemic word-formation meaning to the categorial meaning discussed, with all additional semantic elements added interpretively pragmatically. This, we can agree with Plank (1981: 128) in claiming, is an overly extreme position in the other direction to a too-fine lexical analysis. In the present framework, this is considered a syntactic rule (third member of the signifiant of the word-formation operation; cf. Chapter 3). Again, the problem of arbitrarily arises: I feel that analyses such as those of Aronoff (1984), Aronoff (1980), Coseriu (1977), or Zwanenburg (1984) are also too extreme in the direction of abstraction, but a preferable cutoff point is difficult to justify. Coseriu (1977) distinguishes between "designation" (Bezeichnung) and "meaning" (Bedeutung): designation is much more concrete than meaning, that is only the fact of a relationship between two sets of content. In his example (p. 50) PAPIERKORB 'wastepaper-basket', the designation would be 'der Korb ist für das Papier' ['the basket is for the paper']; the meaning would be 'Korb — prepositional function — Papier - 'Korb, der etwas mit Papier zu tun hat' ['basket that has something to do with paper']. In a compound, only the idea of a relationship, "general prepositional function" is meant (Coseriu 1977: 50-51); this corresponds fairly closely to the meaning of the operation in the present system, but we might hope that word-formation semantics will be responsible for more than Coseriu credits it for. In Coseriu's system, both "meanings" of the compound are relational, one merely more specific than the other; it might be more appropriate to let the "Bezeichnung" be the whole definition of the object, including relevant real-world information, and the relational element as the "meaning" (Bedeutung). Surely, we can say more about the meanings of compounds in German or English than that there exists a general "prepositional" relation between the stems. In Aronoff s (1984: 45-46) discussion of conversion, a system of formmeaning relations is presented as optimal if "each affix has no meaning other than to specify its base and derived categories", i.e. once more the grammatical meaning, or syntactic rule, as mentioned. He claims to have found such a system in the denominal verb conversion of English (p. 46): Earlier analyses provided a distinct semantic derivation for each type... on closer inspection, these types evaporate into the pragmatic air and the semantics of the entire diverse set can be reduced to a simple statement: the derived meaning is that of a verb which has something to do with the circumstances surrounding the use of the noun. This is exactly what the simplest system

102 The semantics of word-formation

predicts should be the case, since such a system does not permit us to go beyond the category "denominal verb" either morphologically or semantically. The whole analysis is therefore very tidy and satisfying. Again, if it is tidy and simple, it is perhaps not entirely satisfactory; to my mind at least, it is too abstract and general. The same general viewpoint seems to be shared by Zwanenburg (1984: 130-131). He offers two possibilities: either one postulates a general meaning covering the various separate individual meanings of a complex word (p. 130), or one "derives" these single meanings from such abstract or general meaning ("core meaning"). In the first case, a paraphrase such as "act/ process of some concrete or abstract object having a specific relation to it" (Zwanenburg 1984: 133) would be possible. He objects to this, saying that" ... such a general meaning defines an enormous semantic space and it is difficult to show why meanings one actually encounters in different contexts cover only part of it ... very difficult to show the psychological reality of such general meanings, which are very remote from the meanings one actually encounters" (p. 133-134). The derived meanings that he then postulates also seem to be related with the one meaning only in an uninteresting way; he derives 'in relation to', 'native o f , 'adherent o f , and 'provided with' all from 'in relation to'. Assigning these to one class is hardly illuminating. Consider in this respect also the "common semantic elements" of the "invariant meaning" in Crome (1979) and in Uluxanov (1977, 1979). Connected with this is the problem that the postulated word-formation meanings are not equally abstract or conceptually not equally complex. This is also of importance in the discussion of word-formation synonymy or polysemy (see below). In the case of adjective derivations or compounds, for example, the most general meaning would be a relation of reference or relatedness, e.g. in the German pair Betriebs-, BETRIEBLICH 'belonging to a factory/factories', 'related to a factory/factories' from BETRIEB 'factory'. Other word-formation meanings are more specific, e.g. a comparison relation, such as in LEATHERY (skin, for example) or MOTHER v . It seems that the difference in abstraction represents a fact: some simply are more abstract than others. It may also be that we cannot avoid relatively concrete meanings, on the other end of the scale, which a full-scale study of derivation in an elaborate system of word-formation might show. (See here also Mithun 1997, who discusses so-called lexical affixes in Bella Coola, which are characterized by having specific and concrete noun or verb referents24). A feature of word-formation meaning, derivative of the relatively high degree of abstraction or generality we are looking for, is the large number of words, or pairs, to which a meaning applies. In other words, large classes of

Possibilities of representation for word-formation meanings

103

words are formed by means of a semantic word-formation rule. The question is, what do we mean by "large class"? Can we say that a proposed class is too small or too large? There really do seem to be classes of smaller size that are difficult to subsume by generalizing into other classes. An example is perhaps provided by the adjectives derived from names of units of measurement, including time units (DAILY, MONTHLY in the sense of 'every day', 'every month'). There are usually not too many such names in a given language, and the distributive relation (as in 'per day', 'per month') is not generally common with other semantically-defined base types. Here, the problem seems to be one of a small semantically-defined lexical class of bases to which the meaning applies rather than an inherent limitation on the word-formation meaning; we can expect similar situations to occur occasionally. In being careful to make these distinctions between relational and nonrelational elements, and between extra-linguistic and linguistic meaning relations, we can expect to reduce successfully the number of wordformation meanings that have variously been proposed in the literature, which have led to the belief that there is little that is systematic or expressible in word-formation, particularly in word-formation semantics. The problem of arbitrarily remains, and probably cannot be eliminated absolutely; but this is a problem faced by semantics generally, and much as it makes us uncomfortable, we cannot solve it here (cf. discussion of this point in Jackendoff 1990: 3-4). At most we can hope to find similar meanings in various languages; cross-linguistic comparison will help to confirm or disconfirm postulated meanings. If we can determine that the meanings we postulate are relevant for diachrony, then this will also serve to support our decision.

43. Formal possibilities of representation for word-formation meanings In the following, we will consider a number of ways of representing what we have here claimed to be word-formation meaning. Most will be familiar from the literature: labels, paraphrases, componential analysis, and function expressions. As we shall see, there is some overlap between these methods.

104 The semantics of word-formation 4.3.1. Labelling The first method of expressing morphological meaning we will examine is that of labelling. In traditional treatments and in informal discussions, a given word-formation meaning can be referred to by means of a label, e.g. nomen actionis, nomen agentis, instrumentalis, etc. These labels do not of course limit themselves to word-formation meanings, but may in principle be applied also to lexical items in general (e.g. HAMMERN, JOCKEYN). Nothing in them points directly to a relation; components or elements of the lexical meaning of the "ready-made" word are meant here. No explicit statement is made as to the nature of the base element. This also applies to such labels as "causative" or "privative", which, contrary to those mentioned above, do indeed imply a relational concept. What these labels do is specify semantic classes of words based on meanings; some subset of each may be words formed through word-formation processes. Labels of this kind may thus be regarded as inexplicit names for semantic relations relevant to wordformation. In conclusion, we can say that labels can be useful if they correspond to well-defined concepts. In the present exercise, we wish to try at least to restrict ourselves to relational concepts, so that not all of the traditional labels will be of interest. In addition, one must exercise caution by not overemphasizing the lexical classes or meanings of the products, e.g. "instrumentalis", in light of what was said in the preceding section. The traditional labels have the advantage of being familiar and thus generally comprehensible (although precisely for that reason, care must be taken with definitions).

4.3.2. The paraphrase The paraphrase has been put to various uses in the study of word-formation. In some, for example of the early transformationalist type, the explanatory paraphrase appears to be actually underlying a word-formation. It was apparently seriously claimed that the subjects proposed in the paraphrases corresponded to some reality. Consider the following examples from Marchand (1969), in a structuralist framework using a type of transformation: (11)

a..

washing-machine ) may have a predictable structure — i.e. set of operations — based on the lexico-semantic class of the base, as in German for classes of denominal adjectives from bases denoting Abstracts as opposed to Concrete Objects (see Chapter 7 for details). 8) This final norm is not directly based on the contents of the morphological component, but rather on the actual production of word-formation as opposed to expression by other means. In other words, we are concerned here with the probability that to express an idea, word-formation rather than other means will be preferred. It can further refer to the absolute productivity of one process relative to another in the same lexical-semantic domain. For example, there is a clear preference for compounding over denominal adjective derivation in German where the base belongs to the semantic class of Concrete Objects; the preference in Russian, on the other hand, is for derivation over compounding in the same domain. This is a purely evaluative norm. The "normality" of lexemes may be rated acccording to it. It is clear that this productivity norm overlaps with Norm I, namely, where speakers including "language controllers" react to new formations.

5.3.3.2. Norm Π and productivity Wurzel determines his system-defining properties exclusively according to frequency of occurrence: the property that is to be found in a majority of elements is declared to be system-defining. Thus the system-dependent norm is defined purely in terms of frequency, and token frequency at that, it would appear. Perhaps the reasoning here is that frequency is the only variable that a speaker can observe directly, and as "normality" must be determinable for a speaker, so must norm be directly derivable from frequency. I would claim, however, that speakers do indeed have a perhaps unconscious but quite precise notion of productivity, and can — and do — accurately assess relative productivity of operations (see here also Anshen and Aronoff 1981, 1988). It seems intuitively plausible that productivity is at least partially determinant for norm, and may indeed be entirely so when the norm in question is directly relatable to the structural level of the operation. If we define productivity as the probability that an operation will be carried out in its defined domain, then if an operation has a "high" productivity in its domain or subdomain, it will be "normal", and its products will be normal. Here, there is a clear relation between productivity and normality.

Norm 151

Productivity is determined for word-formation on the basis of new formations, and possibly reinterpretation of "older" lexemes. However, the lexicon contains many lexemes formed when a given operation was not so productive as at the time of evaluation, or when it had different syntactics, or when the dynamics of other operations affected it differently. We can expect that there will thus be a continual reevaluation of existing lexemes, as well as an evaluation of new creations. Thus the status of existing lexemes, lexically entrenched, will change over time as a function of productivity. It thus seems clear that high productivity entails normality, or defines the norm. So, then, what about operations whose productivity is lower than that of others in the same domain, but is growing? At the moment of evaluation, their "market share" will be less, that is, there will be fewer corresponding lexemes, and thus lower frequency, than for other operations. However, if these operations are becoming increasingly productive, they are becoming increasingly normal: in spite of the possibly low "market share", the probability of their being applied is high. Therefore, they help define what is normal for new creations; they define the norm. Again, even in a situation where frequency is low, productivity determines normality. What about cases in which many formations exist, that is, are members of lexical paradigms, but the operation is no longer very productive? The probability of the operation's being applied to a new formation is low; the operation is available in the morphological paradigm, but marked as being non- or little productive. Therefore, we can expect that the existing lexemes, numerous or not, will be evaluated as less normal or abnormal, and further, that this may be reflected in the extent to which they persist in the lexicon. The hypothesis here is once more that productivity, and not frequency, determines the norm. If it is correct that productivity, and not frequency, determine norm, it follows that what speakers observe in order to determine the syntactics of an operation is uniquely new formation. As far as old formation is concerned, we can suggest that speakers have some awareness of frequency independently of productivity, but that this is secondary to productivity. It may especially play a role with respect to relative normality of products of a number of operations of no or low productivity. I would thus suggest that productivity and frequency may both participate in the definition of norm in a morphological system, but that productivity plays the dominant role here. The investigation in the following chapters will endeavour to resolve the question.

152 Productivity and norm

5.3.3.3. Diachrony and Norm Π Wurzel's notion of systemic norm and the premises it is based on have obvious diachronic corollaries. Indeed, the claim that Wurzel (1984) makes is that language change will take the direction of reduction and eventual elimination of the abnormal in favour of the "normal". For example, in keeping with his system-defining structural property 1), any "locative" forms in Latin, say, should be eliminated as LOC('X') is not one of the normal category values for Case. Based on his inflectional system-defining structural property 5), a stem-based process such as "umlaut" should continue to lose territory in the domain for which affixations are normal etc. We may assume that both the system elements themselves (operations, processes, rules etc.) and the lexemes or word-forms they create are subject to these historical processes. Wurzel (1984: 89) further makes the claim that the system-defining structural properties are themselves stable — that is, once established, are not vulnerable to change — and have a stabilizing effect on the system. It is not quite clear how this effect might be determined or measured; one might suppose, for example, that if a norm were clearly established, in the sense that there were no strongly competing structural alternatives, it would be more "stable" than one whose dominance was less clear. It remains to be seen to what extent the trends Wurzel predicts can be identified in word-formation, and whether the broad generalizations can be refined. If Wurzel is right, we would predict that productive operations and the rules they contain are "stable", perhaps in terms of their productivity itself, perhaps in terms of the contents of their syntactics. Intuitively at least, this does not appear likely to be the case, as productivity seems to be inherently dynamic, and the context of application of rules and operations is wellknown to be variable over time. The relation between productivity, norm, and stability will be examined in Chapter 7. Clearly, changes on a given structural level are of significance for other structural levels, and so likewise, one would expect, with changes in the norm. A change in the sytactics of an operation will affect the normality of existing lexemes and of future formations as well. It must also have an effect on the structure and membership of the lexical paradigms and thus what norms are holding there.

Conclusion 153 5.3.4. Relations between Norm I and Norm II The interrelationships between Norm I and Norm Π will be investigated in Chapters 7 and 8 in detail. Clearly, there are points in the system for which both will be relevant, for example new formation, word-formation synonymy and polysemy, and particular operations (or form-meaning mappings). It was Wurzel's claim that system-dependent principles (Norm Π) have precedence over those of Norm I (Wurzel 1984:113,207); further that the latter can only be effective when principles of Norm Π are not relevant or when there is no conflict between the two. This ties in with the questions about the relationship between prescriptive activity and language change listed in 5.3.2. One goal of the study in Chapter 7 will be to examine this claim in the domain of word-formation.

5.4. Conclusion It is clear that norm and productivity are closely related; it has been suggested here, indeed, that productivity determines systemic norm to a large extent. The exact nature of this relationship needs to be further elaborated, and the diachronic investigation of a subsystem of German word-formation is intended to make a contribution here. As outlined in 5.3.2., we need to determine whether the "prescriptive" norm, Norm I, can affect the system in significant ways. Productivity itself is not yet perfectly understood; we will, among other things, want to examine the relation between the dynamics of productivity, described with respect to the morphological paradigm, and the dynamics of lexical paradigms.

6. Historical investigation: sources and parameters 6.1. Introduction The preceding chapters have provided both a general theoretical background and an initial set of structures and formalisms that can be used to describe morphological (sub)systems. As well, Chapter 5 made apparent a number of problems related to the determination of norm and productivity in a given system and raised questions concerning the concrete manifestations of norms and productivities of parts of word-formation systems. In Chapter 7, we will attempt to observe and describe a word-formation (sub)system in diachrony using the notions and formal devices developed in those earlier chapters. Two challenges present themselves here. The first is inherent in all empirical historical work: how shall we determine as precisely as possible the elements and norms for a system based on limited evidence — and what constitutes the most appropriate evidence? Secondly, how can formal theoretical notions and a particular theoretical perspective be usefully integrated with relevant facts about social pressures on the system? Ideally, our theoretical framework will illuminate the relationship between system, systemic change, and speakers' efforts to guide or modify their language. The crucial question will concern types of causality: can prescriptive efforts such as are prominent in the development of a standard language actually affect or even divert the "natural" direction of language change, and if so, how can the "natural" and the "unnatural" direction of change be distinguished? In the section that follows, we shall define the specific empirical problem and explain how the study was undertaken.

6.2. Empirical investigation: goals and data sources The empirical study focuses on denominal adjective formation in German between the 16th and the 19th centuries, with emphasis on the period between about 1650 and 1800. The reason for this focus is mainly that both this subsystem and the related subsystem of deadjectival adjective formation possessed some striking features at one time, and underwent some striking changes in the course of this part of their history. Specifically, the scope of

156 Historical investigation: sources and parameters

the empirical data will be largely restricted to noun bases of native origin, or high naturalization in a few cases, that are morphologically simplex. Databases were established based on contemporary dictionaries and prose text sources (see 6.3.); the dictionary database contains all derived formations from the base with definitions and any relevant commentary, examples, etc., and an analysis of the derivates identifying formal and semantic type and characteristics, and lexico-semantic class. The prose-text database contains derived forms found in texts with their sentence or phrase context and an analysis of the same type. On the basis of the dictionary data sources, a model of the contemporary denominal adjective formation system is established for each of three "periods", corresponding to the dictionary publication dates39. This model contains all the structural levels described in Chapter 3 and the elements of semantic structure described in Chapter 4: we will postulate rule elements, rules and their conditions, operations and their conditions, as well as their relative distributions within the system. Any changes between periods in the systems abstracted from the data are then observed. Establishing the system models on the basis of dictionary data presents a number of problems. First of all, we want the data and the resulting model to be as representative as possible of the German language at the corresponding time. This means both deciding whether we want all regions, dialects, registers, and styles represented and being aware of the extent to which lexicographers prior to the 20th century were capable of providing such comprehensiveness. An established German written standard cannot be said to have existed before 1800, and much discussion was devoted up to and even past that date regarding which dialect — if any one — should be chosen as that on which a standard should be based (cf. e.g. Josten 1976; von Polenz 1991: 136-147; Tauchmann 1992: 48-51). It seems most reasonable therefore that we should hope our early lexicographers will not have restricted themselves too markedly to their home dialects, but will list bases and formations that can be presumed to be at least familiar to most speakers of German. This will not prevent at least some dialect forms from appearing in the database — but given the stage(s) of development of the standard, it would not be desirable to exclude them, as dialectal elements had a different status from what they do in the 20th century. At the same time, to balance any potential dialect bias, we can make use of the database from text sources which will be chosen such that regional variety for each period will be provided for. It is comforting to note that Bentzinger (1992: 217) found no significant differences in word-formation behaviour amongst a wide selection of texts from across the German-speaking area in approximately the same time-period.

Goals and data sources 157

As far as styles and registers are concerned, a number of difficulties present themselves. In modern linguistics, the claim has been that the spoken language rather than the written should form the basis of analysis, although in actual practice it is very much the written standard that has been the focus of study, in syntax and morphology at any rate. The corresponding assumption in historical linguistics is that it is the spoken language, not the written, in which change manifests itself first both temporally and in terms of affecting the primary system of the language. The assumption itself is not unproblematic — we surely do not have to look hard to find significant changes that were effected in the written, literary or high style and then became generalized to all written styles and ultimately to speech. In German particularly, the influence of the written language on the spoken has been strong (cf. e.g. von Polenz 1991: 239-242; Mattheier 1991). Given the trouble of finding access to the spoken language of three hundred years ago, we will of course have to make use of written language sources, but which ones? Literary or learned varieties of the written language may present distortions such as archaic forms, and possibly formations that break or contradict conditions on rules or operations in ways unacceptable to the general populace. These latter are of course in their own right of great interest — but are not useful when trying to establish norms for the common language. Literary sources may also contain formations created in full accordance with norms but which do not have general currency; this as a mere exploitation of the system is not particularly problematic, unless our assessments of productivity of a particular formation type become distorted. As a middle ground, we have chosen to exclude literary sources form our investigation and to focus on a close approximation to colloquial, everyday language in our text sources, while recognizing that we do not know enough to be able to say at what level or what register language change primarily takes place, if indeed it can be restricted to one such.40 The works selected are for the most part books of instruction, generally in cooking, home medicine, farming, and householding. The early works particularly are written in the second person singular ("You shouldn't let the sauce boil too long..."), and in a familiar, sometimes even chatty, tone; their authors may not be highly educated. The later works take on a more formal tone and style, while being of the same type. A few of the selected works are pieces of travel description; one of these at least (AO, see 6.4.) was indeed written by a man of education, as was ΑΜΑ, a sort of "conversation lexicon" with bits of information about almost every possible topic, from cooking to clothing to Ancient History. The subject matter of all these texts is generally highly concrete.41 The text sources thus provide a check on the dictionary

158 Historical investigation: sources and parameters

sources; we can verify whether trends or types indicated by the dictionaries are actually in use, and in use across German-speaking regions. As far as comprehensiveness is concerned, it is not surprising that early dictionaries, compiled by one man alone42, are in general less comprehensive than modern ones, with their teams of workers and computers. Of course, early lexicographers had other dictionaries at their disposal — German, Latin, or other — from which to gather lemmas and to compare their own work to. Still, gaps in terms of bases and formations are common. The text sources can sometimes be of help here, for example when formations occur that are not listed in dictionaries. This is of course an accident, when it does occur, given the relatively small number of sources. What do we want comprehensiveness for? If we are interested in the complete history of each word, comprehensiveness is a major issue; if we are merely interested in establishing types and the history of types, then comprehensiveness and the concomitant continuity between sources is somewhat less crucial — and this is the case. Of course we will be concerned to some extent with the dynamics of the word-formation paradigm at the lexical level and the mechanics of change at that level but that is not likely to be threatened by a limited number of gaps or non-current but norm-conforming items in the sources. We do need for there to be a substantial number of bases and formations covering the complete semantic and formal range in order to assess and calculate relative frequencies and productivities of types, and it is to be hoped that all dictionary sources show a balance corresponding to actual distributions. With the set of dictionaries examined in the present study, sufficient overall comprehensiveness has been achieved for most points, even with the understandable deficiencies of the earlier works. The most common and ultimately most significant type of change in a word-formation (sub)system in terms of its ultimate consequences is that of change in frequency and productivity of a formation type, so that we want to be able to detect such changes. This is a difficult task even for a nonhistorical study, as indicated in the previous chapter; here, one must somehow make do with written sources and deduce the dynamics of productivity from the representation of frequency found there. While we recognize that high text frequency does not necessarily imply high productivity, and that low text frequency does not necessarily imply low productivity, we are forced to take frequency as our primary indicator of frequency. We can only be wary of interpreting our results automatically as indicating productivity statics or dynamics. Checks on dictionary representation are provided to a great extent by the text sources; for example, if a type is represented as being highly frequent in the dictionary, but does not occur to any extent in text

Lexicographical sources 159 sources, while other equivalent types do, we can be sure that the type in question does not in fact enjoy a high actual or absolute productivity (although it may enjoy a high potential productivity); such situations do in fact occur at a number of points in the investigation. We can also use the text sources to show that the type is still being well-represented in the dictionary, but in actual usage has become obsolete. Finally, both type-frequency and token-frequency are important indicators of productivity (see here e.g. Baayen 1989: 27-52). As the primary data source is lexicographical, and as a much larger text source base with automated processing would have otherwise been necessary, we are relying almost exclusively on type-frequency in the present study. This is an unfortunate limitation, evidently. Any observation of token-frequency, or even of type-frequency, within the text sources, is purely impressionistic. Therefore, the findings of this study would have to be complemented by tokenfrequency statistics.43

6.3. Lexicographical sources In this section, we shall provide a brief description of each of the lexicographical works contributing to the database and relevant information about the author, contemporary reception of the work, and modern evaluations where appropriate. We shall point out any regional or other biases that the lexicographer in question demonstrates and comment on the nature of the metalinguistic text. 6.3.1. Period I: Maaler (Maa44j The earliest dictionary source used in the study is Josua Maaler's Die Teütsch Spraach, published in 1561 in Zürich by Froschauer's publishing house, in one volume. Maaler, a pastor, had been the pupil of the scholars Conrad Gessner and Johannes Frisius (Fries), who proposed the project to him. Die Teütsch Spraach is described in the introduction to the facsimile edition (1971: X) as the first comprehensive ("ausführlich") alphabetical German dictionary based on German rather than Latin. Up to that time and indeed for some time after, a typical dictionary was little more than a Latin word-list with German equivalents (c.f. e.g. Ising 1956: 8; Henne 1975a: 6). It is true that the recent Latin-German dictionaries of Dasypodius (1535) and Frisius (1556) contained Latin phrases and quotations with equivalents, but

160 Historical investigation: sources and parameters there had been no possibility here of introducing German phrases and idioms, for example, unless they had some Latin correspondent. Maa thus represents a considerable lexicographical achievement45. In this early dictionary, definitions or semantic equivalents for German lexemes are given in Latin and German, although the latter are not always present. Lexemes are often provided with some commentary and further information as to usage, and there are usually (German) examples in the form of sentences or sentence fragments containing the lexeme in question. These examples often appear to be in a colloquial style (example of an example: du hast ein steinin hertz 'you (fam.) have a heart of stone'), and are also translated into Latin. Dictionary entries may contain syntactic information and indications as to usage. The ordering of the entries is in general alphabetical; as, however, spelling was not standardized at this time, a number of words appear more than once (interestingly, often with slightly different content in each entry) under variant spellings. Usually, members of a lexical word-formation paradigm appear in the same entry or a subentry to the base entry (exceptions here are prefix formations and compounds). This would seem to indicate the existence of a conscious and formal paradigm concept on the part of the author — and assumed by him to be shared by the users of the dictionary. Given the results of psycholinguistic investigations into lexical organization of morphological elements and structures (see Chapter 1), this would appear to be a natural representation of the lexicon. As one would expect from the place of publication, the language of the dictionary is clearly Upper German. However, there do not seem to be any significant differences between the content of this work and that of the others; as will be discussed in 7.1.2., regional differences are mainly apparent in the form of derivational affixes (e.g. -in in steinin above rather than a more northern -en), but not at a more abstract level. In fact, Maaler was consciously writing for a broad audience — he mentions foreigners and German-speaking youth in the preface —, so that he can be relied on with some faith. Furthermore, later authors refer to him (e.g. Stieler, below) without comment on regional limitations, which also supports his reliability. It should also be added that some of the sources Maaler drew on, such as lists compiled by Gessner in his travels across the German-speaking area, are definitely not Swiss German (de Smet 1971: xxii).

Lexicographical sources 161 6.3.2. Period II: Stieler(Sti) Caspar (von) Stieler, author of Der teutschen Sprache Stammbaum und Fortwachs ..., published in Nuremberg in 1691, was a poet, stylist, and member of one of the best-known language societies, the Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft. He grew up in Erfurt, and through his frequent moves would have come in contact with a large number of speech varieties (for more on Stieler's background and the work itself cf. e.g. Ising 1956, 1975; Henne 1975a; Tauchmann 1992). His four-volume dictionary received both praise and criticism from contemporary and later language controllers, who claim that it contains a large number of formations that the author had merely invented on the basis of analogy, rather than limiting himself to those in current circulation (e.g. Kramer 1700, quoted in Ising 1975: 51). This assessment may also be encountered in modern lexicographical studies, cf. e.g. the statement in Ising (1975: 50) that "...vor allem Ableitungen und Zusammensetzungen dürfen nicht ohne weiteres als Belege für die zeitgenössische Sprache gewertet werden..." [Approximate translation: 'Derivations and compounds especially must not be evaluated unquestioningly as evidence for the language of that time.'] This is an interesting problem from the perspective of the model developed in Chapters 3-5 of the present study: Stieler is being accused of basing the dictionary in part on the morphological, rather than the lexical, wordformation paradigm. In fact, as the title to the work indicates, Stieler is very much interested in the productive power of word-formation operations, and he discusses this and related topics at length in the preface46. The issue at hand leads to questions of lexicographical practice: according to what principles should the content of a dictionary be determined? Clearly, in languages with highly productive morphologies, it is difficult to answer, as one must determine, if only morphological products well-established by usage are to be listed, the criteria according to which a lexeme may be considered a qualifying candidate. In creating a dictionary of a polysynthetic language, to consider one extreme, it would be unthinkable to list all the complex lexemes ever uttered or written, and in fact, such dictionaries tend to severely limit the bases they contain (cf. e.g. Dorais 1983, 1990). On the other hand, can one justifiedly criticize a dictionary author for including apparently potential compounds? If compounding of certain types is maximally productive, as in German it seems to be, then it is difficult to say that a given compound "does not exist". If we are dealing with highly productive processes and operations, any product of these, insofar as it conforms to the systemic norms, has a certain validity — and reality47. Before we can interpret — much less judge

162 Historical investigation: sources and parameters — what Stieler has done, we must know more about productivity and usage of his time. We will, therefore, return to the issue in due course (7.2.). If, in fact, Stieler has "created" and included formations of various kinds, the question remains of how one may, so far removed in time, determine which of the words listed are not part of common usage, or, far more importantly, are not formed according to prevailing systemic norms. We have, obviously, no access to the speech of that time, and have an incomplete record of written German. As far as the present study is concerned, we need to find some way to identify any formations that are not relics of former norms and do not conform to prevailing ones; the danger is otherwise one of circularity, as we want to use Stieler's dictionary to establish those norms. Stieler's dictionary contains far more entries than any other of his day, and other contemporary dictionaries cannot be considered complete in any modern sense, so that the absence of a particular formation in other lexicographical works is no proof of the unattestedness of a given complex lexeme. We may trust to contemporary critics to a certain extent, and even then there remains the possibility that a target lexeme is current but of limited regional distribution, or that it does not belong to a sufficiently high social stratum to be admitted by the critics. The contemporary texts, then, should at least give us an idea of how well Stieler actually does represent the language of his time, and if particular formations that have seemed suspicious appear in these texts, we shall be able to trust our dictionary better. The entries in Der teutschen Sprache... are alphabetically ordered according to stems or even supposed etymological roots — and it is perhaps here that Stieler shows his most blameworthy (but entertaining) creativity. For example, WITWE 'widow' is found under Z, ZOLL 'toll, customs' under T, and BRUDER 'brother' under M! It follows from the stem-based principle that members of the word-formation paradigm are found together regardless of the alphabet; the entries for derivations follow that of the base48. Syntactic and stylistic information, occasionally quite detailed, is given in Latin. Occasional prescriptive remarks regarding usage appear, e.g. for SÄTTIG, SÄTTLICH 'satiable': "...pro quo melius dicitur ersättlich ['for which it is better to say...']. Example phrases or sentences often appear, although not for every complex lexeme. Definitions consist of a series of Latin and sometimes German synonyms, which can be problematic in the case of wordformation synonymy, as the (often polysemous) Latin words are themselves often at least partially synonymous, so that is is not possible to tell what the exact semantic relationships between the German words are. This is, of course, not a problem unique to Der teutschen Sprache or its time.

Lexicographical sources

163

The dictionary is tolerably comprehensive in terms of layers of lexicon represented. At this time, standardization issues include choice of dialect(s) to form a supraregional standard, and social stratification makes discrimination against language of rural and lower-class milieux likely (von Polenz 1991: 220-232; Joseph 1987). Regarding the former, Stieler comes from and was long resident in a prestige dialect area and was clearly at home in the most refined registers of spoken and written "Ostmitteldeutsch". His vision of a German standard was one that would be truly supraregional and not one that would be merely a privileging of one dialect over others (Tauchmann 1992: 37-38), although not all his remarks on the subject are consistent (Tauchmann 1992: 38). In his dictionary Stieler was aiming for a certain comprehensiveness as indicated, but says in his preface (Stieler 1691: ii) that due to the overwhelming task for one sole author not all dialect elements and not all elements of specialized vocabulary could be included. However, the number of dialectal forms is considerable (Ising 1956: 52-53). Tauchmann (1992: 57-89) shows that Stieler was apparently often unable to distinguish lexical items or variants of restricted regional distribution from those of general or widespread distribution, or to identify regional provenance accurately (cf. also Ising 1975: 55), none of which is really surprising given that an educated and mobile person will be familiar with and aware of many linguistic elements from other regions than his own, all sharing approximately equal validity at this point in the development of the standard. If there is no great stigma attached to the use of "regionalisms", then there will not be a great sensitivity to them either. Where regional restrictions are indicated, these are often Low German and Dutch (Tauchmann 1992: 62)49. There does not seem to be any particular privileging of Thtiringian forms (Ising 1975: 55 claims otherwise, however), although many are included. As Tauchmann (1992: 63) points out, it is significant that Stieler is concerned both to include and identify lexical elements or variants of limited regional distribution. At least part of his motivation for so doing appears to be a demonstration of the wealth of German vocabulary as well as an illumination of related items of general currency (Tauchmann 1992: 63-64). If there is any implication that regionally restricted items or variants are to be expunged or scorned, it is certainly not evident. No more than passing reference is made in the preface to speech of the common people in towns or rural areas (this in the context of a "defense of the vulgata" in which it is claimed that learned persons speak no differently from — that is, as poorly as — the unlearned), and no indication that expressions unique to these strata are not included in the dictionary. It would seem that in Stieler's mind, the refined standard is something yet to be created and aspired to.

164 Historical investigation: sources and parameters

As far as register is concerned, words may be marked as belonging to "poetic" language; Stieler also includes words of colloquial and even vulgar usage (both marked as such) and so does not limit himself to refined speech and writing styles. We saw that at least colloquial usage was illustrated in Maa, but Stieler is probably the bravest of all our pre-modern lexicographers50. His (unpaginated) preface charmingly explains that a foreigner will need to understand how he is being insulted by a "crude" farmer or other impudent creature, and what expressions he must avoid. Beyond this, a hoe is to be called a hoe ("eine Hacke eine Hacke genennet"). Stieler made use of his predecessors' work as well as that of contemporaries; significant for the present study is that about a quarter of his entries are based at least to some extent on earlier sources including Maaler (Ising 1956: 47). 6.3.3. Period II: Steinbach (Stb) Christoph Steinbach's Vollständiges Deutsches Wörter-Buch appeared first in 1725 and a revised edition in two volumes, used here, was subsequently published in 1734. Steinbach was born in Breslau, Stieler's junior by 66 years; he studied medicine in Jena and Rostock and was a practising physician in Breslau for the rest of his comparatively short life51. He seems therefore to have been less widely travelled than his predecessor, and less of a figure in literary circles. His interest in language was evidently extensive: as well as the dictionary, a grammar showing considerable originality appeared in 1724, when he was only 26 years old. Unlike Stieler, he was not a member of any language society and did not enjoy the support of these. The author refers occasionally to Stieler's work and the similarities between the two are numerous. As there, definitions and commentary are in Latin, and German example sentences are given. Some criticism of Stieler is expressed in the author's (unpaginated) preface, to the effect that the idiosyncratic etymological arrangement of lemmata must be irksome to a reader and that a number of derivations not in use are listed (the examples given are prefixed verbs). Entries in Stb contain coded information concerning status and distribution, such as ** for inferred form (a stem, usually; this is used when a complex lexeme appears to be derived from another complex but unattested lexeme), t for regionally restricted, t for archaic, etc. Steinbach takes in general a neutral position with regard to the complex lexemes listed: judgements of formations are rare. As in the previously described dictionaries, the entries are ordered alphabetically according to the root or stem, so that stem-

Lexicographical sources

165

related words appear together or in subsequent entries. Steinbach attempts to relate as many formations as possible to verb stems, and more particularly to the stem of the perfect participle (e.g. geGANGen 'gone', geKOCHt 'cooked'). Following all information about the verb come verbal compounds, then derived lexemes in the order verb, noun, adjective. Lexical paradigmatic relations of all kinds — formal, syntactic, semantic, stylistic — are generally made clear. In these earlier works, word-formation processes are much more highly profiled than in modem dictionaries, where semantic and other relationships between formally related words are not always systematically represented and where the relation is often obscured through strict adherence to the alphabetical ordering principle such that entries for unrelated lexemes may intervene. In fact, Steinbach is critical of Henisch's (1616) dictionary which lists words strictly alphabetically, saying this is troublesome for the reader. Further evidence of the importance of the word-formation paradigm and consciousness of word-formation processes in early German dictionaries is found in Steinbach's practice of including "potential" formations, primarily inferred stems, as mentioned above. A common example of this is noun formations with the suffix complex -igkeit for which there is no complex adjective base in -ig in usage (e.g. **geschwindig as an inferred base for Geschwindigkeit 'speed, swiftness' from GESCHWIND 'swift')52. As in the case of Stieler, Steinbach attempts to be comprehensive even if he cannot be exhaustive; dialect elements are included as mentioned, and lexical elements from various registers including the colloquial and familiar are likewise represented and marked appropriately. With regard to dialect elements, Steinbach was accused by his contemporaries of including a disproportionate number of "Silesianisms" (cf. Tauchmann 1992: 123; Henne 1975a: 25), and this notion that the Silesian dialect was overrepresented has long persisted (cf. Tauchmann 1992: 118, fn.ll). However, Tauchmann (1992: 138-139) shows that this assessment is unjust: firstly, only a very few elements (lexemes, variants, meanings, etc.) in the section of the dictionary studied are uniquely Silesian; secondly, elements identifiable as Silesian tend to be included in the dictionary only if they also occur in other regions — this may be generalized to say that elements with a highly restricted regional distribution of any kind are generally not included (Tauchmann 1992: 136); thirdly, elements of other dialect regions are also included in the dictionary (Tauchmann 1992: 122, 136-142). As in the case of Stieler, it is apparently difficult for Steinbach to differentiate between elements of limited from those of general regional distribution (Tauchmann 1992: 122-123, 139). All this points, again, to linguistic sensitivities compatible with an

166 Historical investigation: sources and parameters

emergence stage of standardization, and to a generous understanding of what shall be considered as belonging to the standard, or what the sources available to contribute to the subset ultimately to belong to the standard should be. It is crucial to note, again, the absence of stigmatization of dialect elements or of any suggestion that a certain element of restricted regional distribution should be eliminated, unacceptable, etc. There is no discernible difference between Stieler and Steinbach with respect to normative attitudes here.

6.3.4. Period 111: Adelung (Ad) Johann Christoph Adelung published a first edition of the GrammatischKritisches Wörterbuch der Hochdeutschen Mundart between the years 1774 and 1786, and a second in four volumes, that used here, between the years 1793 and 1801. Adelung was born in Pomerania in 1732; he studied theology in Halle, went on to a teaching position in Erfurt, and earned his living later in Leipzig as translator and editor (Strohbach 1984: 3-7; see this source also for further biographical information). He was engaged to expand on Gottsched's unfinished dictionary, which led to the compilation of his own Grammatisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch. Other linguistic works (German language, language history, comparative linguistics, English53) appeared during the years of work on the dictionary and in the years following, when he was living and working as librarian in Dresden (Strohbach 1984: 5-6). There is a clear difference between Adelung's and previous dictionaries: the Grammatisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch is modern. For example, ordering of entries is strictly alphabetical, so that entries for lexemes related through word-formation may be separated by entries for unrelated ones. Compounds appear, in alphabetical order according to their first element. The metalanguage is, with few exceptions, German, rather than Latin; all definitions are in German. Entries contain detailed etymological information, and a number of citations from various authors, genres, and language periods. As in the earlier dictionaries, entries in Adelung's dictionary also contain remarks on usage, regional distribution, style, and evaluative comments regarding forms and usage. These are in general much more extensive here, however. The tone of the critical metalinguistic comments in Adelung's dictionary is often very categorical, as may be seen in the following examples found in the entry offreudentlich 'joyful(ly)' and blumig 'flowery':

Lexicographical sources

167

(13 )

"... ein von den wässerigen Dichtern bis zum Ekel gemißbrauchter Ausdruck..." [loose translation: 'an expression misused by the watery poets to the point of causing nausea']

(14)

"blumig, für mit Blumen bewachsen, oder Blumen bringend, wie in den beyden letzteren Beyspielen, ist schon hart. Aber noch härter ist es, wenn man es in blumicht verwandelt." [loose translation: 1blumig, for covered with flowers, or bearing flowers, as in the latter two examples, is already hard. But it is still harder when one turns it into blumicht.']

This makes it difficult to understand some modern assessments of Adelung's lexicographical contribution (e.g. Henne 1975b), according to which he worked in a purely descriptive manner, eschewing any sort of prescriptive programme; this assessment is provoked, to be sure, by Adelung's own assertions, such as the following, quoted in Henne (1975b: 118) from the preface to the first edition of the dictionary (p.xiii): "...es ist bisher in der deutschen Sprache nur zuviel entschieden worden: es ist Zeit, daß man einmal anfange, zu prüfen und zu untersuchen" [Approximate translation: '...up to now too much has been decided on: it is time we began for once to verify and to research.'] or this passage from the Umständliches Lehrgebäude der Deutschen Sprache (Adelung 1782, 1: 113-114): Er [ein Sprachlehrer] ist nicht Gesetzgeber der Nation, sondern nur der Sammler und Herausgeber der von ihr gemachten Gesetze, ihr Sprecher und der Dollmetscher ihrer Gesinnungen. Er entscheidet nie, sondern sammelt nur die entscheidenden Stimmen der meisten. Nie läßt er sich durch Vorurtheil oder Eigenliebe verleiten, die Gesetze der Nation zu verfälschen, oder ihr seine Meinungen unterzuschieben. Er stellet die Sprache so dar, wie sie wirklich ist, nicht wie sie seyn könnte. Er ehret den Sprachgebrauch in allen seinen Theilen... [Approximate translation: 'He [a language teacher] is not the legislator of the nation, but rather only the collector and editor of the laws it has made, its representative and the translator of its ideas. He never makes decisions, but only collects the deciding votes of the majority. He never allows himself to be lured through prejudice or ego into misrepresenting the laws of the nation or to foist his opinions upon it. He represents the language as it really is, not as it could be. He honours language usage in all its parts...']

168 Historical investigation: sources and parameters

These and many other remarks in Adelung's theoretical work must not be taken as indicative of his practice; as we shall see in Chapter 7, Adelung not only dictates and decides, but also misrepresents general usage and substitutes his opinions about what should be for that usage. This was resented by at least some of his contemporaries for whom Adelung appeared, according to Strohbach (1984: 257) as a "language tyrant". It would seem that only unfamiliarity with the actual content of the dictionary could lead to any assessment of Adelung's manner of proceeding as consonant with the claims made in the above quotes. Adelung also works deductively from the rules, as he creates or suggests formations or assigns meanings analogically, and recommends creations of other contemporary language controllers on the basis of "analogical correctness". It is therefore not justifiable to claim a marked difference between Adelung and his predecessors, whereby they proceed using analogy and he merely describes current usage (cf. e.g. Henne 1975b: 118). It is important to realize that Stieler, Steinbach, and Adelung all saw themselves as language theorists, and none of them saw himself as a mere recorder of words or of usage. Their dictionaries were meant to reflect their ideas on language in general and on word structure in particular. For Stieler and Steinbach, the productive power and the dynamic nature of the morphological paradigm were paramount; their representation of complex lexemes reflects this. Adelung is also concerned about word-formation operations and the morphological paradigm, but the lexical paradigm receives more attention than previously, as do characteristics of individual members of the lexical paradigm. Adelung, unlike his predecessors, also felt that he had a role to play in shaping the standard language to come, and indeed one consisting at least partly in restricting and eliminating elements from the abundance of an earlier stage in the standardization process, so that a strong evaluative element is introduced into lexicography here — one compatible with an advanced stage of language standardization. In terms of comprehensiveness, Adelung turns out to attain a high degree in both the sense of range of items covered and exhaustiveness, surpassing his predecessors in both respects. Adelung's dictionary contains a considerable amount of technical or specialized vocabulary, from mining and metallurgy or forestry for example; this is something the earlier lexicographers had to renounce. There are fewer gaps, i.e. words inadvertently omitted; some words appear here for the first time, although they are certainly attested in earlier texts. This is likely at least partly due to superior compilation methods and methodical working habits (compounded by a comparative lack of other distractions — let us remember that Steinbach was preparing

Lexicographical sources 169

his dictionary in the first year of establishing his medical practice!), partly also to his having the work of by now a large number of predecessors to aid him. Adelung makes clear that the "Hochdeutsche Mundart" the dictionary is to describe — or that the standard should become — is that of a regionally highly circumscribed area, namely that of Upper Saxony, and there of the most refined writing and speech styles only54. This represents a greater restriction than that envisioned by his predecessors Stieler and Steinbach. While on the one hand "provincialisms" are in general rejected as not belonging to the desired dialect area (unless they have some particular merit in conforming to the system as established or fill a gap), many such are included in the dictionary. They are also generally identified fairly precisely as to region, in contrast to the often very general indications 'elsewhere' or 'dialectically' provided by the earlier lexicographers. Thus a relatively high degree of comprehensiveness in terms of regional distribution is provided here. The regional attributions are in general more accurate than earlier ones as well. However, some discrepancies do occur (Tauchmann 1992: 192, 21255), and some of these are significant. Namely, there seems to be a systematic attribution of stigmatized elements to "Oberdeutsch", Upper German, and often, this attribution is inaccurate. "Oberdeutsch" seems to mean quite specifically Southern German and does not overlap with the area now supposedly setting the standard, as can be clearly seen by the manner in which "oberdeutsch" elements are discussed (e.g. "eine unnütze oberdeutsche Verlängerung..." ['a useless Upper German extension...'], referring to pleonastic suffixation, found repeatedly throughout the work; see 7.3.). Often elements are designated as obsolete in "Hochdeutsch", but still to be met with in "Oberdeutsch" (cf. e.g. discussion of EHRHAFT 'honourable') — which might very well be true in many cases. The Grimm dictionary often notes "oberdeutsch" attributions of Adelung's and remarks that they are not accurate, the element in question being of much wider extension (e.g. GRÄMIG and GRAMHAFT). While welcoming the degree to which elements of restricted regional distribution are represented in the dictionary, then, we must also be careful in evaluating Adelung's attributions, particularly where a negative judgement of these is given. Müller (1903: 75-76) remarks insightfully that at this point in the standardization process, where the sources and resources of the common language were not yet clearly defined or generally accepted, the language controller naturally feels it necessary to speak out strongly against rivals or potential encroachers, and this was the case of "Oberdeutsch": those dialects which posed no threat were treated

170 Historical investigation: sources and parameters

differently by Adelung, and he added elements from these freely and without particular comment.56 Finally, we must consider the range of registers and styles offered by Adelung. He distinguishes between five stylistic or register levels, the uppermost being the "höhere oder erhabene Schreibart" ('elevated', 'lofty', or 'poetic written style' would be the closest approximation; for interpretations of these five levels and their labels see Ludwig 1989). The next is the "edle Schreibart" (the "noble" written style that would be close to our "formal" or "literary" style except that these do not have the social or class implications that Adelung's term and his understanding of it do), followed by the "Sprechart des gemeinen Lebens" ['colloquial (spoken) style'], the "niedrige Sprechart" ['low (spoken) style'], and finally the "ganz pöbelhafte Sprechart" ['vulgar (spoken) style' (although this seems to have more implications as to content than the German expression does)]. Note first that Adelung distinguishes between written and spoken styles, the former having higher rank than the latter, and secondly that there are explicit social correlates to the styles or registers, with "niedrig" and pöbelhaft" referring to the speech styles of the lower classes. The dictionary itself is intended to describe or prescribe the language of the educated upper classes, and thus it is not surprising that it is only elements belonging to the first three of these styles or registers which in principle gain admittance to the dictionary. Notwithstanding, the label "niedrig" occurs with some frequency; Adelung wants to include elements that might be met with in some "comic" text types and also to exclude elements which the unsuspecting might assume to be acceptable — and to do that they must be mentioned explicitly (cf. Müller 1903: 48-51; Strohbach 1984: 221)57. There is also an element of content here; as Müller (1903: 52) shows, some words which are merely explicit and stylistically neutral, such as NACKT 'naked', are assigned the "niedrig" label — they would be better replaced by an elegant euphemism. A word should be spent, finally, on the label "gemein", as in "gemeine Sprechart", by far the most frequent style level assignment. The word means literally 'common', and in Adelung's discussion, refers to the common, everyday. This is however not neutral; just as in English, there are negative uses of this word, and it seems the case that Adelung disapproves of words or uses of words found in "das gemeine Leben", 'everyday life' (cf. Ludwig 1989: 161-162). "gemein" is also used in connection with dialects, it would appear (as in "in einigen gemeinen Mundarten" 'in a few common [to be understood pejoratively] dialects' cf. e.g. the description of DÖRNERN or FLADERIG); and here the implications are pejorative. For our present concerns, it is significant that within the lexical word-formation paradigm, it very frequently occurs that at

Prose text sources

171

least one member or one variant will be labelled as belonging to the "gemein" class, in contrast to other synonymous members, as in the example of FLATTERIG, said to be "wie FLATTERHAFT, doch nur im gemeinen Leben" ['like FLATTERHAFT, but only in everyday life'] or that of KÜPFERN, a "gemein" variant of KUPFERN. To the extent that the stylistic labels are accurate, we can say that there is a certain degree of comprehensiveness of style/register present in the dictionary, but that vocabulary deemed to be specific to lower social classes or to very informal speech styles is underrepresented. All in all, Adelung's work is a superior example of a modern dictionary with regard to comprehensiveness, systematic organization of entries, and detail of entries. It presents a great contrast to its foregoers in its prescriptive and restrictive intent — and tone; this contrast correlates exactly with stages of elaboration and control (see Chapter 5) in the standardization process the language is undergoing.

6.3.5. Additional lexicographical sources Other lexicographical works were consulted at need; foremost among these was the Deutsches Wörterbuch of Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, referred to in the body of the text as Grimm. While 20th -century German is not described in detail in this book, occasional reference to it is made; the principal lexicographical basis of observation here is the six-volume Großes Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache of the Duden team (referred to as D).

6.4. Prose text sources Here follows a list of the text sources from which the text database was established, in order of original publication date, together with the abbreviations by which they will be referred to in subsequent chapters. Period I: von Hutten, U. Gesprächbüchlein (Jena, 1521). In: Ulrich von Hutten: Deutsche Schriften. Edited by H. Mettke. Leipzig:VEB 1972. (JJvH) Piatina, B./Hubmaier, S. (trsl). Von dereerlichen zimlichen /auch erlaubten Wollust des Leibs ... (Augsburg, 1542). Edited by U. Fabian. Munich: Heimeran 1979. (SH)

172 Historical investigation: sources and parameters Rumpolt, M. Ein new koch Buch... (Frankfurt, 1581). (MR) anon. Alberti Magni. Daraus man alle Heimligkeit deß Weiblichen geschlechts erkennen kan... (Frankfurt, 1581). Edited by P.Amelung. Frankfurt: Fischer. (AM) Period Π: Olearius, A. Vermehrte Moscovitische und PersianischeReisebeschreibung (Schleswig, 16653). (AO) Böckler, G.A. Nützliche Haus- und Feld-Schule (Nuremberg, 1683). (GAB) Schweitzer, Ch. Journal und Tage=Buch seiner Sechsjährigen Ost= Indianischer Reise ... (Tübingen, 1688). (CSw) Elenora Maria Rosalia, Duchess of Troppau and Jägerndorf, FreywilligAujfgesprungener Granat-Appfel des christlichen Samaritans...; Ein gantz neues und nutzbares Koch-buch... (Vienna, 1710). (SAM) Amaranthes (G.S. Corvinus), Nutzbares, galantes, und curiöses Frauenzimmerlexikon ... (Leipzig, 1715). (ΑΜΑ) von Hellwig, L.Ch. Neue und curieuse Schatzkammer oeconomischer Wissenschaften (Frankfurt, 1718). (CvH) anon., Der Medicinische Robinson, oder: Höchst merck= und denckwürdige Lebens= und Reise=Beschreibung... (Schweidnitz und Leipzig, 1732). (ROB) Period ΠΙ: Atze, Ch.G., Naturlehre für Frauenzimmer (Breslau and Leipzig, 1781). (ATZ) anon., Fortgesetztes nützliches Haushaltungs=Taschenbuch fiir Frauenzimmer aufs Jahr 1786 (Stuttgart, 1786). (1786) Morgenstern-Schulze, J.C., Lehren und Erfahrungen für junges Frauenzimmer... (Halle, 1786). (MOR) anon., Fortgesetztes nützliches Haushaltungs-Taschenbuch für Frauenzimmer aufs Jahr 1787 (Stuttgart, 1787). (1787) Seidenburg, J.G., Anweisung fiir Frauenzimmer die ihrer Wirthschafi selbst vorstehen wollen (Berlin, 1791). (JGS) anon., Leipziger Taschenbuch für Frauenzimmer. Zum Nutzen und Vergnügen auf das Jahr 1804 (Leipzig, 1804). (LT)

Presentation of results

173

6.5. Presentation of results As outlined in 6.2., we will endeavour to establish structural norms for all levels of the system for each of the chronological periods studied based on the material provided by the corresponding dictionaries. We have the choice here of presenting the results chronologically according to structural level, so that e.g. one could follow the development of a set of affixes or of an operation type through the centuries, and then proceed to another structural level, or trying to establish a complete system description for each period before moving forward chronologically. Each method has its advantages and its drawbacks; we will follow the second, as it does seem crucial not to obscure the relation between elements and the system as a whole to which they belong. As the discussion of the chronological periods is comparative, the dynamics of change should still be apparent; as the discussion of each period has an identical organization, the reader interested in just one formal aspect can easily trace the history of that aspect by consulting the same (sub)section for each period. As indicated in 6.2., norms will be established on the basis of frequency; this necessarily involves the use of statistics. These statistics will be presented in the form of tables. If we use statistics, we must establish whether statistical differences observed between periods are significant or not. When choosing an appropriate test, we must consider the role that human (lexicographer and researcher) error can play. None of the pre-20th century dictionaries is completely exhaustive or comprehensive; all those prior to Ad contain important omissions, and even Ad has some. The researcher could conceivably miss formations or entries in going through the dictionaries. Furthermore, the "populations" or set of qualifying bases in the dictionaries vary widely in size. Due to this fact, simple descriptive statistics, i.e. a simple comparison of relative percentages, are not sufficient to determine whether variation in representation of types is likely to be significant rather than random, and statistical tests relying on populations of equal size are out of the question also. The G-test as described in Sokal and Rohlf (19953: 686-697) was chosen as most nearly appropriate to our needs. Let us suppose we have two dictionaries ("populations"), A and B, and we are investigating the distribution of two formation types, α and β. On visual inspection of Table 1, it appears that the difference between the two with respect to Type α is substantial: there are 15 instances in A, or 50%, and 34 instances, or 68%, in B.

174 Historical investigation: sources and parameters Table 1. Distribution of α and β in Λ and Β

Type α Type β Pop.Total Percentage

Dictionary A 15 15 30

Dictionary Β 34 16 50

A 50 50

Β 68 32

Using the G-test, we proceed as follows: we calculate the totals in each category and each population, and the overall total. In the example here, the overall representation of formation type α is 49/80, or 61.3%. The null hypothesis would be that there is no significant difference between the two populations, or dictionaries; under this hypothesis, the proportions should be similar in each population. The expected frequency for any cell in the above table (excepting percentages columns) is calculated according to the following formula:

=

n .

In Ν

where Etj is the expected frequency for the cell in the ith column and the 7th row, n+j is the row total in the jth row, ni+ is the column total in the jth column and Ν is the overall total. Thus we expect the populations to have representations of the formation types as in Table 2. Table 2. Expected representations of types α and β in A and Β

Type α Type β

Dictionary A 18.4 11.6

Dictionary Β 30.6 19.4

A Log-likelihood test is then performed which will compare the difference between the expected and observed values to a mathematical function describing what would be expected from random variation in sampling: / G

= 2

Σ

i=l

°i

2i

\

In

where Ot is the observed value and Etj is the expected value for each cell, i to n. In the example given here, G = 2.54. We also need to calculate the degrees of freedom for the G-test, given by:

Hypotheses

175

df= rc - r - 1 - c - 1 -1

where r = number of rows and c = number of columns. The G-value is now compared to a probability function which will allow us to conclude whether dictionary A or Β deviate significantly from one another with respect to formation type a. Using the χ2 function, we can calculate the probability that the variation, measured by G, is only random. In our example, this value is ρ = .112, which means that our data is likely due to random chance 11.2% of the time. Even with a generous setting of ρ

närrisch62 from NARR 'fool'

FR2 < χ Φ icht; 'FR2'; s.c.: N/V/Adj...>

wullächt from WOLLE 'wool'

FR3 < χ θ ig ; 'FRj'; s.c.: N/V/Adj...>

durstigfromDURST 'thirst'

FR4 < χ © in ; 'FR4'; s.c.: N...>

beltzin from PELZ 'pelt, fur'

FRg kugelachtig 'like a ball, round' from KUGEL 'sphere' SR2 < WITH('X'); 'SR2'; s.c.: N/V...>

durstig 'thirsty' from DURST 'thirst'

SR3

küniglich Qiauß) '(house) of a/the king' from KÖNIG 'king' beltzin '(made) of fur' from PELZ 'fur, pelt' stündlich 'hourly' from STUNDE 'hour'

SR4 SR5 < DIST('X'); 'SR5'; s.c.: N/V...> SR6 SR7 ()

wältlich 'worldly' from WELT 'world' sichtbar 'visible' from SICHT 'sight'

Figure 8: Semantic rules based on Maa The functions appearing in these rules were presented in Chapter 4. POSS('X') here may also be understood as POSS(WITH('X')); it will generally be treated as a subtype of the function WITH('X').

182 Denominal adjective derivation in German There are two syntactic rules we need consider for use in denominal operations, as given below: ER, < E N - E A d j ; 'ER,' ; s.c.: N...> ΣΚ2 < Ι(Σ Χ ); 'ER 2 ' ; s.c.: N/V/Adj...> The former assigns adjectival combinatorial properties to the base, thereby cancelling its particularly nominal ones; the latter is a zero function, needed for operations in which no modification of combinatorial properties takes place (see 7.1.3.). These three sets of rules, in addition to some further ones, are mapped onto each other by means of the operations presented in the following section. As we shall see in 7.2.2. and 7.2.3., the rules themselves change very little, if at all, over time; rather, change occurs in the shape of the affixes and the conditions on the operations.

7.1.3. Operations in the denominal adjective system In this section, we will proceed by briefly considering the structure of the German denominal adjective paradigm found in the morphological component, and then examining sets of operations found in the various positions of this paradigm (cf. 3.7.3.). These sets will be formally defined, that is, will be constituted by all operations in a given position with a common form rule. We will pay attention to lexical distribution (stem conditions), interactions and interdependences between operations, and to relative frequencies and productivity of operations. Figure 9 shows the schematic structure of the morphological subparadigm producing adjectives from noun bases (in fact, the basic structure is the same for derived adjectives of any origin; cf. also 7.1.5.). There are three slots in which operations may be applied: one prefix slot (slot -I) and two suffix slots (slots I and Π). Furthermore, one operation, umlaut, may apply to the base directly and is not assigned to a slot. All denominal derived adjectives must undergo a slot Π operation; operations in other positions are optional in the sense that derived adjectives may be, and generally are, produced by means of slot Π operations only. Finally, a remark on the nature of the base is perhaps in order. When providing examples we will generally refer to the base lexeme, that is, use an abstract label which happens to be the Modern German nominative singular

Period 1:16th-century German 183

form of the noun in question, if it still exists. This label may not be identical with the base or stem to which a given operation applies, and indeed, may not be identical to the earlier nominative singular form. The stem or stems, we assume, are represented in some form in the lexical entry; they are deducible from the formations given, and will generally not be specified here. 11 12

13

56 57 59 Slot -I

Slot I

Slot Π

Figure 9: Schematic structure of German denominal adjectives 7.1.3.1. Operations in slot -I: prefixation Of the prefixation operations occurring in the Maa corpus, given in Figure 10, only Operation 1 has norm status, that is, is represented by the arbitrary number of five or more formations. It is found with both Abstracts and Concretes, although only the latter at norm levels. The subclass of Body Part Designations almost attains norm status, as does that of Mental State Designations. The range of semantic classes in which the operation is found to apply is so broad that we can assume that it may be freely (if sparingly!) applied independently of class. Operations 2 and 5 are only represented once or twice each; in the absence of other evidence, we must consider them as non-productive, although possibly available.

184 Denominal adjective derivation in German

1.

< χ φ ge ...> ; Ό,'; s.c.: N, LSC: Objects/Substances < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot-I < ΣΝ - EAdj ...>

2.




; Ό

2

';

< LIKE('X') ...> < ΣΝ - EAdj ...>

s.c.: N...

o.e.: slot -I

c 63l„ J

·

Γ

< χ φ ver...>

; Ό5';

s.c.: Ν...

< LIKE('X') ..·> o.e.: slot-I < ΣΝ - EAdj ...> Figure 10: Slot -I operations in Maa 7.1.3.2. Operation on the base: apophony or umlaut " ;'()/; < Ι('Χ')...> .

s.c.: N/V/Adj;! ,..64 o.e.: χ = (a)V(b), χ, a base

A number of questions arise as to the status of Operation 7, including a possible primary vs. secondary role, optionality, and the direction of dependency with respect to other operations with which it cooccurs. A wordformation operation may be the principal means of creating a new lexeme; the most obvious example of this type is an affixation or compounding operation — in this case, it could be said to play a primary role in wordformation. Some operations may however seem only to "support" such primary operations, and should thus be classed as secondary; these never occur within the system on their own, but always in accompaniment to some other operation65. These are generally not affixation operations, although they may be (see discussion of Operations 8, 9, and 10). In the case of umlaut, the form rule maps onto a zero semantic rule; if the created lexeme includes a non-zero semantic rule, then another operation must have provided it. Operation 7 is never found as the unique operation in the creation of an adjective lexeme, but always in conjunction with some other(s). It must indeed be considered a secondary operation, according to our criteria66. Finally, the fact that Operation 7 seems to be optional, both in the sense that it never is absolutely obligatory in conjunction with any one affix operation, as we shall see, and in the sense that for many bases, synonymous formations

Period I: 16th-century German

185

with a common slot Π operation are attested both with and without the mutated vowel, supports the claim that this operation is only a secondary one, with its main signalling function being that of reinforcing the wordformation act itself (cf. 3.5.3.2.2.). With regards to dependency, the context — that is, the stem and possibly operation conditions — of operations between which exist implication or cooccurrence relations must be carefully stated. In the present case, it is clearly Operation 7 which is dependent on the various suffixation operations with which it cooccurs: it does not select them, they select it. There are two choices in the representation of this dependency: one is to include a list of operations which if they are "programmed" to apply in slot I or Π, can require Operation 7 to apply also; this is an anticipatory context. This option is the usual one, but here rather unwieldy as the list of operations is quite long. The second choice is to place a requirement for Operation 7 in the operation conditions of each of the operations with which it can cooccur, meaning that if a suffixation operation χ applies, one of the ways in which it can affect the stem is to have a vowel mutation apply. Simply for ease of presentation, we will choose the latter method of representation. To make sure Operation 7 only applies where it can, however, the anticipatory context will be indicated insofar as to state that it must be required by a lexical entry and/or another operation. Operation 7 is more or less obligatory when Operations 14-16 (suffixing -isch) or Operations 31-34 (suffixing -in) are scheduled to apply in slot Π. In Maa there are a few exceptions (amongst totals of 21 and 23 respectively) for each type: zauberisch from ZAUBER 'magic' and gauklerisch from GAUKLER 'juggler, clown';67 ahornin from AHORN 'maple', ebbouwin from EFEU (ebbouw) 'ivy'. The forms in question appear to be sufficiently exceptional as to justify including the operation in the "obligatory" part of the stem conditions. If a lexeme were to be formed without the umlaut operation, it would be legitimate, but would not conform completely to the norm for lexemes formed with any of these Operations 31,32,33, or 34. We could also expect to find in other sources of this period examples of the lexemes in question formed with the umlaut operation as well. As for those operations for which an accompanying umlaut operation is "more" optional, there are clearly varying degrees of optionality. For example, of those lexemes derived with the suffix -acht, only 20% with umlautable vowel in the dictionary have undergone Operation 7, and of those derived with -echt, 25%. On the other hand, of the appropriate adjectives derived with -ig, 69% have undergone the umlaut operation.68 It is thus much less "normal" for a lexeme to add the umlaut operation to one employing

186 Denominal adjective derivation in German -ichtl-echt than to one employing -ig. For lexemes derived with an operation adding -lieh, the choice is much less clear than in any of these cases, for here about 45% of eligible lexemes in Maa have an umlaut. Here we could say that the umlaut operation is closest to being truly "optional"; we can predict that there will be the greatest amount of variation with respect to the application of the umlaut operation in conjunction with operations adding -lich in running text and in new formations. As far as the relation between umlaut and slot I operations (i.e. Operation 9) is concerned, there are not really enough examples in the corpus to allow a definite statement. There are no clear examples which would indicate whether it is the slot I or the slot Π affixation operation that can induce an umlaut operation when both are present, or whether only the slot I operation, i.e. the most immediate one, can do so. Appropriate evidence would be umlaut of the stem, an application of Operation 9 in slot I, in combination with a slot Π suffixation not normally associated with umlaut, e.g. one adding -haft. There are, unfortunately, no examples of this with a stem with an umlautable vowel69. That at least the slot I operation can be accompanied by umlaut is indicated by the examples blaterechtig 'with pocks, pustules' from BLATTER 'pock, pustule' as compared to blätterechtig 'leaf-like' (inAfoa's words "den bletteren geleych") from BLATT 'leaf. As indicated, application of the umlaut operation is optional at the system level. Generally, the association of the umlaut operation with the suffixation is lexical, meaning that the lexical word-formation paradigm of the lexeme base will specify it. Often, there seems to be some variation possible, so that the umlaut will be lexically optional as well (e.g. for BLUTIG 'bloody' bluotig (no umlaut), blütig-, for KUMMERHAFTIG 'troubled' kumberhafftig, kümberhafftig10·, for KÜNSTLICH '(made) with art' kunstlich, künstlich). Another way of considering this would be to say that in such cases the umlaut operation is not lexically specified, but that in a given (utterance) instance, the morphologically appropriate but optional operation may be applied. If the umlauted form is more usual, but unumlauted variants occur, we could also say that in a pre-standardized state of the language, a lexical specification may be overridden without difficulty or negative sanction.

7.1.3.3. Operations in slot I: suffixation The three operations applying in Slot I, given in Figure 11, have secondary status, as they must accompany an operation in slot Π.

Period 1:16th-century German 187

O g ';

s.c.: N/Adj; !71 o.e.: slot I72

.

; < I('X') ...>

; Ό 9 ';

s.c.:N/V;! o.e.: slot I; (Op7!)

.

< χ e er; ...> < I('X'); ..·>

.

< χ ® en ; ...> ;Ό 10 '; s.c.: N/V;! o.e.: slot I < I('X'); ..·>

'

Figure 11: Slot I operations in Maa Operations 8-10 have not been heavily used in the corpus, so it is difficult to determine their contexts exactly; within the domain of denominal adjective formation, they do not appear to be particularly productive. There are in fact only three instances of Operation 8 (trutzelig 'defiant' from TROTZ 'defiance'; baumlechtig from BAUM 'tree', and essellächtig from ESSIG 'vinegar'); there are ten of Operation 9 (e.g. verrädterisch 'treacherous' from VERRAT 'treachery', luserig, rinderhafft 'of cattle' from RIND 'cattle'), and seven of Operation 10 (e.g. ordenlich 'orderly' from ORDEN 'order', leidenlich 'tolerable' from LEID 'suffering', and frevenlich 'wicked' from FREVEL 'wickedness'). Some of these cases present ambiguities of analysis, such that the total number in this domain as contained in Maa could be even smaller. The combination of slot I affix -er with -isch in slot Π is a common one for deverbal adjective formation; although there are some clearly denominal adjectives formed in this manner in other corpora, it is usually not possible to determine which of homophonous noun and verb bases motivates formations of this type. For example, verrädterisch could be derived from VERRAT as suggested above, or from VERRATEN 'betray' or even VERRATER 'traitor'. Likewise, although -ig is an affix more rarely associated with deverbal derivation, formations such as lacherig 'causing laughter' could be derived from either the (now obsolete) noun LACH or the verb LACHEN, or schlaferiglschläferig 'sleepy' from the noun SCHLAF or the verb SCHLAFEN. In this latter case, the lexicographer seems to be indicating with his definition voll schlaafs ['full of sleep'] that he considers it to be denominal, so that this possibility cannot be ruled out. As in the case of the umlaut operation, we need to express the dependence of these operations on slot Π operations. First of all, Operations 8-10

188 Denominal adjective derivation in German are optional both in the systemic sense and in the lexical sense; there are no slot Π operations with which they must cooccur, and for some bases, two derivatives with the same slot Π operation are listed, one with and one without a slot I affixation, e.g. for LAUS lausig and luserig, for SCHLAF schläfig and schläferig/schlaferig, for STEIN 'stone' steinächtig and steinlächtig. Again, we have the choice of listing the slot Π operations with which they can cooccur in the stem conditions of Operations 8-10 or listing one or more of Operations 8-10 in the operation conditions of the relevant slot Π operations. These latter being quite numerous, we will choose the latter representation, as in the case of umlaut. Possible cooccurrences of slot I and slot Π affixations will be mentioned in the discussion of the slot Π sets below.

7.1.3.4. Operations in slot Π: suffixation In the following, we shall consider the set of operations applying in slot Π of the denominal adjective paradigm. These constitute the main body of operations in this type of word-formation in German and it is here that the most productive operations are found. Π

·

Γ < χ ® f ...> ; Ό η *; s.c.: N, Opl/Op3/Op5 < I('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!)73 . < 2 N - Syyj ...>

It may not be immediately apparent that Operation 11, the "other half' of the participle formation process, applies in slot Π; in almost all cases, it follows immediately upon the base. However, there is one form in Maa which would indicate that a slot I operation may be applied in participle formation: gelocheret from LOCH 'hole', so that we can safely conclude that Operation 11 indeed belongs to slot Π. This is convenient, for we can thus maintain one uniform structure for all denominally derived adjectives, as in Figure 9 above. The stem conditions of the operation indicate that it must apply if one of the three prefixations has applied; thus it is dependent on them. The operation conditions indicate that if Operation 11 applies, the umlaut operation or a slot I operation as just described may apply; now the dependency is reversed. Both of these appear to be rare (for the former, Maa lists gemäntelt from MANTEL 'coat', gehörnt from HORN 'horn'), and it might not be justifiable to include them in the operation conditions, rather than declaring

Period I: 16th-century German

189

the formations in question to be outright anomalous. However, we do not have enough data to make that decision here. We will also assume that it is the prefixation operation which supplies the full semantic function; this somewhat arbitrary choice arises from the fact that other functions besides WrTH('X') are sometimes involved in participle formation (see 7.2.3.), so that we can avoid postulating more than one operation for /-affixation if we allow only one component of the complex to bear the full meaning.74

.

< χ e ücA ...> ; Ό 12 '; s.c.: N, LSC:Persons < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; Op7! (Op9!/OplO!) < - Σ ^ ...>

< OF('X') ...> < ΣΝ - ΣΑ

< ΕΧ('Χ') ...> < ΣΝ - Σ ^ ...> u.

r

; Ό 1 3 '; s.c.: N, LSC:Persons/*Animals/Places

o.e.: slot Π; Op7! (Op9!/OplO!)

; Ό 1 4 '; s.c.: N...

o.e.: slot II; Op7! (Op9!/OplO!)

λ , vy15 , s.c.: Ν, LSC:Abstracts < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; Op7! (Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - ΣΑ4 .„>

* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 12: Operations affixing -isch in Maa Table 3: Representation of operations affixing -isch in Maa Operations Bases in Source Representation in % 12 25 57 24 13 55 14 8 18 15 13 30 Total 44 10 Corpus 450 This set of operations involves the suffixation of -isch. As far as overall productivity is concerned, this set is moderately productive, applying to

190 Denominal adjective derivation in German about 10% of noun bases as shown in Table 3; that is fifth of nine operation sets, not including the foregoing. It should be noted though that this set constitutes a top choice in the domain of "foreign" bases, which for the most part will not be considered here; thus the affix is more familiar to speakers than Table 3 would suggest. Operations 12 and 13 are best represented and thus likely most productive, each applying to over half of all bases, and Operation 15 is also fairly well-represented. On the other hand, Operation 14 seems to be comparatively marginal. The formal properties of these operations include very frequent if not absolutely obligatory cooccurrence with the umlaut Operation 7 as described above; we can consider lack of umlaut here to be anomalous or non-normconforming. With regard to slot I operations, the corpus does not contain many examples, so although cooccurrence is possible, it does not seem to be very usual. For Operation 10, adding -en, there is one example found for the base HEIDE 'heathen' (this element is homophonous with the inflectional element it attaches as a weak noun, see above). There are two examples in the corpus of Operation 9, adding -er, applying in slot I: in addition to VERRAT 'treachery' mentioned above, also NISSE 'nit'. It may therefore not be justifiable to include these options in the operation conditions; however, in the absence of sufficient data, it would be less justifiable, I believe, to omit them. We can say that while these formal options are systemically available, they are generally not exploited lexically or textually. Semantic properties of Operations 12-15 include frequent application of the optional "secondary" semantic function PEJ('X') (cf. 4.4.1.2.), as with bäurisch 'rustic, unsophisticated' as well as 'like a farmer' in a neutral sense from BAUER, männisch/mennisch 'like a man' used derogatively in reference to a woman (example: "eine männische Tochter... mit weyß und bärd wie ein mann ['a mannish daughter ... with manner and behaviour of a man']) or 'desiring a man' which I tentatively interpret as OF('X') as in "mennisch weyb ... üppig und unkeusch ... über die mannen begirig oder verhetzt ['mannish woman... lusty and unchaste ... desirous of or mad after men'75], among others. In such cases, it is important to note that there usually exists a homophonous lexeme without the pejorative nuance, as in the bäurisch example above, and that others do not apparently have it, such as fröwisch 'like (a) woman'/'of (a) woman' from FRAU, keyserisch 'of (the) emperor'. Clearly, then, the secondary function PEJ('X') is not obligatory here. However, one may add that bases which already have negative associations may tend to select one of these operations rather than another in the same domain, such as DIEB 'thief, TÖLP and TÖLPEL 'lout', NARR 'fool', HURE 'whore'. These examples all have bases from the lexico-

Period 1:16th-century German 191 semantic class of Person Designations where indeed they are most usual; however, one of the additional sources (MR) also has the formation vorteilisch (finantzerey) from VORTEIL 'advantage' with the meaning 'to one's best advantage' and a clearly pejorative nuance, so that this function is not restricted to the Person Designations class. Remember from 4.4.1.2. that we consider here that PEJ('X') is expressed in an extra rule within the operation, rather than requiring an additional operation to be performed. In this way we avoid assigning two operations to one slot; a similar measure is taken in the representation of inflection when dealing with "cumulative exponence", i.e. when one affixation clearly and consistently corresponds to more than one function. As far as association with lexico-semantic classes is concerned, these operations are most consistently associated with the Persons class, although other associations are found, particularly in the Abstract domain. Not sufficiently numerous to attain full system status in connection with any one operation, Animal Designations do occasionally undergo one of the operations in the set (five examples in all, including ENTE 'duck', HUND 'dog', and TIER 'animal' itself). No lexico-semantic classes were specified for Operation 14 as none occurred sufficiently often; the range found was, however, typical for the set. Operations 18 through 23, given in Figure 13, form another set of which at least Operations 18 and 19 are productive within a broad semantic domain; it would appear that Operations 20 and 21 are at best marginally productive in a much more restricted domain. Altogether this set is the second-best represented in the whole corpus, so that its formations will be felt to be highly normal. As indicated above, an umlaut operation may accompany these operations, but does not do so very frequently; of 77 eligible bases, only 23 or about 30% undergo Operation 7. The norm definition will correspondingly be complex here: while umlauted formations are sufficiently numerous as to be "normal", a non-umlauted formation will conform more closely to the norm for this formally defined set. There are a total of eight bases in this set which also undergo slot I operations, the majority of which (four) involve Operation 8 adding -el. In one of these latter, the slot I operation is optional (steinächtig, steinlächtig from STEIN 'stone'); however, there seems to be some nuance of interpretation according to which steinlächtig is associated with a diminutive meaning ('full of little stones' as opposed to 'full of stones'). This may be the result of contamination from deadjectival adjective formation in which this association is regular and consistent (e.g. warmlecht 'warmish'). With the other

192 Denominal adjective derivation in German

formations (grundtlicht from GRUND 'ground; reason, fundament', essellächtig and baumlechtig as described above) this nuance does not appear to be present. Operation 9, adding -er, occurs with three bases: LOCH 'hole', BLATT 'leaf and MASER (base here mas-) 'vein (in wood)'; 'spot'. Operation 9 is optional for MASER — or two bases are being used. There is only one example of Operation 10, regenächtig from REGEN 'rain' (base reg- as shown by the alternative formation regächtig). As in the case of ischaffixation, we will assume that these options are part of the operation conditions, even though they are not frequently exploited. 18.

; 'Ojg';

s.c.: N, LSC: Objects o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/OplO!)

; Ό19';

s.c.: N, LSC: Objects/Body Parts/Substances/Landscape/Food/* Animals/ •Illness o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/OplO!)

; Ό20';

s.c.: N, LSC: *Substances o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/OplO!)

< LIKE('X') ...> < ΣΝ - ΣΑ4 ...> 19.

ρ

< χ e icht ...>

< WITH('X') ...> < ΣΝ - EAdj ...> 20

·

Γ

< χ θ icht... >

< ΕΧ('Χ') ...> < ΣΝ - ΣΑφ ...> 21,

[

< χ Φ icht...>

; Ό21';

s.c.: N, LSC: *Landscape o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/OplO!)

; Ό23';

s.c.: Ν... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/OplO!)

< OF('X') ...> < ΣΝ - ΣΜ] ...> 23.

< DIST('X') ...>


* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 13:

Operations affixing -icht in Maa

The lexico-semantic classes of Object, Body Part, Substance, and Landscape Feature Designations represent the central domain of the operation set. A virtually complete absence of Abstract bases should be noted here. In the vast majority of cases, formations undergo further derivation in the deadjectival paradigm (see 7.1.5.) by means of an operation adding -ig;

Period I: 16th-century German 193 exceptions are e.g. hackächt 'hooked' from HAKEN 'hook', schimmlächt 'mouldy' from SCHIMMEL 'mould', schuppächt 'scaly' from SCHUPPE 'scale'. The additional sources attest other forms without the -ig suffix, such as löchricht (MR), rünzlicht 'wrinkly'(MR), häricht 'hairy'. Table 4: Representation of operations affixing -icht in Maa Representation in % Operations Bases in Source 18 18 15 19 105 87 4 20 5 4 21 5 23 2 2 121 Total 27 Corpus 450 The operation set given in Figure 14 is the best-represented in the entire Maa corpus. Of the three operations affixing the element -ig, Operation 25, combining it with the semantic function WITH('X'), is highly productive in the domain specified; clearly, this domain is also very broad, spanning both Concrete and Abstract semantic classes, so that we are dealing with what may well be the most productive operation in the system. Operation 24, on the other hand, appears to be quite unusual. 24-

r

; Ό 24 '; s.c.: Ν... < UKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!) < Σ Ν - SAdj ···>

25.

; Ό 25 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Objects/Body Parts/ Substances/Illness/ *Landscape/ •Animals/Abstracts/Mental States/ Processes/*Media/*Time Units < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!) < ΣΝ - ΣΑφ ...>

26.

< OF('X') ...> < ΣΝ - Σ ^ ...>

; Ό 26 '; s.c.: Ν,LSC: *Processes/* Abstracts/ •Time Units/*Institutions o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!)

* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 14: Operations affixing -ig in Maa

194 Denominal adjective derivation in German Table 5: Representation of operations affixing -ig in Maa Operations Bases in Source Representation in % 24 6 4 25 137 89 26 21 14 154 Total 34 Corpus 450 As mentioned in the discussion of Operation 7, operations of this set frequently combine with umlaut: of 88 umlautable bases, 61 or 69% show umlaut in an ig-formation. Maa lists five bases for which Operation 7 is optional (BLUT 'blood', LAST 'burden', SCHLAF 'sleep', SPALT 'split, crack', and STAUB 'dust'), so we can expect to find variation in contemporary texts. In general, the contemporary texts are in conformity with Maa with respect to application of the umlaut operation, which indicates a high degree of lexical selection. Slot I operations are not very common in combination with operations of this set, although they do occur; the dictionary corpus contains one example of Operation 8 adding -el (TROTZ 'defiance') and five examples of Operation 9 adding -er (LACHEN 'laugh', LOCH 'hole', LAUS 'louse', MORGEN 'morning (base morn-) SCHLAF 'sleep'). Operation 9 is optional for the latter three bases; the variants are not commented on. The best represented lexico-semantic classes in the corpus are Substance, Illness, Abstract, Mental State/Process, and Process Designations. Bases denoting animals may undergo Operation 25 if the animal in question is a pest, as in the case of FLOH 'flea' or LAUS 'louse'. Lexemes formed by means of Operations 25 and 26 frequently undergo additional derivation adding -lich in the deadjectival adjective subparadigm (see 7.1.5.). By far the most common semantically-defined type of base here is one derived from a noun in the class of Mental State/Process Designations; in fact, we can say that such derivation is highly productive. Examples of lexeme pairs produced in this way are: FLEISSIG, FLEISSIGLICH 'diligent(ly)', GEIZIG, GEIZIGLICH 'avaricious(ly)' from GEIZ 'avarice', ZORNIG, ZORNIGLICH 'angry' from ZORN 'anger'. The contemporary text MR contains many examples of the deadjectival formation type, e.g. stolziglich from STOLZ 'pride', notdürffiiglich 'necessary', williglich from WILLE 'will', mäßiglich 'with moderation'. The set of operations given in Figure 15 is at the median position within the repertoire presented by Maa, with 12% of all bases undergoing one or more of them as shown in Table 6. Of the members of the set, Operation 31 is by far the most frequently attested. Of the others, the only operation with

Period 1:16th-century German 195 significant representation is Operation 33. A candidate for any of these operations may be a compound as well as a simplex, as for example palmböumin 'from a palm tree' from the compound PALMBAUM, likewise aepjfelböumin 'from an apple tree'. 31.

< χ Φ in ...>

< EX('X') ...>


32.

< χ Φ in ...> ; '0 32 '; s.c.: N, LSC: *Substances < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; Op7! < ΣΝ - Σ ^ ...>

33.

< χ Φ in ...> < OF('X') ...> < ΣΝ - Σ ^ ...>

34.

< x ® in ...> ; Ό 34 '; s.c.: Ν ... < Wrra('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; Op7!


* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 15: Operations affixing -in in Maa Table 6: Representation of operations affixing -in in Maa Representation in % Operations Bases in Source 49 91 31 32 7 13 16 30 33 11 34 6 Total 54 12 450 Corpus As mentioned earlier, these operations are almost inevitably accompanied by an umlaut operation on the base; only two eligible bases in Maa (AHORN 'maple' and FLADER 'vein; knot', in wood) do not undergo it, as well as KRISTALL 'crystal' in the text MR. There is no lexical variation here either, which gives support to the idea that in fact the norm is virtually absolute —

196 Denominal adjective derivation in German

ahornin and fladerin must be anomalous formations, although they are perfectly transparent and interpretable. There are no slot I operations cooccurring with this set76, nor do the resulting formations serve as input to the deadjectival adjective paradigm. The three operations 31, 32, and 33 all operate in the general domain of Substance Designations, with subclasses such as Metals, Trees etc. also occurring in the contexts of the relevant operations. Operation 34 however is not associated with any particular class, and as the attested formations having undergone it are not very numerous, they must be regarded as anomalous. These include fladerin (also formally anomalous, as we have said),flieiirin from FEUER 'fire', fräfen from FREVEL (base frev-) 'wickedness'. 40.

f

; '0^'; s.c.: N, LSC: Abstracts/Mental States/ Processes < WrrH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - EAdj ...>

.

; Ό 4 ,'; s.c.: Ν...

< LIKE('X') ...> < ΣΝ ...>

Γ < χ φ haft ...>

o.e.: slot II; (Op9!/OplO!)

; Ό 42 ;' s.c.: Ν ...

< OF('X') ...> .




Figure 16: Operations affixing -haft in Maa

Table 7: Representation of operations affixing -haft in Maa Operations

Bases in Source

Representation in %

40

29

86

41

4

11

42

6

18

Total

34

8

Corpus

450

With a total of 34 bases undergoing an operation affixing -haft, as shown in Table 7, this set is one of the more marginal within denominal adjective

Period 1:16th-century German 197

formation, the sixth most frequent of eight. The only operation here that would seem to be productive is Operation 40, mapping onto the function WrTH('X'). Operation 41 has too few attestations to achieve normconstituting status, while Operation 42 barely does so. The umlaut operation is not normally associated with this set, the lone exception being kiimberhaffiig from KUMMER, alternating with kumberhaft and kumberhafftig11. Operations in slot I may be associated with this set, although not sufficiently so as to constitute a norm. There is one formation involving Operation 9 in slot I (rinderhafft from RIND 'cattle') and two involving Operation 10 (leidenhafft from LEID 'suffering', lügenhaft from LÜGE 'lie') η the Maa corpus78; there are no examples of such formation in the additional sources examined. Operation 40 is clearly operative foremostly in the Abstract domain, although some Concrete bases are found here (e.g. from the Body Part Designations class LEIB 'body', HAND 'hand'). Operations 41 and 42 are not associated with specific domains, although Person and Animal Designations are found to undergo them, e.g. MEISTER 'master', MANN, 'man', RIND. Lexemes formed by means of these operations may undergo further derivation in the deadjectival adjective subparadigm; these in turn may be candidates for subsequent formation. Sets of lexemes created in this way include ANGSTHAFT, ANGSTHAFTIG, ANGSTHAFTIGLICH 'fearful(ly)' from ANGST 'fear', MANGELHAFT, MANGELHAFTIG 'flawed, lacking, ailing, unhealthy' from MANGEL 'flaw, lack'. Occasionally, the "simple" derived adjective is not listed (gewärbhaffiig 'engaged in trade, well-off (through trade)'79; meisterhafftig 'masterly'; schmachhajftig 'offensive'; tugendhafftig 'virtuous' and some others); it seems highly likely that this constitutes an oversight, which could be demonstrated by finding examples of the "missing" forms in question in texts. The additional sources did not provide examples of these — a broader text base would have to be consulted. However, it was noted that formations in -haftig were at least as common in the texts as the simple -haft, e.g . vorteilhafftig 'advantageous', schmackhaffiig 'tasty', lebhafftig 'lively', vs. standhaft 'steady', schadhaft

'damaged, flawed'.

198 Denominal adjective derivation in German 46.

< χ φ sam ...> ; Ό ^ ' ; s.c.: N, LSC: Mental States < Wrra('X') ·.·> o.e.: slot Π < ς ν - s Adj ...> Γ

< χ e sam ...> < OF('X') ...> < ΣΝ - EAdj .„>

; '0 47 '; s.c.: Ν ... o.e.: slot Π

Figure 17: Operations affixing -sam in Maa This operation set does not appear to be more than very marginally productive, if it is productive at all. It is the least frequently occurring formal type in the corpus. There are a total of nine adjectives altogether in the corpus that have been formed by it {arbeitsam 'hard-working' from ARBEIT 'work', ehrsam 'honourable' from EHRE 'honour', furchtsam 'fearful' from FURCHT 'fear', friedsam 'peaceful' from FRIEDE 'peace', frostsam 'frosty' from FROST 'frost', handsam 'tractable, easy to handle' from HAND 'hand', heilsam 'salutary' from HEIL 'welfare', and sorgsam 'full of care' from SORGE 'care'). Some of the formations are of fairly high textual frequency, as are the bases, so it can be assumed that speakers use them in active analysis and synthesis. Table 8: Representation of operations affixing -sam in Maa Operations Bases in Source Representation in % 46 9 £7 1 Total 9 2 Corpus 450 The umlaut operation does not apply in conjunction with this type, nor do slot I operations. Lexemes formed by Operation 46 may undergo further derivation in the deadjectival paradigm, creating pairs such as arbeitsam, arbeitsamlich·, furchtsam, furchtsamlich, friedsam, friedsamlich. The set of operations given in Figure 18 constitutes one of the dominant formal types in the systemic morphological paradigm, being the third bestrepresented over the whole. Of the six operations, Operations 48 and 49 appear to be highly productive within their domains, and Operation 51 is also fairly well-represented, indicating some productivity there as well.

Period I: 16th-century German 4G

[




< WITHCX') ...> < ΣΝ - S^j ...> 49. ρ

< χ e lieh ...>

< OF('X') ...> < ΣΝ - EAdj ...>

;

Ό48';

199

S.C.: Ν, LSC: Abstracts/Mental

States/ Processes/Media/*Time Units o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!)

; Ό 49 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Persons/Abstracts/

Places-Institutions/Time Units •Media o.e.: slot I; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!)

50.

o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - Σ α4 ...>

51.

< χ ® //eft ...> ; Ό51'; s.c.: N, LSC: Persons < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!) < - ΣΑ(ίί ...>

52.

; Ό52'; s.c.: Ν... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!) < REL('X') ...> < ΣΝ - ΣΑ(ΰ ...>

53.

; Ό53'; s.c.: N, LSC: *Time Units/*Media o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!) < DIST('X') ...> < ΣΝ - EAdj ...>

-,

* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 18: Operations affixing -lieh in Maa

The set of ZicA-suffixing operations is associated with Operation 7 effecting umlaut. Of 65 umlautable bases, 29 or 45% undergo Operation 7; 37 give rise to unumlauted derivates, with four bases showing variation (GUNST 'favour', JAMMER 'misery', KOST 'value, cost', KUNST 'art, skill'). We must therefore conclude that both umlauted and unumlauted lichderivates define the complex norm for formal properties. Slot I operations are possible, but not frequent, with operations of this set (e.g. lächerlich from LACHEN/LACH 'laugh' for Operation 9 and frevenlich from FREVEL 'wickedness', leidenlich, ordenlich from ORDEN 'order' for Operation 10). Only Operation 10 can be said to have norm status here;

200 Denominal adjective derivation in German it is perhaps not justifiable to include a specification for Operation 9 in the operation conditions of the operations. The additional sources conform to Maa for this set in all respects. With the exception of the Person Designations class, the lexico-semantic classes specified in the stem conditions of the operations all fall in the larger Abstract division. Thus any derivation based on a Concrete designation will be anomalous; there are very few in the corpus, one example being schosszlich from SCHOSS 'shoot, sapling'. Table 9: Representation of operations affixing -lich in Maa Bases in Source Representation in % Operations 71 62 48 49 46 40 50 5 48 15 51 13 2 52 2 6 5 53 Total 114 25 Corpus 450 Operations involving -bar, given in Figure 19, constitute another marginal set within the system, better represented only than the set suffixing -sam, and there is only one operation that could qualify as being even limitedly productive, Operation 54; many of the formations found in the corpus can be considered relics from a time when it was more productive in some of its subdomains. The form-semantic rule-combinations here are otherwise generally associated with productive deverbal operations, which new domain has become the most active (Henzen 19653: 206-207; Wilmanns 19112:497-498; Flury 1964). Neither the umlaut operation nor slot I operations are associated with this set. The most coherent groups within the corpus are formed by bases in the class of Place and Institution Designations, where the bases denotes some sort of tax or levy (zinßbar 'interest-bearing', schuldbar 'indebted', steuerbar 'taxable'), and Mental State/Process Designations (e.g. lustbar 'pleasant' from LUST 'pleasure'). Other formations belong to the general Abstracts class, such as mangelbar from MANGEL 'lack'. Lexemes formed by one of these operations may undergo further derivation in the deadjectival adjective subparadigm, creating formations such as wunderbarlich from wunderbar 'wonderful', scheynbarlich from scheinbar 'apparent', fruchtbarlich from fruchtbar 'fertile'.

Period I: 16th-century German 201

54.

< χ e bar ...>

; Ό 5 4 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Abstracts/Mental States/ Processes/*Institutions < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot II < - S Adj ...>

55.

; Ό 5 5 '; s.c.: Ν ...

o.e.: slot Π


56.

< χ Φ bar ...> ; Ό 5 6 '; s.c.: Ν ... < POSS(WrraCX')) ...> o.e.: slot Π < Σ Ν - Σ Α4 ...>

57.

< OF('X') ...> < Σ Ν - EAdj ...>

59.

; Ό 5 9 '; s.c.: Ν ... < DIST('X') ...> o.e.: slot II < Σ Ν -> S Adj ...>

; Ό 5 7 ';

s.c.:Ν... o.e.: slot II

* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 19: Operations affixing -bar in Maa

Table 10: Representation of operations affixing -bar in Maa Operations Bases in Source Representation in % 89 54 16 1 6 55 1 6 56 57 1 6 1 6 59 4 Total 18 450 Corpus

202 Denominal adjective derivation in German 7.1.4. Semantic organization of the denominal adjective paradigm

; Ό 2 '; < LIKE('X') ...> < ΣΝ - EAdj; ...>

s.c.: Ν ... o.e.: slot-I

< χ © ver...> ; Oj'; s.c.: Ν ... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot-I < ΣΝ - Σα^ ; ...>

; '0 12 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Persons < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; Op7! (Op9!/OplO!) Σ

Ν -

S

.




.

< χ θ haft ...> ; Ό 41 '; s.c.: Ν ... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - Σ*, ...>

; Ό 51 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Persons < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!)


Figure 20: Operations involving the semantic function LIKE('X') in Maa It can easily be deduced from the descriptions of operations from the perspective of form in 7.1.3. that at least as far as the system is concerned, word-formation synonymy as defined in Chapter 4 is the rule rather than the exception. In the following we shall consider the extent to which synonymy

Period I: 16th-century German

203

is restricted by the stem conditions of the operations and, briefly, the extent to which it actually occurs lexically according to Maa. We see in Figure 20 that the morphological paradigm allows for seven synonymous operations, not counting additional synonymies created by slot I operations. However, as indicated, the productive potential for synonymy for a given base is more limited than this. For bases of the lexico-semantic class of Substance Designations, only Operation 18 comes into question, for example, if the formation is to meet the norm. The only class for which there are two specified productive choices is that of Person Designations, where Operations 12 and 51 compete with each other, so to speak. Otherwise, and for other classes not specified in the Operation conditions, the operations listed in this semantically defined set are available, although their application will be only incidental. It is thus apparent that lexically occurring synonymies other than those defined by Operations 12 and 51 for Person Designations will be non-typical, i.e. will not correspond to any frequently found pattern. Systemic synonymy can be and is realized in the lexical paradigm, as in schiferig, schiferächt from SCHIEFER 'slate' (classified as a Substance designation), or männisch, männlich, mannhaft from MANN 'man', whereby two formations conform to the norm expectations implied by the stem conditions of the operations and another, mannhaft, does not. Due to the low productivity of most of the operations in the set, we can expect the apparent potential of synonymy at the systemic level to be only sporadically realized at the lexical level. With these low productivities, the role of the semantic class in selecting or predicting synonymies is not clearly shown; a semantically-defined set with higher productivities and a broader range of class specifications in the operations will demonstrate this better. As can be seen from Figure 21, there is an even wider selection of operations containing the semantic function WITH('X') — the most frequently occurring function in the corpus. Due to the stem conditions on these operations, the potential synonymies for a base of a given lexico-semantic class are much more restricted than the mere existence of the ten operations would let us suppose, even taking lesser or non-productive operations into account. Within the general Concrete domain, participle formation (Operations 1 and 11) as well as Operations 19 and 25 are the only productively available possibilities, so that if synonymy occurs lexically, only four operations are capable of resulting in a predictable pattern. Here, the choice is between four operations, not eleven; based on frequency of occurrence within the dictionary source, the greatest potential is for a combination of Operations 19 and 25 for a base denoting a concrete Object or Substance. Within the individual

204 Denominal adjective derivation in German

classes, there are preferences for certain operations as well, as shall be explored in some detail in 7.1.6. For bases denoting Abstract concepts, the real potential for synonymy is greater: Operations 15, 25,40, and 48 are the principal choices, with Operations 46 and 54 as less productive operations providing additional options. This implies that lexical paradigms could be expected to be larger than Concrete ones, other factors aside. Here, the more specific lexical class could indicate a somewhat smaller pool of alternatives. For example, Process Designations select "only" Operations 25,40,48, and 54, with the last-named being much less common; Media Designations select primarily Operation 48, so that synonymy would not be expected here at all. < χ φ ge ...> ; Ό['; s.c.: N, LSC: Objects, Substances < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot -I < ΣΝ - Σ ^ ; ...> ...> ; Ό15'; s.c.: Ν,LSC: Abstracts < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot II; Op7! (Op9!/OplO!)

34.

40.

;'Ο34'; s.c.:N... < WITHCX') ···> o.e.: slot Π; Op7! < ΣΝ - ΣΑ4 ...> f

; Ό«'; s.c.: N, LSC: Abstracts/Mental States/ Processes < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - ΣΑ(ϋ ...>

Period I: 16th-century German

46.

205

< χ φ sam ...> ; '0^'; s.c.: N, LSC: Mental States

o.e.: slot II


48.

< χ ® lieh ...>

; Ό 48 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Abstracts/Mental States/ Processes/Media < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - Σ μ j ...>

54.

< χ Φ bar ...>

55.

; Ό 54 '; s.c.: Ν, Abstracts/Mental States/ Processes/* Institutions

< ΣΝ ...>

o.e.: slot Π

* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 21: Operations involving the semantic function WITH('X') in Maa It is thus evident that the lexico-semantic class of the base determines which operations may be selected for derivation, and thus which of the systemically available synonymies actually have a strong potential for being realized within a lexical paradigm. Therefore, the degree of redundancy in the morphological paradigm is not as great as it seems; in fact, the set of operations with a common semantic rule, in combination with the stem conditions of the operation, serves to distinguish and define the lexicosemantic class in terms of morphological behaviour. With regard to the set of operations defined by the common function OF('X'), given in Figure 22, we find the crucial role of productivity and selection by lexico-semantic class in reducing the systemic potential for synonymy confirmed. Operations 21,42, and 47 are not productive according to our criteria, so that they would not be expected to participate in recurring patterns of synonymy relations. Operation 33 is productive for one lexico-semantic class only, so will not generally compete with other operations outside of the Animal Designations class. Synonymy for the lexical paradigm of an Animal Designation, on the other hand, would be predicted to be rare, potentially involving a combination of Operation 33 and Operation 13. For Person or Place Designations, on the other hand, we might expect synonymy to occur more

206

Denominal

adjective

derivation

in

German

frequently (all other things being equal), the candidate operations being Operation 13 and Operation 49; even here, though, the choice is only a small subset of the operations involving the function OF('X'). We thus see further evidence that the relationship between lexical class and operation serves to reduce very considerably the options available to any one base, and thus effectively to reduce the systemically available synonymy. 13.

< χ θ isch ...>

Ό β ' ; s.c.: Ν, LSC:Persons/*Animals/

< OF('X') ...>

Abstracts/Places o.e.: slot Π; Op7! (Op9!/OplO!




A d j

icht...>

< OF('X') ...>
< ΣΝ - Σ*, ..·> 33.

< χ θ in ...>

< OF('X') ...>
Σ

Ν

-

Σ

Α 4 ]

Ό 26 '; s.c.: N, LSC: Processes/*Abstracts/ *Time Units o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!)

, Ό33'; s.c.: N, LSC: Animals o.e.: slot Π;Ορ7!

...>

< χ φ haft ...>


47.

< χ © sam ...> < OF('X') ...> < Σ ν - Σ*, ...>

49.

< χ © lieh

...>

< OF('X') ...>

Ό 47 '; s.c.: Ν ... o.e.: slot II ; Ό49';

s.c.: Ν, LSC: Persons/Abstracts/Processes/Places/Time Units o.e.: slot I; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!)

< Σ Ν - SAdj · " >

* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 22:

Operations involving the semantic function OF('X') in

Maa

Period I: 16th-century German

14.

< χ Φ isch ...>

< ΣΝ - SAdj ...> 20.

31

207

;'0 14 '; s.c.: Ν... o.e.: slot Π; Op7! (Op9!/OplO!)

χ © icht ...> ; 'O20'; s.c.: N, LSC: *Substances < EX('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - ΣΑ4 ...>




< EX('X') ...> - < ΣΝ ...> 50.

; Ό31'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Substances/Trees/ Metals/Animals/*Objects/ *Food o.e.: slot II; Op7!

o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - Σ . . . >

* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 23:

Operations involving the semantic function EX('X') in Maa

The amount of systemically available synonymy for operations containing the function EX('X') is more restricted than for the functions discussed hitherto; furthermore, only one operation of the set is more than marginally productive. Candidate bases for this function may be classified as Concrete or Abstract; Concrete bases only productively undergo Operation 31. Abstract bases, if they are subject to the function EX('X') at all, undergo Operation 14 and/or 50. Synonymy relations, then, are predicted to be very limited indeed here. Again, the lexical potential for synonymy is reduced with respect to systemic potential due to low productivities of some operations and to selection by semantic class. The role of the lexico-semantic class is clearly crucial in determining the derivational behaviour of a noun base. We may predict on the basis of what we have seen so far that a distinct profile can be determined for each lexical class. In the following, we shall examine the classes and the types of lexical subparadigms associated with them. We have seen in the preceding discussion that the word-formation paradigm is also characterized by a high degree of polysemy (as defined in 4.5.2.); that is, almost without exception, the form rules map onto more than one semantic rule — and this generally in the same domain as defined by the stem conditions on the operations. The total number of mappings seems to be about three or four; these are not equally productive, there usually being two

208 Denominal adjective derivation in German that are of high frequency in the corpus. Thus there is a higher predictability within the morphological paradigm than would at first appear, which is likely to facilitate analysis of forms; combined with this is the additional predictability afforded by correlations between lexico-semantic classes and operations. Finally, it should be noted that for a given base, a derived lexical item may exist or a speaker may create one which does not satisfy the stem conditions (e.g. the base does not belong to a "qualifying" class according to our criteria). We will assume that the individual rules and/or the operation being available, the formation will be interpretable. "Overriding" or generalizing beyond stem conditions is a systemic option, and indeed, is often a sign of expanding productivity of the operation.

7.1.5. The deadjectival adjective paradigm In sections 7.1.3. and 7.1.4., we have considered the denominal adjective paradigm from a number of perspectives, while considering actual formations found in the sources only as examples of products of operations contained in the paradigm. In section 7.1.6., which treats individual classes, we will consider complex words both as products of the relevant operations and also as members of lexical paradigms with additional lexical properties. Before proceeding to this part of the investigation, however, we must account for members of the lexical paradigm which are not fully describable according to the operations in the denominal adjective paradigm, since they are not only products of the denominal, but also of the deadjectival adjective paradigm. It is therefore necessary to consider the nature and role of this word-formation paradigm in more detail. The deadjectival adjective paradigm is far smaller than the denominal paradigm, consisting of eleven operations in Maa in total, as shown in Figure 24. As in the case of the denominal paradigm, the operations may apply in a prefix slot (slot -I) and two suffix slots (Slots I and Π); Operation 2 applies to the base80. Figure 25 lists the operations assigned to these slots. Slot -I

XAdj

Slot I

Slot Π

Operation 1

Operation 2

Operations 3-4

Operations 5-11

Figure 24: The deadjectival adjective paradigm in Maa

Period 1:16th-century German 209 1.

; Ό/; < IOX') ...> < ^Adj - SAdj ...>

2.(7.)

s.c.: Adj... o.e.: slot -I

' -bk ...> ; Ό 2 '; < I('X')...>

s.c.: Adj/N/V; ! o.e.: χ = (a)V(b), χ a base

3.(8.)



4.

< χ φ el ...> ; Ό 4 '; < DIM('X') ...> < Ι(ΣΧ) ..·>

5.

< χ © icht ...> ; Oj'; s.c.: Adj < I('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op2!/Op3!) < ΣAdj - SAdj ...>

6.

8.

9.

10.

; Ό 3 ';

s.c.: Adj/N;! o.e.: slot I; (Op2!)

s.c.: Adj/N/V ... o.e.: slot I; Op5! (Op2!)

< χ ® icht ...> ; *06'; s.c.: Adj ... < DIM('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op2!) < ^Adj " ^Adj ·"> < χ e ig ...> ; Ό,'; < I('X') ...> < ^Adj ...>

s.c.: Adj ... o.e.: slot II; (Op2!)

< χ φ sam ...> ; O g '; < I('X') ...> < ^ Adj ^ Adj —>

s.c.: Adj... o.e.: slot II

< χ φ lieh ...> ; Ό 9 ';

< SAdj - 2Adj ...>

s.c.: Adj ... o.e.: slot Π; (Op2!)

< χ φ lieh ...> ; Ό10'; s.c.: Adj ... < I('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Op2!) S S < Adj - Adv - >

210 Denominal adjective derivation in German 11.

< χ θ hafi...> ; O u ' ; s.c.: Adj... < I('X') ...> o.e.: slot II < Σαη; 'Adj- 'Adj...> · Figure 25: Operations in the deadjectival adjective paradigm in Maa Thus word structure is the same across the systemic derivational paradigms81. Unlike the case of the denominal adjective paradigm, the passage of a base through this paradigm is recursive, in that the product may qualify as a candidate to undergo further derivation within it. For example, TUGENDHAFT from TUGEND 'virtue' may subsequently have Operation 7 applied to it, the resultant TUGENDHAFTIG may then undergo further derivation by means of Operation 9 or 10 resulting in TUGENDHAFTIGLICH. A simplex adjective base may, in fact, undergo three cycles (e.g. WAHR 'true', WAHRHAFT, WAHRHAFTIG, WAHRHAFTIGLICH). From the point of view of the syntactic rule of slot Π operations, there are two types of formation; one creates adjectives from adjectives and one creates adverbs from adjectives, as can be seen in Figure 25. It could be debated whether one ought not propose a deadjectival adverb paradigm, rather than collapsing the two. The problem is that none of the sufflxations or other processes is exclusive to or even particularly characteristic of adverb formation; in other words, a given product of the deadjectival adjective paradigm may be interpreted as an adjective or an adverb. Another alternative might be to say that adverbs are created by a subsequent conversion of the adjective, which would result in a modification of the systemic paradigm; such an interpretation of adverb formation is more justified in current standard German than in the 16th century. German at this and later stages, including the modern, no longer differentiates formally between the structure of adjectives and adverbs (cf. in contrast English PRETTY vs. PRETTILY, ignoring for the moment e.g. pretty good). Many formations in Maa and later sources list some deadjectival adjectives in -lich as being exclusively or mostly adverbial, e.g. fruchtbarlich 'fertile, fruitful(ly), sighafftiglich 'victorious(ly)', lügenhaffiigklich 'mendacious(ly)'. These are generally bases with multiple suffixes. Likewise, a multiply-suffixed formation will appear in texts more frequently as an adverb than as an adjective, although adjectival use is never excluded. In MR for example, it is very clear that Operation 10 is the appropriate operation in cases such as welcher sich/... gebührlich/verständiglich /bescheidenlich ...zu verhalten wisse 'who is ... able to comport himself seemingly, intelligently, and modestly...'; these by far outnumber examples such as (SH) ein seer wunderbarlicher grosser fische 'a very wonderful big fish', involving Operation 9.

Period 1:16th-century German 211 Semantically speaking, there are only two semantic functions in the deadjectival adjective paradigm; most operations have no semantic effect on the meaning of the base or in other words, the zero function I('X') applies. Thus one of the principal functions of the denominal adjective paradigm is to create synonyms. It is clear from usage in comparable contexts that the results of deadjectival adjective formation are equivalent and interchangeable with the simplex/simpler forms from which they were derived, and they are presented thus in the dictionary as well. The creation of word-formation synonyms of this type occurs freely and is not stigmatized in any way. The second semantic type within the deadjectival adjective paradigm is that of diminutive formation. There are two operations here involving DIM('X'); they apply principally to simplex bases, e.g. schwartzlecht 'black ish\ altlächt 'oldish', lindlächt 'warmish, mildish', (MR) warmlecht 'warmish', breunlicht 'brownish'. As indicated in Figure 25, the addition of -echt/ -icht alone may map onto DIM('X'), as in gälächtig 'yellowish' (from GELB, base in this formation gel-), although this appears on the basis of Maa at least to be much rarer than the additional application of Operation 3. In the case cited, the fact that the base ends in Ν likely plays a role in the choice of Operation 6. The form rules in the deadjectival paradigm are identical to form rules found in the denominal (and deverbal) adjective paradigms, as are the affixes contained in Operations 1 and 3-11. We see, once more, that the German word-formation system does not distinguish amongst derivational syntactic class types by means of form; this could potentially be seen as ambiguous, but is "economical" in the same sense. Operation 1, the sole prefixation operation, is of ambiguous status within the derivational system. It is namely also the case that an operation prefixing ge- and involving the same semantic rule, exists in the systemic denominal noun paradigm. For example, to the noun base brauch- 'use' can be added a prefix ge- to produce a complex form of the same meaning, gebrauch-. Now, the complex formation gebräuchlich could be derived either through the denominal noun paradigm as in Figure 26 or through the deadjectival paradigm as in Figure 27: brauch Ν

—•

gebrauch

—•

Ν- Ν

Figure 26: A possible derivation of gebräuchlich 'usual'

gebräuchlich Ν - Adj

212 Denominal adjective derivation in German brauch Ν

—•

bräuchlich

—•

Ν - Adj

gebräuchlich Adj - Adj

Figure 27: A possible derivation of gebräuchlich 'usual' As both intermediary forms are attested, no absolute choice can be made here; both derivations must be possible for speakers. The result will still be that adjective synonyms breuchlich and gebräuchlich coexist. In some instances in the Maa corpus, an "intermediate" denominal noun is not listed, which biases the interpretation towards a ge-prefixation in the deadjectival adjective paradigm, as in the case of gschrijftlich 'written, in writing' (schriffilich is listed but gschrifft is not), or geschendig 'godless, wicked' from SCHANDE 'shame, disgrace' (note that here an intermediate schendig is not listed either; the coexistence of a derived adjective schandtlich however promotes a path culminating in the deadjectival paradigm), hi other cases, there is little or nothing to choose from, as in the case of ghaarig, ghaarachtig 'hairy': these are listed along with haarachtig, and explained on the basis of HAAR 'hair'; ghaar however is also listed as a derived noun. ghaarig has no prefixless counterpart, but based on other formations, it would seem that both deadjectival and denominal analyses are plausible. The potential productivity of this operation is high; there do not seem to be any particular conditions on it. It applies to Abstract bases as well as to Concrete ones, for example, and does not seem to be limited as to operation applying in slot Π. While one would thus not expect to see all potential or common ge-formations listed, it is probably significant that not very many occur — a total of eight bases — in the Maa corpus. In other words, it would appear, at least on the basis of the dictionary data, as if the potential is not matched by actual text production and frequency. The text sample is too restricted to give adequate support to the dictionary data. Only one example of ge-prefixation occurs (gebreuchlich in SH). For the bases undergoing geprefixation in Maa, only prefixless forms occur in the texts. Before leaving ge-prefixation, it should finally be noted that for some simplex bases for which ge-prefixation in the denominal noun paradigm is usual or obligatory (e.g. GEBURT 'birth', which only appears textually as the prefixed Geburt), adjective derivation may apply to the simplex base only, as in biirtig 'by birth'; in Maa, it is only this formation which is listed. This implies that bases are or may be operated on as complexes, or put another way, that an operation may apply transparently and productively to a simplex base which is represented as such in the lexicon, even though it does not occur in an underived state in text.

Period I: 16th-century German 213 The deadjectival adjective paradigm thus gives rise to a number of different formation types, just as the denominal one does. It is unique within the system in the number of slot Π and slot -I operations containing zero semantic and syntactic rules, which, of course, is a prerequisite for the considerable degree to which adjectives can be "recycled" through the paradigm, creating ever more synonyms. Interesting also that there are so many formal similarities between the denominal and deadjectival paradigms; there is no uniquely deadjectival suffix or prefix. This, of course, has its consequences in the development of the system.

7.1.6. Lexico-semantic classes

7.1.6.1. The lexico-semantic class of Concrete Object Designations Given the conclusions of 7.1.3., namely, that the lexico-semantic class plays an important role in determining the domain of application of an operation and that thus the systemic choices for a given base are much restricted, we shall now proceed by examining the individual lexico-semantic classes in greater detail. We shall attempt to determine the extent to which a classspecific profile can be established. We shall begin by considering a set of Concrete classes, to be followed by Abstract classes. Furthermore, we will begin in this section to consider the paradigmatic structure of formations associated with base types as defined by lexico-semantic class and with individual bases — the lexical paradigm, as opposed to the systemic paradigm. We will attempt to discover whether paradigm types can be established for a given class or class type, and whether relations between formations in a lexical paradigm are in any way systematic. It should first be pointed out that the referents of some bases can be interpreted as being both objects and substances. For example, a tree is clearly an object; however, when a base denoting a type of tree undergoes derivation in this corpus, it is without exception being considered as a Substance, i.e. a source of wood from which something might be made. If one wanted to say, therefore, that a hillside was covered with ash trees — that is, with individual objects — one would not use a derivation in German to express this idea (no 'ashy hillside' possible, then). Likewise, 'stone' can be considered as a countable, individual object, as in the derivation steinächtig 'stony', i.e. 'full of stones', or as a substance, as in steinin (Maa's example: Du hast ein steinin hertz 'you have a heart of stone').

214 Denominal adjective derivation in German As far as possible, class assignment will be determined based on the meanings implied by the derivations; it is not excluded that a given base may be assigned to more than one class, if different aspects of its meaning are the focus of different derivations. For example, ERDE 'earth' denotes both a substance, as implied by the formation irrden '(made) of earth', and a place, as implied by the formation irrdisch 'of the earth' (definitions provided in Maa: "vom erdtrich här erboren... auff der erden läbende" ['having origin in the earth...living on earth']). Thus a given base may appear in more than one class in the following discussion. In terms of visualizing lexicon representation of the individual paradigms of given lexical items, we can consider either that an entry contains two or more separate paradigms corresponding to each class assignment, or that it contains a "hybrid" lexical paradigm. Table 11: Representation of semantic functions in the Concrete Object Designations class in Maa Functions Bases in Source Representation in % WITH('X')

46

79

LIKE('X')

13

22

OF('X')

3

5

EX('X')

4

7

DIST('X')

2

3

POSS('X')

2

3

Total

58

13

Corpus

450

Within the semantically defined class of Concrete Objects, there are some very clear preferences to be observed. First, as Table 11 shows, the semantic function of choice is clearly WITH('X'): of 58 noun bases in the corpus, only 12 did not appear to give rise to a formation using it (e.g. BAUM 'tree', BOGEN 'bow', FLAMME 'flame', HAKEN 'hook', KANAL 'canal', KLOTZ 'block', KUGEL 'sphere, ball', MOND 'moon'). This is somewhat higher than the representation of WITH('X') for the whole Maa corpus (see 7.3.4.). Of the bases for which an operation involving WITH('X') does not seem to apply, LIKE('X') is generally the function chosen (e.g. KLOTZ, KUGEL); its representation corresponds to that found for the corpus as a whole. Others, however, do seem to be good candidates for WITH('X') (e.g. HAKEN, BOGEN); its omission may be a question of the lexicographer's

Period 1:16th-century German 215

oversight in these cases82. The remaining functions are much less well represented than in the Maa corpus generally, showing that the Concrete Objects do have their own character. For the few examples of EX('X') (bases FEDER 'feather', AST 'branch', ROHR 'reed', FLAMME), apparent Object designations seem to be considered as materials, so that e.g. es tin means 'made of branches'. It can be expected that the usual way of expressing OF('X'), REL('X'), DIST('X'), or any others must be by other means — syntactic, compounding, or through "serial compounding" as defined in 7.1.1. Table 12: Representation of formal types in the Concrete Object Designations class in Maa Affixation Types Bases in Source Representation in % icht

41

71

ig

10

17

en

6

10

isch

1

2

lich

2

3

sam

1

2

bar

1

2

Total

58

13

Corpus

450

The form rule of choice, as far as can be determined on the basis of this corpus, is clearly < χ ® icht; s.c.: N/V/Adj...> (see Table 12), followed by < χ θ ig ; s.c.: N/V/Adj...>. Proportionally speaking, the affixation of -icht is far more frequent in this class than in the entire Maa corpus (a difference of 27%), while that of -ig is about half; it seems, then, that the individual lexico-semantic class can manifest its own patterns which may diverge markedly from those of other classes. Other form rules occur sporadically and add the affixes -in (e.g. estin as above, rörin from ROHR) or -lich (e.g. haufflich from HAUFEN 'pile', schoßzlich from SCHOSS 'shoot'). These forms are clearly not characteristic of the class. In general, the data of the additional text sources support the findings for this class in Maa; SH contains perhaps a higher relative proportion of formations in -ig, including stainig from STEIN 'stone', zinckig from ZINKE 'tine' (neither of these is

216 Denominal adjective derivation in German found in Maa), but otherwise the adjectives derived from bases denoting Concrete Objects are found in Maa and are of the most frequently found types, assumed to constitute the norm. Based on the numerical frequencies of the operations found in the corpus for this class, we can postulate the structure shown in Figure 28 as the subset of the active word-formation paradigm in the suffixation domain from which speakers choose in this lexico-semantic class, or reduced systemic class paradigm. We will assume that an operation needs to be represented by a minimum number of formations for it to be perceived as normal for a class; this number we will arbitrarily set at five attestations. Thus in this and subsequent class paradigm structures postulated, only those operations will appear there that are found five or more times in the corpus. Whereas setting a minimum number rather than a percentage or proportion of the total formations found — say 5% — does have its disadvantages, in that it favours larger classes over small ones, the idea that a certain minimum "critical mass" must always be present is probably a plausible working hypothesis. It does not make much sense to suppose that in a smaller class, a sole attestation for a given operation (which might then constitute 5% of the total) would be the equivalent of ten attestations in a larger one — it should be anomalous in the smaller class. We will, however, be fairly flexible in the smallest classes (cf. e.g. Time Unit Designations). Note that in this and subsequent structures, we will restrict ourselves to listing the operations in question; the representation as in Figure 9 should be reconstructible, however. The number appearing to the upper right of each operation represents the number of examples occurring in the Maa corpus. For the majority of the bases (31 of 52 for which suffixations are listed), only one formation is given, usually one in -ichtig and/or a variant produced by affixation in slot I (24 with the function WITH('X'), five with the function LIKE('X')). These seem then to form the standard lexical paradigm type. No other types of "one-member" lexical paradigm recur and we can state that it must constitute the normal manifestation of the systemic class paradigm in Figure 28; given a base with a Concrete Object referent, a speaker of German will expect it to give rise to one formation in -icht or one of its variants, with the word-formation meaning WITH('X'), and new formations will be created accordingly. In Figure 28 and all subsequent figures of this type, the operations the paradigm contains are listed, arranged such that synonymous operations are adjacent. Given the ideas developed in Chapters 2 and 3, we assume that speakers can relate operations in the paradigm according to meaning or form according to need. Adjacency in the list is a means of representing such relations; evidently, the list in Figure 28

Period I: 16th-century German 217 could be organized differently with no important consequences. The number to the right of each operation represents the number of bases to which the operation was applied, according to Maa. iy

25

\

< χ © icht ...> ; Ό,,'; s.c.: N, LSC: Objects... < WITH('X') ...> o.e. slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9/OplO!)

.


o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!)

18

< S N - SAdj ···>

31.

; Ό 31 '; S.C.: N, LSC: Substances ... o.e.: slot Π; 0p7!

21

< χ ® in ...> ; '0 32 '; s.c.: N, LSC: *Substances... < LKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; 0p7!

5

< χ θ in ...> < EX('X') ...> < Σχτ Η: ...> 'Ν - ΣΛ 'Adj ·

32. r

< Σ Ν - Σ ^ ...>

* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 29: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the class of Concrete Substance Designations class in Maa As in the Object Designations class, lexeme bases are generally listed with just one formation; only 21 bases in the corpus had more. The most frequently occurring lexical paradigms, then, consist of the most frequently occurring operations or series of operations: 17 are formations in -icht, possibly but very rarely with slot I operation (e.g. steinlächtig 'stony' from STEIN 'stone'), almost always derived further with -ig (knöspelicht/ knörpelicht 'gristly' from KNORPEL 'gristle', constitutes the only exception); 11 are formations in -in, such as glesin '(made) of glass' from GLAS or seydin '(made) of silk' from SEIDE, and 11 likewise are formations in -ig (such as dämpjfig 'steamy' from DAMPF 'steam' or gifftig 'poisonous' from GIFT 'poison'). The 21 lexical paradigms containing more than one element very often contain more than one semantic function. Amongst the paradigms with two suffixed members (8 altogether), a few cases show polysemy, that is, the operations have a form rule in common: from ASCHE 'ash' aeschächtig '(consisting) of ash' and aeschächtig 'like ash', from LEHM 'clay' leimächtig 'clayey' (WITH('X')) and leimächtig '(made) of clay', from HORN hiirnin '(made/consisting) of horn' and hiirnin 'like horn'. In other cases, the derivations do not have a form rule in common, as with WOLLE 'wool' giving rise to wullächt 'woolly' (WITH('X') and wullin '(made) of wool',

222 Denominal adjective derivation in German from HOLZ 'wood' holtzächtig 'like wood' and höltzin '(made/consisting) of wood' from STEIN steinächtig and steinlächtig, both WITH('X'), and steinin '(made/consisting) of stone' (whereby, as mentioned in 7.1.6.1., the first two are interpreted as Object rather than Substance Designations, according to Maa). Otherwise, synonymy obtains, that is, the formations have a common semantic function, namely WITH('X'). There are five lexical paradigms in the corpus in which the two slot Π suffixes in question are -icht (usually extended by -ig in further derivation), and -ig (EITER 'pus', BORST 'bristle', ROTZ 'snot', SCHIMMEL, and WASSER 'water'), and one in which they are -icht and -isch (GEIFER). In lexical paradigms in which there are more than two members, there can be fairly complex combinations of word-formation polysemy and synonymy. In only one paradigm do we find complete "pure" polysemy, meaning that only one form rule has been used throughout (MILCH, with the formations milchin 'like milk', milchin 'with milk', milchin '(consisting/made) of milk', and milchin 'of milk', at least if the lexicographer intended all meanings of the Latin equivalents lacteus, lactareus, themselves polysemous). Otherwise, the larger paradigms seem to be principally characterized by word-formation synonymy, meaning that at least two of the formations have a meaning in common; very frequently, this is coupled with polysemy, meaning that at least some of these also share form with other members. Thus the potential for semantic differentiation — for example, by pairing < χ φ in ...> uniquely with EX('X') — does not appear to be fully exploited. Some examples of this are: ROHR 'reed', FEDER 'feather', and BLUT 'blood'. In the first case, we have the structure shown in Figure 30. WITH('X') EX('X') ROHR LIKE('X') rörin

EX('X')

Figure 30: Lexical paradigm of ROHR 'reed' We are assuming that all meanings of the Latin equivalents (arundinaeus, arundinosus) are meant (otherwise, going by the German "von ror" und "da vil ror sind", we only have EX('X') and WITH('X') here — the point will be the same, however). Here, two members exhibit synonymy with the meaning

Period 1:16th-century German 223 EX('X'). However, one of these is also a member of a polysemy set. Clearly, rörin is the only unambiguous form here. For FEDER, the lexical paradigm would have a structure corresponding to Figure 31.

FEDER

fäderächtig

WITH('X')

fäderin

WITH('X')

' fäderin

EX('X')

Figure 31: Lexical paradigm of FEDER 'feather' Here, the same sort of situation obtains, but with a reversal as far as the form-meaning correspondences are concerned: a synonymy relation exists, this time with the meaning WITH('X'), and one of the members is also a member of a polysemy set, involving the rule affixing -in. It is not insignificant that there is no real pattern here in the sense of constancy of formmeaning mappings: the formations each instantiate some available operation or series of operations, and the high degree of potential polysemy and synonymy ensures that on the lexical level, there will be a high degree of variability from paradigm to paradigm. In the lexical paradigm of BLUT, we have a structure like that in Figure 32.

BLUT

blütächtig

WITH('X')

, blütig

WITH('X')

bliitig

LIKE('X')

Figure 32: Lexical paradigm of BLUT 'blood' Here, again, there is a synonymy relation in which one of the members is also a member of a polysemy set. In this class, other word-formation processes complement and compete with derivation by suffixation of noun bases. With umlauted stems, the participle formations gepicht 'with pitch' from PECH 'pitch' and gefiedert 'with feathers' from FEDER are the only listed formations; others compete with suffixational synonyms, as gekreydet from KREIDE 'chalk' (krydachtig, WITH('X')), gesalbet from SALBE 'ointment' (.salbächtig, WITH('X')). Serial compounding, generally with the second element -reych 'rich', can be

224 Denominal adjective derivation in German the only listed possibility, as in weinreych (WITH('X')) from WEIN 'wine', or a competitor, as in oelreych from ÖL 'oil' (oelächtig) or bluotreych from BLUT. Compounding is generally a strong competitor for any of the semantic functions typical of this class. It is clear that this class has its own characteristic properties which distinguish it from the Object Designations class, with which it of course still has much in common. These include the relative prominence of operations adding the suffixes -in and -ig, the semantic function EX('X'), and the higher degree of semantic differentiation within the lexical paradigm.

7.1.6.3. Pure Substance subclasses: the lexico-semantic classes of Metal Designations and Tree Designations The two classes to be described in this section have much in common: they are relatively small, they are very homogeneous formally and semantically, and the bases all designate substances of which something can be made. In this latter point they differ from the broader Substance Designations class which contains designations both of this type and of that denoting substances of which something may merely consist. These two types have different derivational implications and a different history. Table 15: Representation of semantic functions in the Metal Designations class in Maa Functions Bases in Source Representation in %8S WITHCX')

2

EX('X')

7

LIKE('X')

2

OF('X')

1

Total

7

Corpus

2

450

In both classes the most frequently occurring semantic function is EX('X'), as can be seen in Tables 15 and 16. As indicated, the lexical interpretation of this function is 'made o f , and in some cases (e.g. MR eychen Asch 'oak ash') the interpretations 'consisting of or 'originating in' are possible.

Period I: 16th-century German 225 Table 16: Representation of semantic functions in the Tree Designations class in Maa Representation in % Bases in Source Functions EX('X')

9

LIKE('X')

1

OF('X')

2

Total

10

Corpus

2

450

In the Tree Designations class, there is only one base which — as a simplex — does not give rise to a formation with this meaning, namely the generic term BAUM 'tree'. However, when the base is a second element of a compound, it does invite formation with EX('X'), as in äpjfelböumin 'from apple-tree (wood)' or palmböumin 'from palm-tree (wood)'. In the Metal Designations class likewise, EX('X') is selected by all seven bases, as can be seen in the table. This function, then, defines these tiny subclasses in a much more absolute manner than in the general Substance Designations class; there, it made the class distinct from non-Substance classes; here, it provides the absolute norm. There are other functions occurring in the Trees and Metals classes: WITH('X') for example is found for some Metals designations, it being quite conceivable that a metal could be contained in another substance or object. Thus the bases BLEI 'lead', KUPFER 'copper', SILBER 'silver' give rise to formations with this meaning. LIKE('X') is also occasionally found; the Metal designatees particularly lend themselves to comparisons, either to other metals or other substances, often on the basis of general appearance or colour. In the Metals class, Maa gives for example guldin Metall 'metal like gold', die nacht von Guldinen gestirn 'the night of golden stars'86. LIKE('X'), although theoretically possible, is not met with in the Trees class, except for the generic term BAUM, whereby one might well want to make a comparison between some object and a tree. OF('X') is one of the meanings of erin from a non-autonomous base meaning 'ore' 87 . The occasional meanings LIKE('X'), OF('X'), and WITH('X') could be said to derive from the nature of the base as a Substance designation, while the class-defining meaning EX('X') with its particular interpretation would be related directly to the subclass. Formal homogeneity arises from the fact that all bases in both classes give rise to forms in -en (for Maa, -in), as shown in Tables 17 and 18. Other forms occur — in the Tree Designations class with the generic term we find

226 Denominal adjective derivation in German

baumlechtig, and in the Metals class forms in -icht also occur: bleyachtig, silberachtig. Again we might want to say that the non-en-forms stem from the membership in the major Object (BAUM) or Substance classes.

Affixation Types

Bases in Source

icht

2

in

7

Total

7

Corpus

Representation in %

2

450

Table 18: Representation of formal types in the Tree Designations class in Maa Affixation Types Bases in Source Representation in % icht

1

in

9

Total

10

Corpus

2

450

The standard class paradigm for both classes thus obviously consists of one operation only, Operation 31, as shown in Figure 33. J

Γ < χ ® in ...> ; Ό 31 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Metals, Trees ] < EX('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; Op7! . < - SAdj ...> Figure 33: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the Metal and Tree Designations classes in Maa We would have to be able to distinguish between truly anomalous formations — none of which were contained in Maa — and formations formable and interpretable according to the systemic class paradigm of the general Substance class. If lexical paradigms have more than one member, then a polysemy set as in Figure 34 or Figure 35 may be present.

Period I: 16th-century German

enn

EX('X')

enn

OF('X')

227

ER

Figure 34: Lexical paradigm of ER 'ore' Other examples of this structure are found in the lexical paradigms of EICHE 'oak' and AHORN 'maple' in the Trees class. guldin

EX('X')

guldin

LIKE('X')

GOLD guld-

Figure 35: Lexical paradigm of GOLD 'gold'

The structure in Figure 35 is also contained within the more complex lexical paradigm of SILBER, which further contains a contrast with a formation in -achtig, as shown in Figure 36.

SILBER

silberin

EX('X')

silberin

LIKE('X')

Silberachtig

WITHCX')

Figure 36: Lexical paradigm of SILBER 'silver' The only other lexical paradigm to show such a contrast is that of BLEI (Figure 37), and here the contrast is complete. bleyächtig

WITH('X')

•bleyin

EX('X')

BLEI

Figure 37: Lexical paradigm of BLEI 'lead'

228 Denominal adjective derivation in German

There is some competition with other processes in both these classes; compounding is in principle possible for all bases to express EX('X') and OF('X'). The examples found in the texts of formation from Metal and Tree bases generally make use of derived adjectives as opposed to compounds, as in the following examples from MR: (15)

a.

b.

(16)

(17)

güldene Schalen ... und andere güldene / silberne / und übergülte Becher (p. 5a88) 'golden bowls ... and other golden, silver, and gilded cups' einen schönen güldenen Ring (p. 6a) 'a beautiful gold ring'

a.

und großen messingen hangenden Leuchtern (p. 8) 'and large brass hanging lamps'

b.

seudt in einem Messingen geschirr (p. CXCVIIa) 'boil in a brass vessel'

a.

man sol nemmen ein eychen Fäßlein (p. CXCVIa) 'one should take an oaken barrellet'

b.

nimm buchen Aschen (p. CXCIX) 'take beech ash'

That compounds can be used interchangeably however is shown in another example from MR: (18)

und leg darin schöne gueden linden / büchen /oder eychen Asch... Du magst auch wol von frischen Tannenaschen nemmen (p.CXCa) 'and put in nice good lime, beech, or oaken ash... You can also take some fresh fir-ashes'.

No other processes were noted in Maa or the texts. In the discussion of the small subclasses of Tree and Metal Designations, we have seen that very uniform formal and semantic patterns can be associated with sets of bases of an identifiable and very specific semantic type. We can also expect that other bases for which derivations were not listed in Maa potentially demonstrate the same behaviour.

Period 1:16th-century German

229

7.1.6.4. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Body Part Designations In the following sections, we shall examine a series of classes containing bases that can be identified as either Object or Substance Designations, and sometimes both. We can predict that the lexeme bases will behave morphologically in conformity with these classes, depending on their classification. We should like to determine whether there are further characteristics differentiating these classes amongst each other that go beyond those associated with the general Object and Substance classes. The first hybrid class we will consider is that of Body Part Designations, one broadly conceived so as to include "body" parts of plants89, "temporary" body parts such as scars, and other physical anomalies. The semantic class of Body Part Designations contains both Objects (e.g. BAUCH 'belly', GLATZE 'bald spot/head') and Substances (e.g. HAAR 'hair', PELZ 'fur, pelt'), and some that are both (e.g. HORN 'horn'). A typical derivation in this class expresses that a person or animal (or, occasionally, plant) has a particular body part (WITH('X')), often with the implication that the part in question is remarkable in some way, generally either in size/number. This tends to correlate with inalienable possession, that is, if it is a body part one generally has, or only loses through maiming or disease, then one would not normally mention the fact that one had one/some, so that if it is expressed, it must be somehow unusual. The implication of 'much/great' is possible, but not significant, with alienable or unusual (i.e. deformities, secretions etc.) body parts (e.g. BUCKEL 'humpback', SCHWIELE 'callus', SCHWEISS 'sweat'). Other semantic functions seem to be incidental: LIKE('X'), OF('X'), and EX('X') for Substances. Table 19: Representation of semantic functions in the Body Part Designations class in Maa

Functions

Bases in Source

Representation in %

WITH('X')

31

94

LIKE('X')

3

9

EX('X')

5

15

OF('X')

8

24

Total

33

7

Corpus

450

230 Denominal adjective derivation in German It is clear from Table 19 that the principal semantic function of the four represented in this class is WITH('X'); it is significantly better represented both than in the corpus as a whole (a difference of 25 %) and in the general Object and Substance classes. One of the four bases not giving rise to formations expressing WITH('X') appears in fact to be anomalous: MUND, although clearly designating a body part, does not appear to belong to this class as far as derivation is concerned; its formation, mundtlich 'oral' (as in oral report) indicates a classification as a Medium, and is formally not typical of Concrete class members either. The four bases selecting EX('X') (PELZ, FEDER, 'feather', HAAR 'hair', HORN 'horn') give rise to formations to be interpreted as 'consisting of, made of the substance in question (a hair shirt, a feather pillow, a fur coat, a horn spoon). LIKE('X') (found with the Substance designations BLUT 'blood', HORN, and HAAR) and OF('X') (found with the bases HAAR and LEIB 'body' — perhaps not best thought of as a body part, although it does behave like one to a certain extent) appear incidental within this class. It is thus evident that WITH('X') very strongly dominates here and defines the class. The text sources do not contain many examples of formations from this class; those found all express WITH('X'). Table 20: Representation of formal types in the Body Part Designations class in Maa Affixation Types Bases in Source Representation in % icht

24

73

ig

12

36

in

4

12

isch

1

3

haft

3

9

sam

1

3

lich

5

15

Total

33

7

Corpus

450

Table 20 illustrates formal distributions within the class. The suffixation of -icht is the most frequently found formal type; the relative representation of this form rule and that involving -ig is reminiscent of the Substance Designations class. In fact, nine of the 12 bases selecting ig-affixation are

Period 1:16th-century German 231 Substance designations, most denoting some bodily secretion or other fluid, (e.g. SCHWEISS, BLUT, ROTZ 'snot', EITER 'pus', GALLE 'gall'). Bases adding -in are all Substance Designations (PELZ, HAAR, HORN) except FEDER, which, as mentioned in 7.1.6.1., seems to be treated like one. Thus it would seem that the formal distributions reflect very exactly the hybrid Substance-Object nature of the Body Parts class. Other forms play a very minor role in the class, e.g. geijferisch from GEIFER 'spittle, saliva' has an unusual suffix, not found for any other base here. The systemic norm for a paradigm of this class would then be something like the structure in Figure 38. 19.

< χ ® icht ...> ; Ό 19 '; S.C.: N, LSC: Body Parts ... < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9/OplO!) < ΣΝ - EAdj ...>

25.

< χ Φ ig ...> ; Ό ^ ' ; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Body Parts ... < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!) < ΣΝ - EAdj ...>

31.

< χ Φ in ...> ; Ό31·; s.c.: N, LSC: *Body Parts f*· V < EX('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; Op7! < ΣΝ - EAdj ...>

24

11

* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 38: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the Body Part Designations class in Maa This is, of course, the same structure as that postulated for the Substance Designations class, with different relative representation of the three operations constituting it. Operation 31 with only four attestations in the corpus does not really qualify for system status according to our criteria. All examples from the text sources conform to the system paradigm, with about an equal number of attestations for each operation. A few bases are unusual within the class and therefore undergo operations unusual for the class based on Tables 19 and 20, and Figure 38. FLEISCH means 'flesh, meat' but also denotes the carnal, sensual, corporeal as opposed to the spiritual in a sense extension; this abstract notion gives rise to fleischlich 'carnal', formally and semantically more typical of an Abstract class (see 7.1.6.11.), as well as formations definitely deriving from a class-typical meaning (fleischig, fleischächtig 'fleshy'). LEIB gives rise to a class-typical formation leybach-

232 Denominal adjective derivation in German tig meaning 'having a (lot of/large) body', i.e. 'corpulent', a typical "inalienable part" interpretation; however, the formation leybhafftig, also 'having a body' but with LEIB denoting an alienable part, is commonly used in connection with the devil and other beings for whom assuming a body is a matter of choice. Perhaps the unusualness of this idea allows an anomalous formal type to be chosen. Likewise, LEEB can be used in an extended sense giving rise to a formally and semantically anomalous leyblich 'related to the body', and with a further extension 'physical, real' or 'biological' in the sense of 'biological father'. These more abstract meanings correspond to forms associated with abstract bases. Formations from the base HAND, finally, are unusual both semantically and formally (handsam 'handy, easy to deal with', handtlich 'brave', handhafft 'brave, reliable'). Thus we can clearly distinguish between typical bases and their formations and nontypical members of the class. The majority of lexical bases have one formation assigned to them; the most common type is a formation based on Operation 19, and then undergoing further derivation in the deadjectival paradigm with the suffix -ig (cf. 7.1.5.). There are twelve such lexical paradigms in the corpus. The remaining five one-member paradigms involve one or the other of the remaining operations in the systemic class paradigm as proposed in Figure 38. As far as relations between paradigm members is concerned, we find that polysemy sets are not quite as common as in the general Object and Substance classes, perhaps because of the even greater dominance here of the WITH('X') function. Therefore lexical paradigms with two listed members have selected operations with different form rules and a common semantic rule; in other words, word-formation synonymy is characteristic of this class. There are six bases for which both operations involving -icht and -ig are selected (ADER 'vein', BORSTE 'bristle', GLATZE, KROPF 'crop; goitre', EITER, ROTZ), so this appears to be a fairly typical combination. SH has examples of STACHEL 'sting; thorn' giving rise to both stachlig and stachlecht with the common meaning WITH('X'). There is another lexical paradigm involving -icht and -isch (GEIFER). In paradigms containing more than two members, some polysemy does seem to be present, as in the case of FEDER, BLUT, and HAAR (see section 7.1.6.2. for all of these). It seems not unlikely that the content of these paradigms has more to do with their being based on Substance Designations than on Body Part Designations, with the exception of the formations haarächtig, gehaarig 'hairy' which are typical for this specific class. Compounding is a complementary process to derivation by suffixation, as it expresses OF('X'), REL('X'), and L K E ( ' X ' ) (e.g. bluotrot 'blood-red')

Period 1:16th-century German 233 where suffixation generally does not, as well as EX('X') for non-Substance Designations that do not plausibly give rise to interpretations 'made o f . Serial compounding is found with the element -reich (e.g. bluotreych), mainly for Substance Designations. Participle formation is found for three bases in the class, BART 'beard', FIEDER 'plumage', and HORN. These are all "alienable" Body Part Designations; the process is potentially a competitor for derivation by suffixation as it expresses the class-defining WITH('X'). If the dictionary is a faithful reflection of the current state of the language, however, this potential is not being taken advantage of, the number of attestations being so low. The class of Body Part Designations is semantically complex, containing both Substance and Object Designations and subclasses whose membership is determined by the criterion of alienable vs. inalienable possession, anomalous vs "standard" body parts etc. Within the domain of derivation by suffixation, however, class-typical behaviour is clearly definable and relatively simple: one typical meaning, WITH('X'), and two typical forms, suffixation with -icht and secondarily -ig. Lexical paradigm form is generally simple, conforming to the systemic class paradigm proposed. Bases with unusual semantic characteristics give rise to semantically and formally anomalous derived formations.

7.1.6.5. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Landscape Feature Designations Landscape Feature Designations refer to things that are typical parts of the natural environment, such as vegetation, meteorological phenomena, and other elements of physical geography; what one generally wants to express here, within the derivational domain at any rate, is that a landscape or natural physical area possesses or is characterized by such an element. In other words, the predominant semantic function here is once again WITH('X'); others are incidental, in the main. Often, the lexical interpretation of a typical formation will be 'having much of the element referred to, as in graßächtig 'full of grass, with a lot of grass' from GRAS, sandächtig 'full of sand, with a lot of sand' from SAND. This is generally made explicit in the dictionary entry (e.g. "voll sand" ['full of sand']). Bases may be Substance (SAND) or Object Designations (BAUM 'tree'), although the Substance Designations clearly predominate.

234 Denominal adjective derivation in German Table 21: Representation of semantic functions in the Landscape Designations class in Maa Functions Bases in Source Representation in % WITHCX')

36

77

LIKE('X')

7

15

OF('X')

9

19

EX('X')

5

11

Total

47

10

Corpus

450

Table 21 shows the relative distributions of semantic functions within the corpus in detail. Here we can see that WrTH('X'), although still better represented than in the corpus as a whole, attains the approximate level it found in the general Object and Substance Designations classes, which sets it apart from the Body Part Designations class. For some of the bases that do not give rise to a formation with the function WITH('X'), other potential class assignments have been realized, which gives rise to their deviance. For example, HIMMEL and ERDE have been interpreted as Places ('from heaven', 'of heaven'; 'of the earth' respectively) or as "pure" Substances in the case of irrden 'made of earth/clay'; HERBST seems to be interpreted uniquely as a Time Unit ('belonging to autumn'), while WINTER seems to have been interpreted as both a Time Unit and a Landscape Features member. Others, though, such as KRAUT 'herb, plant', seem to be typical class members, and there is no apparent reason why there would be no formation to express 'covered with vegetation', for example; likewise, if one can use sonnächtig to say that the day is sunny, one ought to be able to say that the night is 'moony' — that potential does not seem to have been exploited. The only semantic function to occur in the text sources, which offer admittedly few examples, is WITH('X'), which confirms its status as class-defining function. The semantic function OF('X') is better represented than in the general Concrete classes, and its status is more comparable here to that found for the Body Part Designations class. Again, some of these actually derive from bases as a function of one of their other class assignments, as in the case of WINTER and HERBST. This cannot be claimed for others, however, such as FELD 'field' or LUFT 'air'. LIKE('X') appears tobe an incidentally applied function; its bases form quite a disparate group (BAUM, HIMMEL, HÖHLE 'cave', KRAUT, ROHR 'reed', HAGEL 'hail', HERBST). Finally, EX('X')

Period I: 16th-century German

235

is found for a small number of Substance (e.g. STEIN 'stone', ROHR) and Place Designations (ERDE, HIMMEL); the possible alternate assignments for these bases suggests that this is really not a normal member of the set of typical functions of the class of Landscape Designations. It should be noted also that different lexical interpretations of the function will be required for these two semantic types of base. Table 22: Representation of formal types in the Landscape Designations class in Maa

Affixation Types

Bases in Source

Representation in %

icht

37

79

ig

8

17

in

5

11

isch

2

4

sam

1

2

lich

4

9

Total

47

10

Corpus

450

Again, operations adding the suffix -icht are in a clearly dominant position; in fact, their proportional representation in this class (see Table 22) is the highest seen so far. The relative position of these operations and operations suffixing -ig is most comparable to that found in the general Object Designations class, ig-suffixation is thus at its weakest relative to ichtsuffixation amongst the classes we have considered up to this point. There are only a very few examples of derivations from Landscape Designations in the contemporary text sources, but it is interesting to note that no formations occur here in -icht, while ig-formations occur with several bases (SAND, WIND 'wind', RAUCH 'smoke', STEIN 'stone'). Other forms are infrequent within the Maa corpus; some are associated with bases of multiple class assignment (such as ZicA-forms found for Time Units HERBST, SOMMER, and WINTER or isch-forms found for Place Designations HIMMEL and ERDE), while others are simply unusual, such as frostsam from FROST 'frost', unmatched by any other formation within the corpus. The reduced morphological paradigm for this class, constituting the norm, thus seems to be that shown in Figure 39.

236 Denominal adjective derivation in German Γ < χ ® icht ...> ; Ό 19 '; S.C.: N, LSC: Landscape ... < WITH(4X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9/OplO!) . < ΣΝ - Σ ^ ..·> 25

· Γ < χ ® ig ...> ; Ό 25 '; s.c.: Ν,LSC: "Landscape ... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!) . < ΣΝ - Σ Α Φ ...>

]

1

5

* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 39: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the Landscape Designations class in Maa This structure is obviously very simple, and identical similar to that proposed for other Concrete classes containing Object Designations but for the absence of an Operation 31 mapping the affixation of -in onto the function EX('X') — Operation 31, although it does occur, did not attain system status here. The dominance of Operation 19 is also obvious. Lexical paradigms generally contain one member only, and this is typically, in conformity with the class paradigm, a formation with -icht in slot Π, undergoing further derivation with -ig in the deadjectival paradigm, and mapping onto WITH('X'). There are 25 such paradigms in the corpus. A few other paradigms also contain one member formed by means of suffixation, e.g. the expected structure based on Operation 25 (PFÜTZE 'puddle') and others not predicted by the proposed systemic paradigm, e.g. BAUM (see 7.1.6.3.), a pair containing a formation mapping an ig-affixation onto OF('X') (LUFT, MOND) or LIKE('X') (KRAUT), or an icht-affixation onto OF('X') (FELD). As we might expect from the discussion so far, there is little in the way of polysemy in the lexical paradigms: amongst the few two-member paradigms (four altogether), there is one example, FELD giving rise to feldächtig (OF('X')) and veldachtig WITH('X')) 90 . In the paradigms with more than two members, polysemous sets tend to occur, as for ROHR (see 7.1.6.2.), HERBST 0herbstlich OF('X'), DIST('X'), and LIKE('X') and WINTER (winterächtig WITH('X') and OF('X')). We can still say, and of course this follows from what we have determined are typical operations for this class, that polysemy does not constitute part of the norm for the Landscape Designations. Within the class paradigm, there is some room for word-formation synonymy: there are three lexical paradigms mapping suffixations of -icht and -ig onto WITH('X'), those of NEBEL, WIND, and WASSER. The semantically

Period 1:16th-century German 237 unusual GRUND has two synonymous formations grundächtig and gründlich 'thorough, from the ground'; other sets not predicted by the class paradigm have been mentioned in the Substance Designations class. There is also some semantic differentiation to be found, as in the case of STEIN (steinächtig, steinlächtig WITH('X'), vs. steinin EX('X'); the latter derives from the Substance interpretation of the base, whereas the two former derive from the Landscape (Object) interpretation). Finally, formations differing in their choice of slot I operation are synonymous, e.g. from REGEN 'rain' rägachtig, rägenachtig, regenlächtig (here we must assume two stems, regen- and reg-), all WITH('X'). Large lexical paradigms do not constitute part of the norm for this class; consequently, the form-meaning relations found in such structures where they do occur do not form patterns uniquely characteristic of the class, but rather conform to the trends noted elsewhere for Concrete classes. Compounding serves principally as the process of choice for the expression of the semantic functions EX('X'), OF('X'), and REL('X'). Serial compounding is a potential competitor, as in graßreych, synonymous with graßächtig 'grassy' (WITH('X')), but there were no other examples listed. Participle formation may be the only derivational choice for a stem, although this seems rare; the only example in the corpus is gestirnt, related to STERN 'star'. Otherwise, it is a competitor with suffixational members of the lexical paradigm, as in gewinteret from WINTER, gekreydet 'with chalk' from KREIDE. The class of Landscape Designations, while sharing many properties of the General Concrete classes, is identifiable on the basis of the interpretation of its typical formations, the strong preference for one operation or series of operations, and the resulting lexical paradigm structures.

7.1.6.6. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Animal Designations The class of Animal Designations is a relatively small one in Maa. Bases in this class can be further subdivided according to the role that the animal referred to plays in the speakers' world, the most important of these being animals from which food or other products may come (e.g. SCHWEIN 'pig', BIBER 'beaver') and pests, particularly of the insect sort (e.g. LAUS 'louse', FLOH 'flea'). The former of these thus qualify both as Objects and as Substances, and the corresponding lexical paradigms may be expected to reflect this. With these bases, a common semantic function will thus be EX('X'), with the lexical interpretation 'originating in, coming from' and sometimes

238 Denominal adjective derivation in German 'made of/from'. With the small Pest subgroup, what one generally wants to say is that something — food, furniture, a person or animal, perhaps 91 — is infested with the creature, so that the semantic function WITH('X') will be selected. As can be seen in Table 23, other functions are represented in this class as well. The most frequently occurring function in fact is OF('X'), possible with any Animal designation. LIKE('X') also occurs occasionally — again, any Animal designation may undergo an operation with this function, if the base denotes an animal with a characteristic appearance or behaviour familiar to speakers, particularly one with which a comparison to humans can be made (e.g. HUND 'dog', VIEH 'beast'). Thus we can see that although Animal Designations denote Concrete Objects (some of which may also qualify as Substances), the semantic functions of prominence and the distribution of the semantic functions are very different from what was observed in the other Concrete classes thus far — in fact, this class is in some ways reminiscent of the Metals and Trees classes, which were also deviant from the general norm. Table 23: Representation of semantic functions in the Animal Designations class in Maa Bases in Source Representation in % Functions WITHCX')

4

18

LKE('X')

4

18

OF('X')

17

77

EX('X')

14

64

Total

22

5

Corpus

450

Just as the semantic characteristics of the Animal Designations class are unusual compared to both general and hybrid Concrete classes, so too do we find that the distribution of suffixation types is not like anything met with so far, as can be seen from Table 24. Whereas icht- and ig-affixation were most prominent in all other Concrete classes so far (with the exception of the Metal and Tree Designations), they only play a minor role here. The dominant formal type is m-suffixation, as one would expect in a Pure Substance class (which this is not). Other, more peripheral rules may add -isch. There exist correlations here between the semantic types and forms, as we shall see below. It is also of interest to note that the catalogue of occurring forms is so short — Zic/i-affixation, for example, does not occur even once in the corpus.

Period 1:16th-century German 239

Affixation Types

Bases in Source

Representation in %

icht

1

5

ig

3

14

in

12

55

isch

5

23

haft

1

5

Total

22

5

Corpus

450

Based on the form-meaning mappings found in this small corpus, we can postulate the structure in Figure 40 the systemic class paradigm for the Animal Designations. 31.

33.

Γ

< χ e in ...> < EX('X') ...> < Σ Ν - EAdj ...>

; Ό 31 ';

s.c.: Ν, LSC: Animals ... o.e.: slot II; Op7!

< χ θ in ...> < OF('X') ...> < Σ ν - S^Y ...>

; Ό 33 ';

s.c.: N, LSC: Animals... o.e.: slot Π; Op7!

< χ Φ isch ...> < OF('X') ...> < Σ Ν - ΣΑ(ί) ...>

; Ό 13 ';

S.C.: N, LSC: *Animals... o.e.: slot Π; Op7!, (Op9!/OplO!)

11

10

* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 40: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the Animal Designations class in Maa Note that we have included Operation 13 here although there are only four bases for which it is found, mainly due to the small size of the class. Operation 13 is associated with a disparate set of bases, two the generic terms TIER 'animal' and VIEH, and two Object designations, E N T E 'duck' and H U N D . The two other operations in Figure 40 involve the dominant suffixation type, that involving -in; as we see, it is polyvalent. Operation 33 is prominent in this class for the first (and only) time; this is likely due to the

240 Denominal adjective derivation in German fact that the 'originating in, coming from' interpretation of EX('X') is very close to the 'belonging to' interpretation of OF('X'). For example, a biberin Fell 'beaver pelt' would be OF('X') as long as it is on the beaver and we are considering its body part; once we are using the pelt (off the beaver by now) and considering its origin, the relation becomes EX('X'). Examples from the text sources — very few in number in this class — are of the EX('X') type, e.g. (MR) Schweinen Ohren 'pig ears' where the author is considering how to cook them. The Pest bases were not sufficiently numerous as to qualify for system status according to the usual criteria. However, as they clearly form a type and clearly manifest uniform behaviour, we will postulate a subclass paradigm for these, given in Figure 41. 19

· Γ < χ Φ icht ...> ; Ό 19 '; S.C.: Ν, LSC: *Animals ... < WrrH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9/OplO!) . < ΣΝ - Σ*, ..·>

25,

Γ < χ Φ ig ...> ; Ό 25 '; S.C.: Ν, LSC: * Animals ... < Wrra('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!) . < Σ ν - Σ ^ ...>

1

"I

1

3

* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 41: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the Pest Designations subclass in Maa These Object Designations take the "standard" reduced paradigm for Maa. Other operations may occur with them, as will be shown below, but only in addition to one of Operation 19 or 25, which are autonomous in that they can form the sole formation in a paradigm. Unlike the situation in other Concrete classes, the one-member paradigm is a rare exception in the Animals class. The only examples are found in the Pests division, where the bases WURM 'worm' and FLOH are listed with one formation involving Operation 19 and 25 respectively; LAUS has two formations listed based on Operation 25, of which one has had an operation in slot I applied (luserigllusterig), so could be considered to fit in here as well. Otherwise, all lexical paradigms have two members, which constitutes the norm, or in a few cases more. In general, the two-member lexical paradigm arises through polysemy; in fact, this relation forms another class-defining characteristic. 11 lexical

Period 1:16th-century German

241

paradigms have the structure shown in Figure 42 for the base SCHWEIN, others including SAU 'sow', PFAU 'peacock', HIRSCH 'stag', BIBER. schweynin

EX('X')

schweynin

OF('X')

SCHWEIN

Figure 42: Lexical paradigm of SCHWEIN 'pig' The same semantic configuration is found for ENTE, using wc/i-forms this time. Other semantic combinations are found with WOLF (forms in -in, mapping onto EX('X') and LIKE('X')), HUND (forms in -isch, mapping onto OF('X') and UKE('X')) and RIND 'beef (forms in -haft, mapping onto OF('X') and LIKE('X') likewise). In these cases, it is easy to imagine that other semantic functions than those given are possible, e.g. that wölffin could well mean OF('X') in the appropriate context. In the lexical paradigms of the "generic" terms TIER and VIEH, polysemy obtains for isch-forms mapping onto the functions OF('X'), LIKE('X'), and EX('X') (thus 'of/like/from an animal'), which is consistent with the sorts of relations we have seen thus far in the class. One paradigm alone contains a synonymy relation, that of NISSE 'nit' (which, strictly speaking, is not an Animal designation at all — but it and its formations are used in the same way as its "parent" LAUS or FLOH, say), with the synonymous formations nissig and nisserisch. Compounding is an alternative process to suffixation; it is regularly associated with the class-defining function EX('X'), as in (MR) Rindfleisch 'beef, as well as with OF('X') and REL('X'). Serial compounding was listed as the only possibility for FISCH 'fish'; a pond or stream, for example, may be fischreych. Interestingly, perhaps because of the negative connotations of the pests and the positive connotation of -reich (which is not compelling), there are no serial compounds listed like lausreych or flohreych. We have seen in the above description that the class of Animal Designations, while clearly a Concrete class, is very different in many ways from those classes examined previously. Even for Object Designations, formations may be created expressing EX('X') and OF('X') and using the suffix -in, normally restricted to Substance Designations. Polysemy within the lexical paradigm derives from the systemic class paradigm and is the rule for nonPest Designations. It turns out, then, that not all Concrete and certainly not

242 Denominal adjective derivation in German

all Object (sub)classes follow the patterns established by the general class or other Concrete classes.

7.1.6.7. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Food Designations We close this group of lexico-semantic classes by examining one last potential hybrid class, that of Food Designations. The proposed class contains both Object (e.g. TRAUBE '(grape) cluster') and Substance Designations (e.g. HEFE 'yeast'), the latter clearly dominating in Maa. Our task will be, then, to determine whether the set of bases and their associated formations is any significant way different from the general Substance Designations class and the other Concrete classes. All bases here have been assigned to at least one other class, so that we shall not consider individual lexical paradigms in any detail; we shall, rather, restrict the investigation to the system level. As derivable from Maa, this is a small class, containing 18 bases — of course, there are many more lexemes in the dictionary referring to foods, but they have no derivations associated with them. The common functions expressed by derivations are WITH('X'), interpreted as 'containing', 'covered/spread with' etc., or EX('X'), interpreted as 'made of (as the principal or most interesting ingredient)'. Comparisons may be made with other foods or with other objects and substances etc., so that LIKE('X') is another possibility here. Table 25: Representation of semantic functions in the Food Designations class in Maa Functions Bases in Source Representation in %

wrra('X')

12

67

EX('X')

5

28

LDCE('X')

5

28

OF('X')

5

28

Total

18

4

Corpus

450

We see in Table 25 that although some of the typical patterns occur, such as the predominance of WITH('X'), the class is unlike other classes in the Concrete set, due to the equal distribution of the remaining functions and their relative strength. WITH('X'), although well-represented and matching

Period 1:16th-century German 243 the average for the entire corpus closely, still does not show the frequencies familiar from most Concrete classes seen thus far, with the exception of Metals, Trees, and Animals. The present distribution can be at least partially explained: some members of the class are Meat (i.e. Animal) Designations, for which as we have seen WITH('X') does not normally occur. EX('X') and OF('X') are, however, associated with just these bases. It remains the case, however, that EX('X') and OF('X') are also found for other types of bases within the class (e.g. EX('X') and OF('X') are the meanings given for milchin from MILCH 'milk', EX('X') is given for haberin from HAFER 'oats' and weitzin from WEIZEN 'wheat'). There are too few examples of formations from Food bases in the text sources to make any comments here, the sole derived form (apart from those arising from Meat, i.e. Animal, Designations) occurring being sajftig 'juicy', thus WITH('X'), in MR. It would thus seem, based on this limited amount of data at any rate, that the semantic distributions for this set of formations is distinguishable from those of comparable classes, so that the class of Food Designations may have legitimacy for some speakers at least. Table 26: Representation of formal types in the Food Designations class in Maa Affixation Types Bases in Source Representation in % icht

6

33

ig

4

22

in

5

28

haft

2

11

lich

1

6

bar

1

6

Total

18

4

Corpus

450

Again, we see that although the three most frequent formal types have similar status for most other Concrete classes (containing Substance Designations, as far as in-suffixation is concerned), the relative distributions of these three are unlike those found elsewhere (Table 26). The representation of ic/ii-affixation is much lower than that found in other Concrete classes (with the exception of Metals, Trees, and Animals, the latter being relevant here); within the Foods class, it is restricted to non-Animal Designations. The distance between icht- and ig-affixation is much smaller than elsewhere,

244 Denominal adjective derivation in German although it is closer to a typical Substance than an Object class distribution. The representation of in-affixation is about what we would expect for a Substance class, so that this, at least, is not unusual. Here as well, then, there seems to be some justification for proposing a separate (sub)class of Food Designations. Tentatively, the reduced systemic paradigm for this class might look like the structure shown in Figure 43. 19

· Γ < χ θ icht ...> ; Ό 19 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Food... < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9/OplO!) . < - ΣΑ

31

-Γ .

< χ e in ...> < EX('X') ...>


Figure 43: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the Food Designations class in Maa One can see that the possibilities are even more limited than in most other Concrete classes described thus far. Given more bases in the class, of course, more operations could attain system status than we see in Figure 43. For the moment, though, it looks as if derivations not conforming to this structure would be judged according to their fitness according to their other class assignments. Compounding is an alternative process particularly for EX('X'), OF('X"), and REL('X'), as shown by formations such as (MR) Quitten-Safft 'quincejuice'. Serial compounding with the element -reich is found occasionally (oelreych from ÖL 'oil', weynreych from WEIN 'wine', referring to persons) as an alternative to suffixation for the expression of WITH('X'). Other processes are thus available for formation in the class of Food Designations. Based on formal and semantic distributions, we can claim that there is some justification for proposing the Food Designation class as one of the Concrete classes for 16th-century German. It is not unlikely, of course, that some speakers will assign the bases concerned to the Object, Substance, or Animal classes only.

7.1.6.8. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Illness Designations The lexico-semantic class of Illness Designations contains lexemes referring to illnesses of persons, animals, or plants and the manifestations of these

Period 1:16th-century German 245

illnesses (e.g. EITER 'pus'). This class is not only "hybrid" with respect to the assignment to greater Object and Substance classes, but also, probably, with respect to the superordinate division into Concrete and Abstract classes. Is an illness abstract or concrete? Our first answer might be that while the manifestations or symptoms of an illness are concrete, a disease as a set of conditions and symptoms, manifested possibly differently in each victim, would appear to be abstract. If we consider how speakers think of illnesses, particularly when they themselves are afflicted with one, however, they seem to be Concretes: for someone saying "I have the flu!", the illness is concrete indeed92. So it seems that as long as we are talking about the actual affliction with some disease, the base is a Concrete Designation (that is, when the semantic function WITH('X') is involved); when we are talking about properties and characteristics of the disease, then the base may be considered an Abstract Designation (that is, when the semantic functions OF('X') or REL('X') are involved). Without exception, all formations in the present corpus have the meaning WITH('X'), as seen in Table 27, and the lexical interpretation 'having disease/symptom X' or sometimes 'causing disease/symptom X'. The two possibilities of 'having' and 'causing' indicate that the situational or participant role can be important in this class. Clearly, then, the possibilities afforded by the morphological paradigm of the system will be strongly reduced. Table 27': Representation of semantic functions in the Illness Designations class in Maa

Functions

Bases in Source

Representation in %

WITH('X')

16

100

Total

16

4

Corpus

450

Although some of the "symptoms" can be interpreted as Objects or Substances, this is not generally the case for the Illnesses themselves; we might not be surprised, therefore, if the class had different formal properties from the others we have examined so far. In fact, this is the case. Whereas operations suffixing -icht are clearly preferred in these classes, the preference here is clearly for operations suffixing -ig. There are, indeed, four bases selecting operations with -icht (BLATTER 'pustule, pock', EITER, KROPF 'goitre', RUSEL 'spot'), but these all denote objects or substances; the rest, inasfar as they are native bases, select -ig (AUSSATZ 'leprosy', GESCHWÜR 'ulcer',

246 Denominal adjective derivation in German

GRIEN 'calculus', GRIND 'mange', KRAMPF 'cramp' (an affliction of horses, particularly), KRÄTZE 'scabies', KRÖPF, RÄUDE 'scabies', STICH 'pleuritis', SUCHT 'illness', WUT 'rabies'). The only two examples of formations from an Illness base in the text sources are also of this type (SH krempffig, UvH aussetzig). Foreign bases, as indicated in section 7.1.3.4., seem to select -isch (PODAGRA 'gout', PESTILENZ 'plague'). For native bases, then, the reduced paradigm appears to be as given in Figure 28. Table 28: Representation of formal types in the Illness Designations Class in Maa Affixation Types Bases in Source Representation in % icht

4

25

ig

11

69

isch

2

13

Total

16

4

Corpus

450

All the lexical paradigms but two have one formation only; those two (EITER, KROPF) have the form of the suggested paradigm in Figure 44. Γ < χ e icht ...> ; ' o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9/OplO!) . < - ΣΑ4ί ...> Γ < χ θ ig ...> ; Ό 25 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Illnesses... < WITHOX') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!) . < ΣΝ - 2Adj ...> * - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 44: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the Illness Designations class in Maa Given the formal preference for /g-suffixation and the restricted semantics in this class, it is not surprising that Operation 25 is so well represented in this structure. Thus we see that even a small lexical class can manifest very distinct morphological behaviour; it fits well into the general patterns of Concrete noun bases, but the probability of various operations being applied is quite different from that of others seen thus far.

Period 1:16th-century German

247

7.1.6.9. Pure Object classes: the lexico-semantic class of Measure Unit Designations The following two classes can be considered to be "pure" Object classes; they are, however, both unusual in some way, and both have some connection to the Abstract classes, the description of which will follow. We shall begin with the small class of Unit of Measure Designations. The members of this class generally refer to some object, which however also serves as a unit of measure. Units of measure, of course, are Abstracts, so that typical bases of this class are of dual nature semantically. In Maa, this class is very small indeed, even though we have also included here designations of units of measure which do not have Object reference. The Measures Designations may refer to exact (PFUND) or approximate (HAUFEN 'heap') units of measure. The types of meanings which arise here are WITH('X'), interpreted as 'having a certain measure', i.e. something that is pfiindig has or weighs a pound, and DIST('X'), interpreted as 'by the', i.e. something may be measured haujfächtig or 'in heaps', 'by the heap' (the usual lexical interpretation being here 'in large quantities'). Table 29: Representation of semantic functions in the Unit of Measure Designations

class in Maa Functions

Bases in Source

WITH('X')

6

DIST('X')

2

Total

6

Corpus

Representation in %

1

450

As can be seen from Table 29, all bases give rise to formations involving WITH('X'); two only, HAUFEN and ZAHL 'number' (obviously, an Abstract designation), are listed with formations meaning DIST('X'). It would thus appear, to the extent that this is determinable based on the tiny corpus here, that WITH('X') is the dominant meaning in this class. There are no examples of formations from this class in the text sources, with the exception of (uri)zalbarlich (DIST('X')) in UvH, so that no conclusions can be drawn from these.

248 Denominal adjective derivation in German

Table 30\ Representation of formal types in the Unit of Measure Designations class in Maa Affixation Types Bases in Source Representation in % icht

2

ig

2

haft

2

lieh

1

bar

1

Total

6

Corpus

1

450

As far as form is concerned, there does not seem to be any one dominant type, as can be seen from Table 30. The most concrete bases, however, undergo formation by means of ic/ii-affixation, producing haujfächtig and stuckachtig 'in pieces, with many pieces' from STÜCK 'piece', which may indicate that on the formal side at least, members of this class conform to their general semantic type; that is, Concrete bases give rise to typical suffixations, as do Abstracts (e.g. teilhafftig from TEIL 'part', zaalhafftig 'numerous, present in large quantity' from ZAHL). However, even the Concrete HAUFEN gives rise to a formally unusual adjective, haufflich. Either an Abstract class assignment or the ability to perform an adverbial sentence function is apparent in the ability of some derived adjectives to undergo further derivation in the deadjectival paradigm (e.g. zaalhafftigklich, hauffechtigklich, mäßigklich from MASS 'measure', and the UvH example above). This characteristic serves to set this class apart from others in the Concrete set. Given the small number of formations here, it is not possible to indicate which operations are likely productive or to postulate a reduced class paradigm — this will, however, emerge in the later periods. There are two paradigms of more than one derivational member in the corpuslet, for the bases HAUFEN and ZAHL. Both of these are complex. In the first of these, we find one polysemy set and one synonymy set, as shown in Figure 45:

Period 1:16th-century German 249

HAUFEN

hauffächtig

DIST('X')

hauffächtig

WITH('X')

haufflich

WITH('X')

Figure 45: Lexical paradigm of HAUFEN 'pile' The lexical paradigm of ZAHL shows a semantic contrast between the two members, as seen in Figure 46. zaalhafftig

WITHCX')

ZAHL DIST('X') Figure 46: Lexical paradigm of ZAHL 'number' With such a small set of examples, no conclusions regarding normality of such relations are possible; at most we can say very generally that given formations of certain types, the relations found here are not inconsistent with those described in other classes so far. There is no indication in Maa of alternative processes to suffixational derivation for this class.

7.1.6.10. Pure Object classes: the lexico-semantic class of Person Designations This class presents something of an anomaly within the broader group of Concrete classes, both in terms of semantics and of form. Surely, Persons are Concretes — yet the word-formation behaviour of the relevant bases seems more similar to that of Abstract Designations, as we shall see. Members of the lexico-semantic class of Person Designations denote relatives (e.g. SCHWESTER 'sister', VATER 'father'), members of a profession (e.g. BAUER 'farmer', PFAFFE 'priest', HURE 'whore'), members of a rank of nobility (e.g. FÜRST 'prince', KAISER 'emperor'), evaluative classifications (e.g. TOR 'crazy person', TÖLPEL 'silly person', NARR 'foolish/ crazy person') and some others (e.g. GAST 'guest', GOTT 'god', TEUFEL 'devil'). Typical semantic functions are LDCE('X'), OF('X'), and have the typical lexical interpretations 'like X in behaviour', 'belonging to X' or 'like

250 Denominal adjective derivation in German something belonging to X', and 'appropriate to X'. Often, an evaluative semantic function may accompany a derivation; depending on the meaning of the base, this can be POS('X'), or, more often, PEJ('X'). Generally, a base meaning with positive cultural connotations will be a potential candidate for POS('X') (e.g. FÜRST and a derivationförstlich 'princely'), while one which already implies a negative evaluation will be associated with PEJ('X') (e.g. PFAFFE, which is not itself a neutral term, that being PRIESTER). Some bases are themselves neutral, but may undergo derivation involving PEJ('X') or POS('X'), e.g. MANN 'man' with mannhaft (POS('X')) and männisch (PEJ('X')). Table 31: Representation of semantic functions in the Person Designations class in Maa Representation in % Functions Bases in Source WITH('X')

1

2

EX('X')

5

12

LKE('X')

31

76

OF('X')

31

76

REL('X')

1

2

Total

41

9

Corpus

450

In the present corpus, the most frequently occurring semantic functions are LIKE('X') and OF('X'), as shown in Table 31. There are further a few examples of EX('X'), any other function being apparently incidental. The strength of OF('X') is reminiscent of the Animals class, that of LDCE('X') of the Animals class in later periods. Thus in this class, we find much more of a balance between the two principal functions, rather than clear dominance by one function over all others as in the other Concrete classes. The formations derived from bases of the Persons class in the contemporary text sources all have the meaning LIKE('X') or OF('X'), which supports the data in Maa. Four bases with neutral cultural/social connotations select the evaluative function PEJ('X') (BAUER, BUB 'boy', MANN, WEIB 'woman'), while one selects POS('X') (MANN).

Period 1:16th-century German 251 Table 32: Representation of formal types in the Person Designations class in Maa Affixation Types Bases in Source Representation in % icht

2

5

ig

3

7

haft

3

7

lich

20

49

isch

21

51

bar

1

2

Total

41

9

Corpus

450

Table 32 shows that there are two form rules of importance in this class, namely those suffixing -lieh and -isch respectively; just as the two principal semantic functions were of about equal dominance, so too are these. In fact, of the 41 bases listed in Maa, 38 select one or other of these form rules. In most cases, a base will select one or another but not both; very often, the base selecting wcA-suffixation will be one with an automatic or a potential negative cultural/social connotations, in the latter case thus one susceptible to having the secondary semantic function PEJ('X') applied to it. The only exceptions here are KAISER and KÖNIG 'king'. As some bases with potentially negative connotations do not select «cÄ-suffixation according to Maa (KIND 'child', FEIND 'enemy', KNECHT '(menial) servant', TOR), we cannot say that there is an absolute correlation between form and secondary semantic function; at any rate, of the two, /icÄ-affixation is the unmarked type. All examples from the text sources are lich-adjectives; none happen to be used in a negative context, ic/ii-affixation seems to be associated with pejorative implications also; the two bases it applies to have automatic negative connotations (TOR, TÖLPEL). Based on the form-meaning mappings found in Maa, we can propose the structure in Figure 47 as the reduced systemic class paradigm for the class of Person Designations.

252 Denominal adjective derivation in German

ίΔ

51

1

iy

1

12

]

14

Γ < χ θ isch ; ...> ; Ό12'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Persons... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; 0p7!, (Op9!/OplO!) . < Σ ν - SAdj ...>

·

· Γ < χ e lieh ; ...> ; Ό51'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Persons... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!) . < ΣΝ - ΣΑ

13

· Γ < χ θ isch ...> ;Ό, 3 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Persons... < OF('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; Op7!, (Op9!/OplO!) . < ΣΝ - Σ ^ ...>

49,

Γ ; Ό49'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Persons... < OF('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - ΣΑΦ ...>

]

16

Figure 47: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the Person Designations class in Maa

As we see in Figure 47, the dominant form rules map onto the dominant semantic functions, with apparent — but probably not significant — preferences of isc/i-affixation for LIKECX') and /ic/i-affixation for OF('X'). The examples found in the text sources were equally divided between OF('X') and LIKE('X'), that is between Operations 51 and 49, which confirms the idea that the operations in the class paradigm are of about equal weight. Unlike the situation in the other Concrete classes as represented in Maa (with the exception of Animal Designations), it is less common for a lexical paradigm to have only one suffixal formation than to have more than one: of the 41 bases, only 13 have just one derivation listed (disregarding for the moment further derivation in the deadjectival paradigm, which can occur with formations in -haft). As might be expected, these "small" paradigms involve the most frequent operations, but not, however, without some observable bias: there are five paradigms containing one formation mapping the suffixation of -isch onto LIKECX') and only one onto OF('X') (KAISER), while there are six paradigms mapping the suffixation of -lich onto OF('X') and none mapping it onto LIKECX'). This might support the notion that these represent the primary affinities of the rules involved, for which there is otherwise only weak evidence. In lexical paradigms of more than one suffixational member, both relations of polysemy and synonymy are common. Basic polysemy sets in which one of the most frequent form rules maps onto both OF('X') and LIKECX') constitute perhaps the most normal paradigm pattern in the class; six para-

Period 1:16th-century German 253

digms (BAUER, FRAU 'woman', HEEDE 'heathen', HURE, KAISER, PFAFFE) have the form shown in Figure 48 and seven (ADEL 'noble', FEIND 'enemy', FREUND 'friend', GAST, GOTT, HERR 'gentleman; lord', MENSCH 'person'), that in Figure 49. < χ e isch ;... > ; Ό12'; s.c.: N, Persons... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π etc. < ΣΝ - EAdj ...>

;'0 13 '; s.c.: N, Persons... < OF('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π etc. . < ΣΝ - ς μ } ...> Figure 48: A common lexical paradigm type in the Person Designations class

.

< χ © lich ;... > ; Ό51'; s.c.: N, Persons... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π etc. < ΣΝ - LAdj ...>

.

< χ θ lieh ;... > ; Ό49'; s.c.: Ν, Persons... < OF('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π etc. < - Σ*, ...>

Figure 49: A common lexical paradigm type in the Person Designations class Polysemies are also found in larger paradigms, as for example in that of BRUDER 'brother', where a suffixation in -lich maps onto REL('X') as well as OF('X') and LIKE('X'), or MEISTER, where suffixations in -haft and -lich each map onto all three of LIKE('X'), OF('X'), and EX('X'), giving six formations altogether, as shown in Figure 50.

254 Denominal adjective derivation in German

LIKE('X') OF('X') EX('X') LIKE('X') OF('X') meisterlich

EX('X')

Figure 50: Lexical paradigm of MEISTER 'master' Likewise WEIB 'woman' shows two polysemous sets, shown in Figure 51.

WEIB

^

weibisch

LIKECX')

-weibisch

OF('X')

weiblich

LIKE('X')

weiblich

OF('X')

_

Figure 51: Lexical paradigm of WEIB 'woman'

The tendency seems to be, therefore, towards polysemy, and indeed to the extent that a form may correspond to whatever meanings are needed, rather than towards semantic differentiation within the lexical paradigm. Word-formation synonymy is also prevalent, thus realizing the potential of the class-specific paradigm shown in Figure 47. When a paradigm contains operations with different form rules, the resulting formations are generally synonymous, as in the case of KÖNIG, with synonymous kiinigisch and kiiniglich, both OF('X'). Other examples may be found in the paradigms of WEIB and MEISTER above, as well as in that of MANN, shown in Figure 52.

Period I: 16th-century German

MANN

männisch

OF('X')

mannbar

OF('X')93

männisch

LIKE('X')

mannlich

LIKE('X')

mannhaft

LIKE('X')

255

Figure 52: Lexical paradigm of MANN 'man' We may conclude that most of the operations available to this class are equivalent in function, and that polyvalence of form and semantic rules, meaning their ability to map onto a number of rules, is the norm. However, there is some functional opposition possible in those cases in which a base gives rise to adjectives suffixed with -lich and -isch. For example, in the lexical paradigm of WEIB, weybisch has had PEJ('X') apply to it and weyblich has not. In the paradigm of MANN, however, it does not appear from the examples and explanations Maa gives that mennisch must involve PEJ('X'); it appears to be optional according to context. The potential offered by having both lich- and wc/i-formations in one lexical paradigm is thus not always taken advantage of. Other processes may be called into service in this class as well, principally serial compounds. For example, the base GAST also gives rise to the formgastreychlich, an adverb based on the adjective gastreych 'hospitable', which complements gastlich 'like a guest'. However, such listings are not very common in this class, and as such are not comparable to the other Concrete classes. There are also a pair of participle formations, verhiiret (LIKE('X')) from HURE and geschwüstert (OF('X')) from SCHWESTER. It is evident that although the class of Person Designations must belong to the Concretes based on semantic principles, it does not behave semantically or formally like other Concrete classes. As we shall see in the exposition of the following classes, it is much more similar to Abstract classes both with regard to the prevalence of OF('X') and to the formal types occurring.

7.1.6.11. The lexico-semantic class of General Abstract Designations The class of General Abstract Designations is quite large. Many of those included here were also assigned to more specific Abstract classes. Bases

256 Denominal adjective derivation in German

have very varied referents, and it is difficult to isolate clear subgroups. Some bases refer to abstract, particularly human, qualities, such as EHRE 'honour', TUGEND 'virtue', GNADE 'grace, mercy', LASTER 'vice', some others to what one might call human assessments of things or experiences, such as WUNDER 'miracle', SCHANDE 'scandal, disgrace', PRACHT 'pomp, splendour'. Many base referents, however, show no particular semantic affinity to others, as in the case of NAME 'name'. Typical semantic functions in this class are WITH('X'), also the most common of the Concrete classes, and OF('X'), as shown in Table 33. The former clearly dominates the field; in the text sources likewise, most examples of formations from Abstract bases have the meaning WITH('X'). Another function that appears incidentally is LIKE('X'), indicated for two bases (ZAUBER 'magic' and Z3ER 'ornament'). It would seem, then, that this general class is fairly restricted as far as semantic functions within the domain of suffixational derivation are concerned. Table 33: Representation of semantic functions in the General Abstract Designations class in Maa Functions Bases in Source Representation in % WITH('X')

55

83

OF('X')

17

26

EX('X')

2

3

LIKE('X')

2

3

Total

65

14

Corpus

450

The frequently occurring form rules involve the affixation of -lieh, -ig, -haft, and -bar. All four types are well-represented in the text sources, with //cA-affixation predominating in terms of text frequency and number of bases involved. We thus observe a first difference to the Concrete classes, where /icA-affixation only attained system status in the Persons class. Secondly, in the Concrete classes, icAi-affixation was always dominant over ig-affixation; while there are some examples of adjectives in -icht in the Abstract corpus, this formal type does not enjoy system status. Finally, we see that haftaffixation, while not the best-represented formal type, does have system status, which was never the case in the Concrete classes for Maa. Formations in the Abstract class often undergo further derivation in the deadjectival adjective paradigm, creating forms such as scheinbarlich 'appar-

Period I: 16th-century German 257 ent(ly)' from SCHEIN and SCHEINBAR, 'shine, appearance' and 'apparent' respectively, namhqfftig and namhafftigklich, both 'renowned' (i.e. 'with a name') from NAME 'name' and NAMHAFT 'renowned'. The text sources also contain a number of such complex adjectives, e.g. (MR) mäßiglich 'in moderation' from MASSE 'moderation', (SH) wunderbarlich 'wonderful', (UvH) tugendhaffiig 'virtuous'. It is thus clear that while all form rules are familiar from Concrete classes, distributions and formal types of occurring adjectives differ in significant ways from those observed in the Concretes. Table 34: Representation of formal types in the General Abstract Designations class in Maa Affixation Types Bases in Source Representation in % isch

7

11

icht

3

5

ig

25

38

in

1

2

haft

10

15

lich

33

51

sam

1

2

bar

9

14

Total

65

14

Corpus

450

The form-meaning mappings found in the Maa corpus allow us to postulate the structure given in Figure 53 as the reduced systemic class paradigm for the Abstracts class. First we note that this structure has many more members than the usual class paradigm for Maa as determined for the Concrete classes. Second, we see that all but one of the operations contained in the structure map a form rule onto WITH('X'), which underscores the dominance of that semantic function in this class. The dominance of lichsuffixation is apparent; it is the only polyvalent formal type in the structure, as well as being involved in the operation with the best representation. All formations found in the text sources are derived by means of one of the operations in the systemic class paradigm.

258 Denominal adjective derivation in German

15.

< χ e isch ...> ; '015'; s.c.: N, LSC: Abstracts ... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; Op7! (Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - ΣΑφ ...>

25.

; Ό25'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Abstracts... < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!)

22

< ^N - 2Adj .··>

40.

< x ® haft;... > ; O w '; s.c.: N, LSC: * Abstracts... < WITHCX') ·•·> o.e.: slot II; (Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ ...>

48.

< χ ® lieh ;... > ; Ό ^ ' ; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Abstracts...

< WITHCX') ...> < ΣΝ - EAdj ...> 54.

49,

25

o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!)

< χ e bar;... > ; Ό54'; s.c.: N, LSC: Abstracts... < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot Π < ΣΝ - ΣΑ(β ...> Γ

< χ ® lieh ;... > ; Ό 49 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Abstracts ...

< OF('X') ...> < ΣΝ - Σ Μ ...>

13

o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!)

* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 53: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the Abstract Designations class in Maa

32 of the 65 paradigms are represented in Maa as having one suffixational member only; this is something less than we were accustomed to in the Concrete classes. Most of these correspond to the most frequent mappings as shown in Figure 53. This is also somewhat unusual compared to what we have seen so far, as it is often the case that an operation may be frequent overall, but may not necessarily be autonomous in the sense that it may be responsible for the only formation in a lexical (sub)paradigm94. The most frequent type here is that containing a formation derived from Operation 25 (12 examples, including ABENTEUER 'adventure', GEWALT 'power, violence', MACHT 'power', ΗΓΓΖΕ 'heat', LAST 'burden'), followed by one-member paradigms based on Operation 48 (five examples, including GEFAHR 'danger', KOST 'cost', RUHM 'fame').

Period I: 16th-century German 259 Within paradigms of two or more members, we find both polysemy sets and a tendency towards synonymy relations; given the mappings indicated in Figure 53, it is not surprising that polysemies generally involve forms in -lich. There are three paradigms in which suffixations in -lich map onto OF('X') and WITH('X') (KUNST 'art', ORDEN 'order', ENDE 'end'), and one in which they map onto LIKE('X') and WITH('X') (ZIER 'ornament'), this last of course anomalous with respect to the class paradigm. A further example involves a pair of formations in -isch (ZAUBER with zauberisch 'like magic' and zauberisch 'of magic'). The number of synonymy relations in two-member paradigms is very high, and in fact, there is only one example of semantic differentiation within a paradigm of this size, namely that of ZAHL (and here its properties are likely due to its also being a member of the Measure class). Typical synonymies involve WITH('X') and OF('X'); examples of the former include PRACHT 'pomp, splendour' with synonymous prachtig (and prachtigklich), prachtlich 'splendid, with pomp', LASTER 'vice' with lasterlich, lasterhaft, lasterhafftig, and lasterhafftigklich 'full of vice', and MANGEL 'lack, fault' mangelhafft, mangelhafftig, and mangelbar, all 'lacking, faulty'. An example of synonymies around the function OF('X') is provided by (GE)BRAUCH 'custom, usage, use' breiichig, breiichlich 'common, in use, customary'95. Some examples of synonymy occur in the text sources as well: UvH has synonymous tugendhafftig and tugentlich 'virtuous', which are used in different contexts (the former with 'courage' (muotsamkeit), the latter with a person), although it is doubtful that a systematic differentiation is involved here; UvH also has both (un)niitzig and nützlich '(un)useful'. Within paradigms of more than two members, of which there are four found in Maa, a combination of synonymy and polysemy is found in each case; this allows for a minimum amount of semantic differentiation. In the paradigm of ΖΕΓΓ 'time', there are two synonymous pairs, and two polysemy sets, as shown in Figure 54. There is some semantic differentiation here on the lexical level, as for example zeytig has the meanings 'ripe' (WITH('X')) and 'on time, at the right time, punctual' (OF('X')); zeytlich, however, can mean 'lasting a certain amount of time' (WITH('X')), while its OF('X') interpretation appears to be similar.

260 Denominal adjective derivation in German WITH('X') WITH('X') ΖΕΓΓ OF('X') OF('X') Figure 54: Lexical paradigm of ZEIT 'time' In the paradigm of LEBEN 'life', the relations are not so symmetric, as one of the formations does not take part in a polysemy relation; it is thus less ambiguous.
o.e.: slot Π; (Op9!/OplO!)

61

< Σ Ν - S Adj •··>

46. r

< x ® sam... > ; Ό ^ ' ; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Mental States ... < WITH('X')... > o.e.: slot Π < ΣΝ - Σ*,... >

48.

< χ θ lieh ;... > ; Ό 48 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Mental States ... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - ΣΑ4 ...>

54

·

Γ

40

< χ Φ bar ;... > ; Ό 54 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Mental States ... < WITHOX') ...> o.e.: slot Π < ΣΝ - ΣΑ

Figure 57: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the Mental State Designations class in Maa It should be noted that derived adjectives from this class often undergo further derivation in the deadjectival adjective paradigm (e.g. ruowig, ruowigklich 'calm' from RUHE 'calm', lasterhafft, lasterhqfftig, lasterhafftigklich 'vicious, with vice' from LASTER 'vice'). Although paradigms with more than one member are common, many bases are listed with just one formation from the denominal adjective (suffixational) subparadigm. There are 39 one-member paradigms with formations in -ig, mapping onto WITH('X'), providing the strongest pattern for this class, and ten with formations in -lich. Other types, predictable from the reduced paradigm, are represented once or twice each. Paradigms with two members almost necessarily show synonymy, given that WITH('X') is

264 Denominal adjective derivation in German

so dominant here. Common types of two-member paradigm combine the branches of the reduced paradigm, as in Figure 56.

.

; Ό 25 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Mental States... < WITH('X')... > o.e.: slot Π etc. < ΣΝ - ΣΑ

.

< χ ® lieh ... > ; Ό,«'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Mental States... < WITH('X')... > o.e.: slot Π etc. < Σ ν - s Adj ... >

Figure 58: Α common lexical paradigm in the Mental State Designations class This type is found for 13 bases (e.g. NOT 'need', MÜSSE 'leisure', ARGWOHN 'suspicion'). A few examples of paradigmatic synonymy of this type are found in the text sources: MR has gütig and gütlich from GUTE 'goodness, kindness' (itself a derived base), used in identical contexts, and UvH has ernstigQich) and ernstlich similarly as synonyms. Another type is shown in Figure 59. < χ ® lich ... >

< WITH('X'). < Σ ν SAdj ..· >

< χ φ haft... >

I*Exp

hässig

Pso' ^ E x p

HASS 'hate' hässlich

So

kümberhafft(ig)

^Exp

KUMMER 'sorrow' kumberlich

Exp

Period 1:16th-century German 273

muyig

Exp

MÜHE 'trouble' miiylich

LEID 'suffering'

P&» ΡExp

leidig

Exp

leidhafft

Exp

leidlich

^So» ^Exp

Figure 63: Distribution of participant roles in lexical paradigms In the paradigm of LEID, all formations have the possibility of mapping an Experiencer role (there may be some additional semantic differentiation at the lexical level). In other large paradigms, however, there may be more differentiation, as in Figure 62. lustig LUST

lustlich • lustbar

Pso> ^Exp Exp

274 Denominal adjective derivation in German

gleubig GLAUBE

glaubhafftig glöublich

' Exp

Pso> ^Exp

So

Figure 64: Participant roles in the lexical paradigms of LUST 'pleasure' and GLAUBE 'faith', 'belief Other word-formation processes may express the two situational roles as well, and as may be expected, the resulting forms are explicit. Examples are glaubwirdig 'belief-worthy', i.e. 'credible' (PSo), müysälig 'troubled' (P^p). In general, then, there is some degree of lexical differentiation possible, even if absolute predictability of correlation between form and participant role mappings is not. Frequency of mappings in the case of polyvalence was not taken into account here; it is to be expected that in many cases frequency differentials will be present, possibly enhancing predictability further. This class is uniform insofar as it has one dominant semantic function (WITH('X')) and typical lexical interpretation of the function; also, there is a fairly strong uniformity with respect to the typical forms that occur. Formal variety in the class is considerable, which leads to comparatively large classand lexical paradigms. An important subclass of bases give rise to adjectives which may modify, or take as their arguments, different situational or participant roles, that is, a Source and an Experiencer. There seems to be a tendency towards at least partial differentiation within the paradigm with respect to the expression of these roles; as well, there is a certain correlation between form rule and participant role.

7.1.6.13. The lexico-semantic class of Process, Activity, and State Designations This class contains bases referring to activities, events, processes, and states, whereby it is recognized that the borderline between each of these is not always a clear-cut one (that is, a number of activities etc. can be thought of as either static or non-punctual on the one hand or punctual and dynamic on the other)96. One might ask why names of activities etc. are considered to be nominal rather than verbal. First of all, it is clear from the form of some of the bases, as it differs from any of the related potential verb bases, that the adjective in question is in fact derived from the related noun. For example,

Period 1:16th-century German 275 SICHT 'sight' is related non-productively to SEHEN 'see'; the formation sichtbar 'visible' is directly relatable only to the noun. Other bases of this type found in the corpus are FLUCHT 'flight', related to FLIEHEN 'flee', TAT 'act, deed', related to TUN 'do', FLUSS 'flow' related to FLIESSEN 'flow', GANG 'way; gait' related to GEHEN 'go', GEBURT 'birth', DIENST 'service', GUSS 'gush, run (of liquid)', and HILFE 'help'. Now, if it is possible that adjectival derivations may be made on the basis of nouns, then it would follow that other nouns — deverbal or not — denoting activities and processes might also give rise to adjectival formations. Many deverbal nouns have a base homophonic to their verbal bases; one cannot, then, tell whether the verb or the noun has given rise to an adjectival formation, particularly as the form rules involved in the relevant operations are identical. Depending on what the structure of a lexical entry ultimately turns out to be, it may be the case that at least some bases will be unspecified for lexicosyntactic category, so that the problem becomes less interesting. In the present study, bases were considered which either were clearly nominal with respect to their form or else had meanings which did not strongly predispose them to be verbal, although homophonous verb and noun bases exist. For example, SIEG 'victory' might well be thought by a speaker to be motivating for a formation such as sighqfft, defined in Maa as "der manchen sig hat gewonnen" ['who has won many victories'], rather than the verb SIEGEN 'win'. Within this small class, then, the predominant semantic function is WITH('X'). Lexical interpretations are often dependent on an AFF function, as in the case of the Mental State Designations class. Here the participants in the situation denoted by the base may be PAct (for Actor, see Jackendoff 1990: 126), giving rise to a lexical interpretation 'doing', 'having', 'making', 'devoted to' etc., and PPat (for Patient) giving rise to lexical interpretations such as 'given', 'done to' etc. PSo and PExp may appear also, resulting in interpretations 'worthy o f , 'inspiring', 'provoking' for the former. Table 38 shows that of the 74 bases isolated for this class, almost all selected the function WITH('X'), some exceptions being MARTER 'torture' and KAUF 'purchase'. In addition, some others also selected OF('X'), e.g. WERK 'work', GEWERBE 'trade', KRIEG 'war', DIENST, and MAST 'mast, fattening'. No other functions play a major role; at the level of wordformation semantics, then, this is a very uniform class. Adjectives derived from Process or State bases in the contemporary text sources uniformly have the meaning WITH('X').

276 Denominal adjective derivation in German

Table 38: Representation of semantic functions in the Process/State Designation class in Maa Functions Bases in Source Representation in % WITH('X')

70

95

OF('X')

11

15

EX('X')

1

1

LIKE('X')

1

1

Total

74

16

Corpus

450

Table 39: Representation of formal types in the Process/State Designations class in Maa

Affixation Types

Bases in Source

Representation in %

isch

4

5

icht

4

5

ig

39

53

haft

11

15

sam

3

4

lich

25

34

bar

7

9

Total

74

16

Corpus

450

As far as form is concerned, the dominant form rule suffixes -ig (see Table 39). The resulting formations may undergo further derivation in the deadjectival paradigm (cf. tätig, tätigklich from TAT 'deed', züchtig, züchtigklich from ZUCHT 'upbringing, breeding'). Other form rules of some importance suffix -lich (e.g. for PEIN 'torture', MARTER, GESPRÄCH 'conversation', WERK, SCHIMPF 'insult; jest', SPOTT 'mockery', LOB 'praise', BETRACHT 'consideration', DIENST, HILFE) and -haft (e.g. SCHADEN 'damage', SIEG, LEBEN 'life'). It may not be insignificant here that many of the activities in question are also denoted by verbs with homophonous bases. Although the other rules occur less often, they still

Period 1:16th-century German

277

provide considerable formal variety to the class. This formal variety is found in the text sources as well; even with only a few examples of adjectives derived from bases of the class of Process/State Designations, all formal types from Table 39 were represented. It appears then that the systemic class subparadigm for this class should have the form given in Figure 65. 25.

< χ θ ig ...> ; Ό25'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Process/States... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!) < ΣΝ - Σ ^ ...>

40.

< χ ® haft ... >

< WITHCX') ...> < ΣΝ - ΣΑ 48.

< χ θ lieh ...>

< WITHCX') ...> < ΣΝ - ΣΑ(1ί ...> 54

·

Γ

36

; Ό ^ ' ; s.c.: N, LSC: Process/States...

o.e.: slot Π; (Op9!/OplO!)

; Ό ^ ' ; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Process/States ...

22

o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!)

< χ θ bar ...> ; Ό54'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Process/States ... < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot Π < Σ Ν - SAdj - >

26.

49.

< x ® ig ...> < OF('X') ...> < ΣΝ - ΣΑ^ ...>

; '0 26 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Process/States... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!)

< χ θ lieh ...>

; Ό 49 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Process/States ...

< OF('X') ...> Σ

o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!)

2

< Ν - Adj - >

Figure 65: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the Process/State Designations class in Maa

Thus the class fits in well with the other abstract classes, due to the membership of Operations 40, 48, and 54 particularly, although the formal possibilities are reduced in comparison to the general Abstract class. Semantically, the same picture presents itself: virtually all operations involve the class-defining meaning WITH('X'), and only two of minor importance involve OF('X').

278 Denominal adjective derivation in German The majority (51) of lexical paradigms only have one member; 25 of these paradigms consist of a formation in -ig (and possibly another in -iglich, as mentioned above). There are further eight examples of a type consisting of one formation in -lick (e.g. HELFE, BETRACHT, MARTER, PEIN, GESPRÄCH). No other types occur more than twice in the corpus, so we can consider these two the only really typical paradigm pattern here. Twomember paradigms were found in eight other cases (e.g. STREIT, SICHT 'sight', SPOTT, SCHIMPF, GEWERBE, MAST), these being mainly of two formal types, as shown in Figure 66:

o.e.: slot II etc. < ΣΝ - SAdj ...>

; Ό25' < w r r a ( ' X ' ) ...> < ΣΝ - Σ*, ...>

s.c.: Ν, LSC: Process/States. o.e.: slot Π etc.

; Ό54'; s.c.: N, LSC: Process/States < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π Σ S < Ν - Adj ·"> Figure 66: Common paradigm types in the Process/State Designations class The first of these is a replica of the reduced systemic paradigm, and was given for SCHIMPF and SPOTT; the second contains an operation we must

Period 1:16th-century German 279 consider either non-productive or of low productivity, and was given for SICHT and STREIT. Naturally, given the semantic restrictions in this class, synonymy at the system level is the rule here. Further lexical semantic distinctions may be made with respect to participant role, as indicated above. -

; Ό 26 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Process/States... < OF('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π etc. < ΣΝ - ΣΑου· ...>

< χ Φ haft ...> ; Ό ^ ' ; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Process/States... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π etc. .


< Σ Ν - Σ μ ...>

-/4

o.e.: slot Π; (Ορ7!/Ορ8!/Ορ9!)

48.

< χ © lieh ...> ; Ό 48 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: *Institutions ... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!) < Σ Ν - Σ ^ ...>

-β

54.

< χ φ bar ...> ; Ό 5 4 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: *Institutions ... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π < Σ Ν ΣΑ£ϋ ...>

-/4

14.

< χ φ isch ...> < ΕΧ('Χ')... > < Σ Ν - Σ * , ..·>

3/-

; '0, 4 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: *Places ... o.e.: slot Π; Ορ7!, (Op9!/OplO!)

* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 71: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the Place/Institution Designations class in Maa Clearly, this paradigm allows for more systemic possibilities than in the two classes previously examined for Maa: both the formal and the semantic range are greater. At the same time, the class fits in well with the Abstract group. However, it is clear that representation for each operation is very low, and it is difficult to claim system status for those operations marked as marginal. The structure in Figure 71 must be considered very tentative, with clear directions to establish themselves in the following period, where the class will be larger.

284 Denominal adjective derivation in German About half the lexical paradigms in this class contain one member, and further derivation in the deadjectival paradigm does not seem to occur. The most commonly occurring paradigm type here (three examples, GESETZ, RECHT, LAND) contains a formation in -lich, mapping onto OF('X'), thus the most frequent and typical operation in this subclass. There are two paradigms consisting of a formation in -bar (ZINS, STEUER). Other types are represented once each. Three paradigms contain two members; both polysemy sets and synonymy relations occur. The two polysemy sets concern formations in -isch, with mappings onto LIKE('X') and OF('X') and EX('X') and OF('X') respectively (HÖLLE, DORF). Synonymy exists between the two members of the HEIM paradigm, where heimisch and heimlich both map into OF('X'). There is some semantic lexicalization of both formations, as they also mean 'secret', 'tame'. Two of the three paradigms with three members are polysemy sets, one with formations in -isch (HIMMEL, with mappings onto LIKE('X'), EX('X'), and OF('X')), the other with formations in -lich (WELT, with mappings onto REL('X'), OF('X'), and EX('X')). Finally, one paradigm contains a polysemy set as well as a synonymy relation, namely that of KRIEG, described in section 7.1.6.11. It thus appears that there is no aversion in this class to synonymy or to polysemy; there is likewise no noticeable tendency to semantic differentiation within the paradigm. Alternative processes to derivation by suffixation were rarely noted in Maa. One example of serial compounding occurred, namely gältreych from GELD 'money'; compounding is also possible for the class-defining function OF('X'), as well as EX('X') and REL('X').

7.1.6.15. The lexico-semantic class of Media Designations This tiny class contains bases referring to some medium of language, i.e. MUND 'mouth', SCHRIFT 'writing', POSSE 'joke' and SCHIMPF 'joke'. We have further included bases denoting the manner of imparting a message such as LOB 'praise', HADER 'dispute, quarrel', which one might refer to as labels of speech acts or activities. The functions involved here are OF('X'), WITH('X'), and DIST('X'). With regard to the latter, the lexical interpretation is 'by means of or 'via' 97 . For example, mundtlich means 'orally' (the example in the entry is mundtlich berichten 'report orally, give an oral report'), schrifftlich 'in writing'. The "joke" and "speech/writing acts" bases select WITH('X'), and indicate that a speaker/writer "has" or

Period I: 16th-century German 285 uses the medium referred to, as in the case of schimpfig or häderig: a schimpfig Mensch is one who makes jokes, makes people laugh, a häderig Mensch one who engages in quarrels or disputes. There are no examples of adjectives derived from bases of this class in the contemporary text sources, due primarily to text type. Table 42: Representation of semantic functions in the Media Designations class in Maa Bases in Source Functions Representation in % WITH('X')

9

OF(4X')

2

DIST('X')

2

Total Corpus

10

2

450

As we see in Table 42, the semantic function most frequently met with and consequently defining class behaviour is WITH('X'); the distributions in Table 42 are a reflection of the distribution of semantic types in the small corpus, there being a large number of "speech/writing" act designations and a very small number of core "medium" designations, as these are limited to the two bases mentioned. Table 43: Representation of formal types in the Media Designations class in Maa Affixation Types Bases in Source Representation in % isch

1

ig

2

haft

1

lich

7

bar

1

Total

10

Corpus

2

450

Table 43 shows the distribution of formal types within the class of Media Designations. The dominant type, /i'c/i-affixation, is selected by bases of all semantic types as described at the beginning of 7.1.6.15. This, is, of course,

286 Denominal adjective derivation in German

a typical formal rule for the Abstract classes. Perhaps due to the size of the class based on Maa, not much formal variety is apparent — in addition to the low representation of the formal types other than /z'c/i-suffixation in Table 43, formations in -icht (not so surprising for an Abstract class) and -sam are absent. Tentatively we can suggest the reduced paradigm in Figure 72 as available to this class. It is not possible to make any conjectures regarding productivity and frequency with so few examples. 25.

; Ό25'; s.c.: N, LSC: *Media... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!) < ΣΝ - E^j ...>

48.

< χ θ lieh ...> ; Ό^'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Media... < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!) < S N - SAdj ···>

49.

< χ ® lieh ...> < OF('X') ...>

; Ό49'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: *Media ... o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!)

< Σ Ν - SAdj "·>

53.

< χ φ lieh ...> ; Ό53'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: *Media < DIST('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - ΣΑ4 ...>

* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 72: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the Media Designations class in Maa The only operation to qualify for system status according to our criteria is Operation 48, which is selected by bases of all semantic types and thus truly class-defining and representative. In the structure proposed in Figure 72, the potential for both polysemy and synonymy is present; examples of both relations are found in the small corpus. The lexical paradigm of SCHIMPF has synonymous formations derived by means of Operations 25 and 48, as shown in Figure 73, and that of SCHRIFT shows a polysemy relation based on Operations 49 and 53 (Figure 74).

Period I: 16th-century German

schimpfig

WITHCX')

schimpflich

WITHCX')

287

SCHIMPF

Figure 73: Lexical paradigm of SCHIMPF 'insult, jest'

schriftlich

OF('X')

schriftlich

DIST('X')

SCHRIFT

Figure 74: Lexical paradigm of SCHRIFT 'writing' There are no apparent functional contrasts within lexical paradigms, with the exception of KLAGE 'complaint', whereby klägklich maps onto both the Source and Actor participant roles, while klagbar maps onto the Actor role only, i.e. is used to describe the complainer. Other word-formation processes were not noted in Maa for this class, with the exception of the (serial) compound lobwürdig 'praise-worthy'.

7.1.6.16. The lexico-semantic class of Time Unit Designations The last class we shall consider here is that of the Time Unit Designations. The corpus contains eight of these; they denote seasons, times of day, etc. Typical semantic functions here are OF('X'), interpreted as 'of, belonging to' or 'happening at/during'; DIST('X'), interpreted as '(happening) every', and WITH 'having, being (one unit) X old'. In many ways, this class is analogous to the Unit of Measure Designations class. Almost all bases select OF('X'), which must be considered the dominant function in this class (Table 44). Given the size of the class, WITH('X') and DIST('X') must be considered as constituting part of the norm as well. WITH('X') is found for bases such as JAHR 'year' and WINTER 'winter'; DIST('X') is found for the bases JAHR, HERBST 'autumn', and TAG 'day'. One can imagine, however, that these meanings would be perfectly applicable to bases such as WOCHE 'week', MONAT 'month', etc. The lone example of LIKE('X') is found with HERBST; we can consider this as more typical of a Landscape Designation than a Time Unit Designation. Only two

288 Denominal adjective derivation in German bases were found in the contemporary text sources (UvH) for this class, TAG and the generic ΖΕΓΓ 'time' (also discussed in the general Abstracts class); the formations occurring had the meanings WITH('X') (zeitig 'with (sufficient/full) time', i.e. 'ripe', täglich 'lasting one day', in des täglichen Fiebers 'of the one-day fever') and DIST('X') (täglich 'daily'). Table 44: Representation of semantic functions in the Time Unit Designations class in Maa Functions Bases in Source Representation in % WITH('X')

4

OF('X')

9

DIST('X')

3

LIKE('X')

1

Total Corpus

10

2

450

As can be seen in Table 45, the class of Time Unit Designations is formally limited, ic/ii-suffixation is found with two Season designations, WINTER and SOMMER, while the other formal types are found for all other semantic base types, including Season Designations. Again, we can consider all three suffixation-types, or at least ig- and /ic/i-suffixation, as constituting part of the class norm, with the latter being dominant. As indicated above, the text sources contained forms in -ig and -lich only, which at least confirms the findings here, although these few examples cannot be considered sufficient evidence for all findings.

Affixation Types

Bases in Source

icht

2

ig

5

lich

8

Total

10

Corpus

Representation in %

2

450

The form rules appear polyvalent, in that they can all map onto any of the semantic functions, with the exception of DIST('X'), which, on the basis of

Period 1:16th-century German 289 very few examples, appears reserved for < χ φ lieh. ...>. The reduced paradigm for this class may then have the structure represented in Figure 75. Aside from the one dominant operation, Operation 49, all others are only represented with a few examples each. However, given our observations hitherto, however, we must consider them all potentially productive and normal, for the time being at least. 21.

26.

< χ © icht...> < OF('X') ...> < ΣΝ - EAdj ...>

< OF('X') ...>

Ό21·; s.c.: Ν, LSC: *Time Units ... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/OplO!)

, Ό 26 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Time Units ... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!)

49.

< χ ® lich ...> < OF('X') ...> < ΣΝ ^ SAdj ...>

25.

< χ e ig ...> ; Ό 25 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: *Time Units ... < Wrra('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!) < ΣΝ - ΣΑ

48.

< χ θ lich ...> ; ' ( V ; s.c.:N, LSC: *Time Units ... < Wrra('X') ...> o.c.:slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - Σ ^ ...>

53.

< χ ® lich ...> ; Ό 53 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: *Time Units ... < DIST('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - Σ ^ ...>

Ό 49 '; s.c.: N, LSC: Time Units ... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!)

* - marginal (4-5 attestations in corpus) Figure 73: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the Time Unit Designations class in Maa There is a great deal of potential for both polysemy and synonymy in this paradigm; correspondingly, both are realized in the larger lexical paradigms of this class. There is only one paradigm with one member, that of NACHMITTAG, containing a formation mapping -ig onto OF('X'). Another paradigm (or set of paradigms) is anomalous in the sense that there are two

290 Denominal adjective derivation in German stems, apparently, each giving rise to a formation with ig-suffixation in slot Π mapping on to OF('X'), and one with a slot I operation adding -er (from MORGEN 'morning' morgig and mornderig). Amongst the two-member paradigms, we find both a polysemy set and a synonymy relation. In the paradigm of SOMMER, the two formations sommerachtig and sommerlich are synonymous ('of summer', 'belonging to summer', 'characterized by summer'). In the paradigm of TAG, two formations in -lieh (täglich) map onto OF('X') and DIST('X') respectively ('of the day', 'every day'); this relation was also found in UvH, see examples above. In one paradigm, that of JAHR, there does seem to be some semantic differentiation, whereby the formation in -ig maps onto WITH('X') (järig 'one year old'), that in -lich onto DIST('X') (järlich 'happening every year'). Three paradigms have three or more members, and as usual, both polysemy and synonymy are the order of the day. One paradigm, that of HERBST, has three formations in -lich, mapping on to OF('X'), DIST('X') and LEKE('X') respectively, thus an example of pure polysemy. In the paradigm of ZEIT, there are two polysemous sets around OF('X') and WITH('X'), and synonymy exists between the two sets, as shown in section 7.1.6.11.

In the paradigm of WINTER, a polysemous set holds between two formations in -icht (further derived in the deadjectival paradigm), one with WITH('X') and the other with OF('X'), this latter synonymous with the other formations in the paradigm, winterlich and winterig. Although the potential for paradigmatic semantic differentiation is present at the lexical level, it does not seem often taken advantage of, which we have come to expect in this corpus and in the larger class of Abstract Designations. Again, this small class is formally well-defined within the Abstracts, although clearly belonging to them. There is some evidence of competition through compounding, although serial compounding plays no observable role. Some entries give a synonym derived from a compound in ΖΕΓΓ and with the interpretation 'belonging to the X-time', as in winterzeytlich, or 'happening every X-time', as in jarzeytlich9i. As well, complex formations occur expressing WITH('X'), whereby a unit greater than one is specified in the first element of the underlying compound, as in (UvH) des virtäglichen Fiebers 'of the four-day fever'.

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

291

7.1.6.17. Conclusions A division into Concrete and Abstract bases appears to make sense, given the patterns observed here. Nevertheless, some form and semantic rules appear frequently in both of these two subdivisions (WITH('X') and < χ θ ig ...> particularly). The smaller classes isolated do tend to maintain their own recognizable character, determined by which of the available operations they commonly select, as well as by which semantic functions are to be expressible through suffixal derivation in each class. It seems, then, that the lexicosemantic classes do in fact represent a reality of speaker behaviour. Both word-formation synonymy and polysemy are common in this corpus, there being little recognizable effort towards lexical or systemic differentiation, the exception being formations in -in with the meaning EX('X') in the Concrete classes. We shall see whether the tendencies observed here will be upheld in subsequent history, as documented by St and Stb.

7.2. Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

7.2.1. Word-formation processes in denominal adjective formation The word-formation processes represented in the dictionaries Sti and Stb in the domain of denominal adjective formation comprise suffixation, compounding, prefixation, and serial compounding. Any examples of conversions are lexical relics, as before (e.g. GESCHMACKAdj 'tasty' from GESCHMACK^ 'taste'in Stb, SCHMUTZAdj 'dirty' from SCHMUTZ 'dirt' in Sti). The contemporary texts also contain examples of converted adjectives (e.g. AO messinge Kettlein 'brass chainlets' from MESSING 'brass', CSw die geschickste Elefanten 'the most skillful elephants' from GESCHICK 'skill', ΑΜΑ diese Fische sind klein und geschmack 'these fish are small and tasty'). The relation between adjective and base in these cases is fully transparent, even if the process is not productive and the formations are rare. As before, the role of prefixation in this domain is quite restricted, and the same operations as in the Maa corpus are involved with some new additions. Prefixation of ge- in conjunction with the function WITH('X') is a competitor for productive suffixations in the classes of Body Part and Object Designations, particularly the subdomain of Clothing Designations; formations listed were found in Maa as well, but new ones have also been added (e.g. gebeint 'legged', gehelmet 'helmeted' in Stv, geschnäbelt 'beaked', ge-

292 Denominal adjective derivation in German schwänzt 'tailed', geharnischt 'armoured' in Stb), so that we may presume that the operation is productive in the domain. Serial compounding appears to possess vigour comparable to that of Maa's time, the most common elements being -selig (WITH('X')), as in arbeitselig 'hard-working', combining with ARBEIT 'work' and -reich, as in Maa. Examples of the latter appear in one dictionary article in Sti and do not appear otherwise in the dictionary articles for their lexeme bases, which is consistent with his treatment of compounds (thus listed according to their second element, rather than their first as in a strictly alphabetical system). It is thus difficult to assess the relative status of the processes concerned, or the extent to which they may rival equivalent suffixations, on the basis of the dictionary alone. That they were indeed used to some extent is indicated by the fact that Stieler's theoretical exposition contains an occasional serial compound (vol. ΙΠ p. 99, saftreich 'juicy; full of sap' from SAFT 'juice, sap') and by a very small number of examples in the other texts examined (e.g. GAB holtzreich from HOLZ 'wood'; ΑΜΑ liebreich from LIEBE 'love'); that they were not as common as derivations is indicated by their relative frequencies in texts and their neglect in the dictionary and theoretical exposition. For example, -voll is mentioned in the theoretical exposition as a serial compounding element, but the dictionary contains no examples, not even under VOLL 'full'. Still, there are a few examples of serial compounds for which Sti does not give derivations, e.g. hopfenreich 'full of hops', geldreich 'with lots of money', rindreich 'with much cattle', or equivalent derivations, e.g. bienenreich 'full of bees', goldreich 'full of gold'. It would seem, then, that although serial compounding is potentially productive, having few if any restrictions on its application, it is not exploited in an absolute sense to the extent that derivation by suffixation is. Compounding is clearly highly productive in German of this time, and often provides an alternative to derivation. Where the semantic function is not one of the typical ones for a given class, compounding will generally be the process of choice, as in OF('X') for Object Designations, for example. There will be potential competition particularly where the function in question is EX('X') and the class a Substance class. The texts clearly show that variation is possible in at least some domains, as in Rocken=Brodt 'rye bread'(CvH) vs. röckenes Brod (SAM).

Period II: 17th· and 18th-century German 293 7.2.2. Rules and rule elements in the denominal adjective system The set of available rule elements in prefixation and suffixation is little changed with regard to membership: no affixes have been lost, and one, -ern, has been added to the set, as shown in Figure 76." However, the number of variants available in Maa has generally been reduced, and the choice of typical variant is sometimes a different one. For -icht, the typical form listed is -icht rather than -echt as in Maa, although -echt forms do appear in Sti (e.g. Sti: bogechtig 'like a bow' from BOGEN 'bow', beumechtig 'like a tree' from BAUM 'tree'; 14 stems in all). It is significant that Stb has no -echt forms. Forms in -echt or its reduced variant -et are very rare in the additional sources: for StV s contemporaries we find only -et in vierecket 'four-cornered', i.e. 'square' (CSw, AO) and one example of -echt in wollechtig 'woolly' (GAB), alternating with wollicht in the same text. StVs contemporaries produce uniformly -icht, with the sole exception of SAM, who uses forms in -et (bucklet 'humpbacked', knollet 'lumpy', wiirfflet 'cubed') and two forms with -echt (spitzecht 'pointy', schimplecht 'mouldy'), both alternating with icht-iorms. It would thus seem that -icht is becoming the generally universal choice, at least in the written language. Affix isch icht ig en ern haft sam lich bar

Variants

ichf, echt; et in

Figure 76: Denominal adjective suffixes in Sti/Stb It is also clear that there is a correlation between deadjectival suffixation in -ig and quality of the vowel in the affix: all echt-forms in Sti have the additional -ig suffix, and no form in -icht has an additional -ig suffix. This may be interpreted as a relic from earlier variation, that is, that while a suffix in -acht is no longer possible, some of the resulting forms (with umlaut of the affix vowel) in -echtig have persisted, possibly without analysis of the suffix complex. The affix of productive operations is, however, -icht, as

294 Denominal adjective derivation in German shown by its high frequency, the fact that it has replaced any of the earlier variants with the same bases, and that an adjective in -icht almost always is listed alongside that in -echtig. A further possibility is that an affix -echtig, analyzed as simplex, is or has become independent, which, considering the distributions in Maa, where -icht is rare and adjectives without the additional -ig are also relatively infrequent, is not completely unlikely. However, frequencies and the absence of adjectives in -echt or -echtig in Stb would at least not support its association with a productive operation. That some change in analyzability has taken place is shown by the fact that Maa has adjectives in both -acht and -echt, as well as adjectives in -achtig and -echtig. Sti, however, contains no adjectives in -acht or -achtig, which implies that -acht, at least, cannot be underlying the complex -echtig, while it might in Maa. The contemporary texts do not contain forms in -ichtig or -echtig. Both -in and -en appear as variants in Sti and Stb\ as the latter is now much more frequent than the former, the "label" for the affix should now be -en. While Sti lists twice as many bases attaching -in (28) alone as -en alone (14) (seven additional bases are listed as attaching either),100 Stb only has informs for three bases altogether. In the contemporary sources, we find an overwhelming majority of en-forms. AO, Sti's (northern) contemporary, has no forms in -in, so that a regional preference is likely responsible for the choices. By Stb's time, even the southern SAM has only one in-form (härin from HAAR 'hair') amongst a large number of en-forms. It is thus apparent that in has to all intents and purposes been eliminated by the early 18th century. Finally, alongside the suffix -en appears -ern\ it is attested in other sources in Maa's time, but no formations containing it were found in Maa. In the present corpus, some bases may be derived using one or the other — in other words, both forms are listed, as in (Sti) pelzin, pelzern from PELZ 'fur'; in other cases, only one formation is given. Likewise, the sources may use both suffixes with the same base, e.g. GAB eisen, eisern from EISEN 'iron', SAM holtzen, höltzern from HOLZ 'wood', zinnen, zinnern from ZINN 'tin, pewter', rinden, rindern from RIND 'cattle'. It is thus not immediately clear what the status of the two objects is: is -ern a variant of -en, or are they independent of each other? Remembering our discussion of the variants of -icht, the principal requirement for variants is that they be absolutely interchangeable; in other words, the same base must always be able to choose both affixes, either for individual speakers or for speakers across regions. The examples given would appear to indicate that this is in fact the case, and in general, the form-meaning mappings involved are identical. However, as we shall see in 7.2.6., it turns out that there are some differ-

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German 295

ences in the semantic distribution of the forms: in some lexico-semantic classes of noun bases (e.g. Tree Designations), only one form (-en in this case) is found. In spite of the very great overlap, then, we must conclude that the affixes should be assigned independent status, and consequently each be incorporated by its own form rule, resulting in two sets of operations. At the same time, it is highly likely that for some speakers, the two affixes are felt to be variants, and for all speakers, there is a strong association between the two.101 As will become apparent, the lexicon comes to play a large role here: there is, or there develops, a strong association between a given base and one or another formal affixation type; one might say that a base, or its lexical entry, selects one or another of the affix variants, and if this is justifiable, then one could say a lexical class can select a variant likewise. In such borderline cases, one might speak of "quasi-variants" with some justification, for the association between -en and -ern, and other such pairs to emerge, is not without consequence. The set of form rules for operations producing denominal adjectives in German is identical to that given in 7.1.2., with the addition of a rule affixing -ern. The list is repeated in Figure 77, with appropriate adjustments in the affix forms. FR,




®ern ; ' F R S ' ; s.c.: N...>

; 'FR G ';

s.c.: N/V/Adj...>

Figure 77: Form rules for suffixes, based on Sti/Stb The remarks made in connection with form rules valid in the 16th century hold here as well. As in Maa, affixes of the "stem-extension" type also

296 Denominal adjective derivation in German occur, the corresponding rules identical with those proposed for Maa. The semantic and syntactic rules likewise are constant and will not be repeated here. Changes have taken place on the concrete level of affix form; the systemic elements of rules appear to be constant over time.

7.2.3. Operations in the denominal adjective system This section will present the operations of the denominal adjective formation system in Sti and Stb, with reference as we proceed to the system represented in 7.1.3. for Maa.

7.2.3.1. Operations in slot -I: prefixation Participle formation is a fairly common complex of affixation operations in Sti and Stb, as indicated in 7.2.1. The proportion of bases listed as undergoing one of the operations 1-5 combined with Operation 11 in slot I is more or less constant between Maa and Sti and then shows a slight (but not statistically significant) increase from about 6% of all bases to about 7.5% in Stb. Note in Figure 78 also the addition of two "new" operations, 2 and 4, which, however, are only attested with a very few examples. The only operation that appears on the basis of frequency to be productive is Operation 1, with about 50 attestations in each of Sti and Stb. Operation 2 is very probably an extension of a similar — and highly productive — operation in the deverbal domain, the verbs in question being denominal. Some formations have no likely verbal base, and would be considered by most to be derived directly from the noun, such as bereift 'frosted, hoary' (synonym reificht) from REIF 'hoarfrost', bemost 'mossy, (covered) with moss' (synonym mosicht) from MOOS 'moss', or behaart 'hairy' from HAAR 'hair'102. Others are likely deverbal, as bebürdet 'burdened' (synonym bürdig) ultimately from BURDE 'burden', bewaffnet 'armed' ultimately from WAFFE 'weapon'. We might speculate that the use of this denominal operation and Operation 4 likewise developed also in analogy to Operation 1.

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German 297

-

; Ό/;

2.

s.c.: Ν, LSC: Objects/ Substances/ Body Parts/Landscape/Abstracts/ Mental States o.e.: slot -I

< χ ® ge...> ; Ό 2 ' ; s.c.: Ν ... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot-I < ς ν - zAdj ...> < χ ® be...> ; Oj'; s.c.: N, LSC: *Objects/*Substances < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot-I

4.

< χ e ver...> ; Ό 4 '; < WITH('X') ...> < ΣΝ - Σ ^ ...>

s.c.: Ν ... o.e.: slot -I

5.

; Ό 5 '; < LIKE('X') ...> < ΣΝ - ΣΑφ ...>

s.c.: Ν ... o.e.: slot-I

* - marginal (4-5 attestations) Figure 78: Slot -I operations in Sti/Stb Operation 4 appears to be of limited scope in the denominal domain, and is perhaps an extension of a very productive operation with the same form and the same semantic rules in the deverbal adjective domain (the verbs in question being, of course, themselves denominal). Deverbal adjectives in ver- are listed as synonymous with denominal adjectives of the same base, e.g. verschimmelt, schimmlicht 'mouldy' from SCHIMMEL 'mould' or verwundet, wundicht 'wounded, with a wound' from WUNDE 'wound'. Such deverbal adjectives might have provided the original motivation for more likely purely denominal adjectives such as verschlammt 'full of mud, with mud' from SCHLAMM. Forms from Object bases such as vergittert 'latticed' (again, with synonym gittericht) from GITTER 'lattice, grille' are likely not to have a verbal origin for many speakers. Finally, Operations 2 and 5 are of some interest here, although attestations are rare. WITH('X') is certainly the canonical meaning associated with participle formation, and any other semantic function is unexpected. How-

298 Denominal adjective derivation in German ever, the fact that some formations involving LIKE('X') occur may be an indication that the process is becoming generalized, that is, more like other affixation operations in German, which are characterized by what we called in 4.5.2. word-formation polysemy, i.e. belonging to sets unified by common form rules, but with different form-meaning mappings. Two vivid formations occurring in both Sti and Stb are based on Animal Designations and applied to people, thus creating a comparison relation: verfuchst 'like a fox', verschäfen 'like a sheep' (with synonyms schäficht and schäfin). The formations resulting from Operations 1-5 are often listed alongside synonymous suffixal derivates, such as gehörnte Thiere, hörnichte Thiere 'horned animals, animals with horns' (Stb) or geblühmtes Zeug, blühmichtes Zeug 'flowered stuff (i.e. cloth), stuff with flowers' (Stb). Other, similar, formations have a potential verbal origin, such as gekrönt 'crowned, with a crown', ultimately from KRONE 'crown' but derived from the verb krönen 'crown', or gespaltet 'split' from SPALTEN 'split'. This operation appears to be an alternative to suffixation particularly in the lexico-semantic classes of Body Part and Clothing Designations, typical examples of the latter being gemäntelt 'with or wearing a coat' (with the example sie kommen gemäntelt 'they are coming coated') from MANTEL 'coat' (Stb) or gehelmet 'helmeted, with a helmet' from HELM 'helmet'. The additional sources do not provide numerous examples of participle formation, that is, at most more than five or six different formations each. This serves to emphasize the very subsidiary role the process plays textually ("textual productivity"), even though its potential is great ("systemic productivity"). A recurring formation is gehörnt, while some of the more interesting ones are (SAM) geblättert 'leafed' in the expression (von) geblättertem Teig 'of puff pastry'103 or (ΑΜΑ) gezwirnt 'threaded' in the expression gezwirnte Blumen 'embroidered flowers'. Formations appearing as alternates to suffixations or other processes within the same texts are e.g. (SAM) gewürffeiet 'cubed' (vs. wüifflicht, wiirfflet) or (ΑΜΑ) geschmackt 'tasted', i.e. 'tasty' (vs. geschmack) and a series of synonymous suffixations. There are no examples in the additional sources of Operation 3 adding the prefix be- except for ΑΜΑ behertzt 'with heart', i.e. 'courageous' from HERZ 'heart'; this is a clearly denominal formation.

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German 299 7.2.3.2. Operations on the base: apophony or umlaut

7

'

Γ < ν * - V b k ...>;O 7 '; s.c.: N/V/Adj;!... < I('X')...> o.e.: χ = (a)V(b), χ a base .

The umlaut operation is basically unchanged since Mao's time: some changes are found regarding the "normalcy" of its application in conjunction with other operations, but these will be indicated in the discussion of those operations, as they will be considered changes in their operation conditions. As far as the interaction between lexical specifications and the morphological or systemic paradigm is concerned, it would appear that there is a fair degree of freedom of application of the umlaut operation for individual bases (which, we will assume, are generally lexically marked as undergoing the operation by means of the lexical paradigm). In other words, when an umlaut operation is lexically specified, the speaker may be free not to apply it. Likewise, if an umlaut operation is not specified in a given case, the speaker may apply one anyway if the conditions are met. We thus meet with quite a number of variants listed, that is, the sources list both umlauted and umlauted derived adjectives. For example, Sti lists narbicht and närbicht from NARBE 'scar', raumig and räumig from RAUM 'room, space', honicht and hönicht from HONIG 'honey', wunschlich and wünschlich from WUNSCH 'wish'. The fact that the sets of variants found in Sti and Stb respectively do not overlap (with the exception of augicht, äugicht from AUGE 'eye') is an indicator of the sizeable extent of this freedom. The potential variation recorded in the dictionaries is reflected to a certain extent in the contemporary text sources as well. Whereas for the most part, consistency is the norm for a given base with respect to umlaut both within and across the texts examined, variation is certainly also found across texts (e.g. GAB has wurmicht and the later CvH has wiirmicht from WURM 'worm'), and, more importantly, within texts. Amongst StV s contemporaries, we find a text example in AO with buschicht and biischicht from BUSCH 'bush', another v/ithformlich and förmlich from FORM 'form' (only umlauted forms listed for both stems in Sti)\ GAB also shows the alternates with formlich/förmlich, as well as another between haaricht and häricht from HAAR 'hair', the former being much more frequent in the text, although Sti lists only the umlauted form, and finally an alternation between lufftig and lüjftig from LUFT 'air' (here the latter is more common in the text and the only possibility listed in Sti).

300 Denominal adjective derivation in German

Stb' s contemporaries CvH and ΑΜΑ also show a fair amount of variation. CvH alternates between gallicht and gällicht (GALLE 'gall, bile'), schatticht (most frequent) and schätticht (not listed in Stb) from SCHATTEN 'shade, shadow', wollicht and wöllicht (not listed in Stb) from WOLLE 'wool', haaren and hären (the most frequent and only possibility in Stb) from HAAR, küpffern (only form in Stb) and kupjfern (most frequent) from KUPFER 'copper', zackicht and zäckicht (not listed in Stb) from ZACKE 'jag'. ΑΜΑ not only contains variations throughout the text for e.g. golden and golden (more frequent but not listed in Stb) from GOLD 'gold', farbicht (not found in Stb) zndfärbicht from FARBE 'colour', but also contains sentences with both alternate forms, e.g. from the base ABERGLAUBE 'superstition' abergläubisch and abergleubischm. There can be little doubt, then, that true optionality and relative freedom from the lexicon (or ability to override lexical specifications) of the umlaut operation is characteristic of this period, particularly as the variation is not just found with one or two different operations, but with all formal types with which it can combine.

7.2.3.3. Operations in slot I: suffixation

.

.

< I('X'); ...>

;O g ';

s.c.: N/Adj; ! o.e.: slot I (Op7!)

< χ θ er; ...>

;'0 9 ';

s.c.: N/Adj;! o.e.: slotI(Op7!)

< χ θ en ; ...>

.

< Ι('Χ'); ..·> < Ι(ΣΧ); ...>

;'O10'; s.c.: N;! o.e.: slot I

Figure 79: Slot I operations in Sti/Stb

The nature of operations applying in slot I is basically unchanged since Maa. They may, as before, cooccur with suffixation operations involving the elements -isch (9), -icht (8, 9), -ig (8, 9), -haft (9, 10), and -lich (9, 10). In

many cases, their application is optional in the sense that Sti and/or Stb list, for a given base, synonymous derived formations both with and without one of these operations in slot I. For example, both sources give klumpicht and klumpericht 'lumpy' from KLUMP 'lump', and Sti has both rosicht and

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

301

röslicht 'rosy' from ROSE 'rose', kalbhaft and kälberhaft 'calf-like' from KALB 'calf (Stb only lists the latter here). Variation in the sources also occurs, for example in (StVs contemporary) AO die räuberischen Cosaken vs. den räuberischen Russen (from RAUB 'robbery')105, or GAB grubicht {Felde) vs. grübelicht (Land) from GRUBE 'pit' and steinlicht, steinicht from STEIN 'stone'. Amongst StVs contemporaries, ΑΜΑ uses both löchlicht and löchericht form LOCH 'hole'. As well, we find variation across texts, as e.g. GAB schilfericht, CvH schilficht from SCHILF 'reed'. More specific details on the application of slot I operations and a comparison to Maa will be found in the discussion of the relevant slot Π operations.

7.2.3.4. Operations in slot Π: suffixation η

·

Γ < χ e ί ...> < I('X') ...> < - IAdj ...>

; Ό η ' ; s.c.: Ν, Op. 1/2/3/4/5 o.e.: slot I; (Op7!/Op9!)

There are no significant changes in the operation itself between the 16th century as represented by Maa and the present period. As indicated in the Operation conditions, combinations with the umlaut operation 7 may occur, although the norm is certainly for unumlauted forms. Sti for example lists beträubet from TRAUBE 'grape(cluster)', verschäfen from SCHAF, and gehärtet from BART 'bearded', among others; Stb lists geschnäbelt (as does Sti) from SCHNABEL 'beak', gemäntelt from MANTEL, gehörnt from HORN (as did Maa), as well as gehärtet and others. As in Maa, slot I affixation is possible, although very rare (e.g. geblättert from BLATT, gebretert (Sti) from BRETT 'board', geklümpert (Stb) from KLUMP 'lump'). The contribution of the operation complex labelled "participle formation" will be discussed in the sections devoted to lexico-semantic classes.

302 Denominal adjective derivation in German < χ ® isch ...>

12.

< LIKE('X') ...>

13.

s.c.: N, LSC:Persons/Animals/ [Objects/[*Landscape o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!)

< χ ® isch ...> ; Ό 13 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC:Landscape/Animals/ Persons/Abstracts/Processes/ Places-Institutions o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!) < OF('X') ...> L < Σ Ν - Σ ,Adj "

r

14.

< χ θ isch ...> < EX('X') ...> < ΣΝ ^ SAdj ·">

15.

< χ θ isch ...>

16.

; '0 12 '

Ό 14 '; s.c.: N, LSC: [[Places/[[Animals o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!)

Ό 15 '; s.c.: N, LSC:Abstracts/Processes/ Mental States/[Objects/[Landscape < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!) L < ς ν - ΣAdj < χ ® isch ...> < REL('X') ...> < ΣΝ - Σμ} ...>

Ό 16 '; s.C.: Ν... o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op9!)

17.

< χ φ isch ...> Ό , / ; s.C.: Ν ... < DIST('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op9!) < Σκ SAdj ···> * - marginal (4-5 attestations) [ - Sti only [[ - Stb only Figure 80: Operations affixing -isch in Sti/Stb The set of operations affixing -isch have apparently undergone both an increase in membership, with the addition of Operations 16 and 17, and a significant overall increase in representation as indicated by a greater proportion of bases involved. With respect to the former, it is still true that productivity is not likely high, even though it attains norm status for both Sti and Stb·, not surprisingly, there are no examples in the text sources for this operation106. However, its existence might be an indication of increasing produc-

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German 303 tivity of the set as a whole. Operation 17 is found for only one base (WINTER) and at this point at least cannot be considered as actively partaking in adjective formation. In spite of the enhanced representation of this set in the corpora, the relative position of this set of operations has changed little since Maa\ it may apply to a greater proportion of bases overall, but it is still 5th for Sti and 4th for Stb amongst the nine affixation sets we are considering here. We can therefore expect that other operation sets will have increased their representation as well. Table 46: Representation of operations affixing -isch in Sti and Stbim Operations Bases in Sources Representation in % Maa

Sti

Stb

Maa

Sti

Stb

12

25

71

56

57

49

45

13

24

68

77

55

47

63

14

8

8

14

19

6

12

15

13

55

41

30

38

30

7

7

5

6

16

1

17 Totals

44

144

127

1 10

14

16

744 450 1040 Corpus χ - statistically significant change since preceding source χ - statistically significant change since two sources previous (e.g. from Maa to Stb) If we consider the relative representation and from thence assumed productivity of the individual members of the set, there are some changes but no statistically significant ones108, and no striking patterns. Apart from increased use of the form, then, the profile of the set has not changed in this respect. As far as formal properties of the operation are concerned, in particular correlations with other operations, it appears that some changes have taken place since Maa. Whereas in Maa an umlaut operation was associated with these slot Π operations almost without exception, only 45 of 73 or 58% of the potential candidates for the umlaut operation (i.e. bases with umlautable vowels) are listed as undergoing it in Sti. The situation as represented in Stb is not so drastic, as 40 bases undergo umlaut (70%)109 compared to 15 that do not, but there is still a significant difference to Maa. We must thus conclude that the umlaut operation is becoming increasingly "optional" in conjunction with these operations, and that the corresponding formations without umlaut

304 Denominal adjective derivation in German are becoming increasingly "normal". In spite of the apparent discrepancies between Sti and Stb, there is little disagreement between the two here110 for any given base (in other words, the sets of bases undergoing these operations are not identical). In general, the text sources agree with the corresponding dictionaries with respect to application of Operation 7. For some exceptions, see above. As far as slot I operations are concerned, the two sources are quite comparable, with Sti listing 42 bases as selecting Operation 9 (adding the suffix -er) and Stb listing 38. Many of these belong to the Process/State Designations class (22 in the case of Sti, 17 in the case of Stb)·, for at least some of these, either a verbal base or analogy to verbal patterns may play a role. Operations 12 and 13 have an optional secondary semantic rule applying a pejorative function, as in Maa\ Sti lists about 14 bases from the Person Designations class, for example (out of a total of 43) undergoing this rule, while Stb marks four specially for this function (e.g. BAUER 'farmer', WIRT 'host, landlord', PAPST 'pope', WEIB 'woman'). The Animal Designations class also provides numerous examples of bases susceptible to undergoing this rule (e.g. GEIER 'vulture', AFFE 'monkey', FUCHS 'fox', KUH 'cow', SAU 'sow', VIEH 'cattle, livestock, beast'). In addition, the sources contain a number of formations outside the class which also seem to have had the pejorative function applied: launisch 'moody, bad-tempered' from LAUNE 'mood', köppisch 'stubborn' from KOPF 'head', and parteyisch 'partial' from PARTEI 'party'. In some cases at least, application of the rule is (lexically) optional; for example, kindisch 'childish' can be used pejoratively, but apparently also quite neutrally, as in kindisches Kleid (Sti) 'child's dress' etc, and the same may apply to bäurisch, sclavisch from SKLAVE 'slave' (AO uses sclavisch both pejoratively and neutrally; GAB uses bäurisch neutrally; zauberisch from ZAUBER 'magic' appears both neutrally (CvH, Sti, Stb) and pejoratively (AO, Sti)). The stem contexts of the operations have also changed somewhat; the lexical class of Process/State Designations has been added to Operation 13, and examples from the Animal Designations class are more numerous, such that they now constitute part of the norm according to our definition. The context for Operation 12 has expanded so as to include the lexico-semantic classes of both Object and Landscape Designations for Sti at least, and Operation 15 has likewise expanded its lexico-semantic domain, adding the classes of Process/State, Mental State, and Landscape Designations, again for Sti. We thus note a general trend towards an expansion of the normal application domains parallel to the overall increase in productivity noted; indeed, we may take such a trend as being indicative of an increase in productivity insofar as it is not merely due to larger corpora in the later sources.

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

305

One new operation has been added to the set adding the suffix -icht, Operation 22. It is still minimally represented and only obtains norm status according to our criteria for Sti (see Table 47). This expansion is in keeping with a general broadening of the domains of the operations in the sources of this period, as attested by Sti particularly. A partial decline would appear to have taken place by the time of Stb, keeping in mind, that Stb contains far fewer bases. It is crucial to note that this set is the best represented proportionally in the corpus for both dictionary sources and has undergone a statistically significant gain since Maa. As can be seen in Table 47, over half the bases in Sti undergo at least one operation from this set. Given what we have found here, it is curious that it is the 18th that has been named as the heycentury of ic/ii-formation (Haltenhoff 1904: 27). Haltenhoff suggests here that the large number of listings in Sti is due to his relying on spoken language as well as written, which seems not unlikely, judging by the colloquial appearance of many of his examples. If formal written German contained large numbers of icAf-formations in the 18th century, then it is perhaps only a natural consequence of increased productivity of an already productive type, possibly marked previously for register. The contexts of the operations have also been expanded in most cases. For Operation 18, for example, only the Object Designations class provided sufficient bases to achieve norm status for Maa, while for Sti and Stb the classes of Food, Substance, Body Part, Landscape, and Person Designations classes have been added, as well as Abstracts and Animals for Sti. It is likely very significant for the increased productivity of the operation as defined by expanding application domain that the contexts now include a fairly large number of abstract bases, not met with in earlier sources at all. The text sources also contain examples of formations from such bases (e.g. ΑΜΑ spitzsinnigt 'sharp-minded',farbicht 'coloured, colourful', CvHschaudricht 'causing shuddering', gebräuchlicht 'customary', schwindlicht 'causing dizziness') as well as a broad range of Concrete semantic types. Operation 20 is less well-represented although apparently healthy in Sti, who shows a significant increase since Maa. As Stb returns to the levels found in Maa in terms of proportional representation, we must either believe in a short-lived surge for this operation, or else suspect that Sti has exploited the systemic potential of Operation 20 in this dictionary rather than reporting words in currency. The context as expressed by the stem conditions has expanded for Sti to embrace more Concrete classes (Maa had only Substances here).

306 Denominal adjective derivation in German

18· ρ

; O l g '; s.c.: N, LSC: Substances/Objects/ Food/Body Parts/Landscape/ [Animals/[Persons/[Abstracts < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - EAdj ...>

19. ^

< χ Φ icht ...>

; Ό 19 '; s.c.: N, LSC: Objects/Body Parts/ Substances/[Metals/Landscape/ Illness/Animals/Food/Abstracts/ Mental States/Process/[Media/ [Places-Institutions/[Measures < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/OplO!)


< χ e icht ...>

< EX('X') ...> < Σ ν - ZAdj ...> 21. Γ

< x © i c f l t ···>

; Ό 20 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Substances/[Food/ [Body Parts/[Animals/[*Metals/ [•Trees o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/OplO!)

>

< OF('X') ...> < ΣΝ - XAdj ...>

s c :

- - N, LSC: Objects/[Substances/ [Landscape/[Body Parts/[ Animals/ Food/[Abstracts/[Process/ [PlacesInstitutions/*Time Units o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/OplO!)

22

Γ

< χ Φ icht ...> < REL('X') ...> < ΣΝ - ΣΑ(^ ...>

23

Γ

< χ Φ icht ...> ; '0 2 3 '; s.c.: N, LSC: [Measures/[Objects < DIST('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - Σα

'

·

; Ό 22 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [Objects/[Substances o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/OplO!)

* - marginal (4-5 attestations) [ - Sti only [[ - Stb only Figure 81: Operations affixing -icht in Sti!Stb

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

307

Table 47: Representation of operations affixing -icht in Sti and Stb Operations Bases in Sources Representation in % Maa

Sti

Stb

Maa

Sti

Stb

18

18

175

60

15

29

24

19

105

443

213

87

73

84

20

5

53

14

4

9

6

21

5

118

19

4

19

8

22

20

1

3

o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!)

25. r

; Ό25'; s.c.: N, LSC: Objects/Body Parts/ Substances/Illness/Landscape/ [[•Animals/Food/Abstracts/ Mental States/Processes/Media/ Measures/ Institutions/Time Units < Wrra('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!) < Σν - Σ . . . >

26.

< χ θ ig ...> < OF('X') ...> < ΣΝ - EAdj ...>

27.

; Ό26'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [Abstracts/([[)Time Units/[[Processes o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!)

; Ό 2 7 '; s.c.: Ν ...

< EX('X') ...> < ς ν - XAdj ...> 28.

-η

o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op9!)

; Ό28'; s.c.: Ν ... < REL('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op9!) < ΣΝ - ZAdj ...> f

; Ό29'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [[Measures < DIST('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!) < ΣΝ -> Σ ^ ...>

* - marginal (4-5 attestations) [ - Sti only [[ - Stb only Figure 82: Operations affixing -ig in Sti/Stb To the catalogue of three /^-affixing operations derived from the data in Maa are now added three minor operations involving the semantic functions EX('X'), DIST('X'), and REL('X') respectively. Only the last of these does not attain system status for at least one of the lexicographers of this period, although all three operations are marginal. This expansion is a potential sign of increased productivity of the formal affixation type. It should be noted

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German 311 that the additional sources contain very few examples of Operation 27 and none of the other new operations. Table 48: Representation of operations affixing -ig in Sti and Stb Representation in % Bases in Sources Operations Maa

Sti

Stb

Maa

Sti

Stb

24

6

20

17

4

10

1

25

137

178

202

89

87

87

26

21

25

24

14

12

10

27

5

7

3

3

28

1

1

1

; Ό52'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [Persons < REL('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; χ = y/θη/: /t/-epen

58.

59.

< ΧΘ

bar ...> < LIKE('X') ...>

Ό 58 '; S.C.: Ν, LSC: * [Persons/* [Objects o.e.: slot Π

< χ e bar ...> < DIST('X') ...>

Ό 59 '; s.c.: Ν... o.e.: slot Π

< ΣΧ

^ADJ —>

* - marginal (4-5 attestations) [ - Sti only Figure 88: Operations affixing -bar in StUStb The additional sources show high text frequency for some formations, namely kostbar 'valuable', streitbar 'pugnacious', mannbar 'marriageable, adult', and ehrbar 'honourable'. No examples of Concrete bases were found in the text sources with the exception of FRUCHT 'fruit' and MANN. The formations found are all contained in the dictionary sources and virtually all conform to Operation 57, representing as well the norm-defining lexicosemantic classes. Formations arising through application of these operations may undergo further derivation in the deadjectival paradigm by adding -lich, exclusively in the Abstract classes. There are 16 examples of this in Sti and nine in Stb\

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

329

this is, with about 20% of the total number of bases, somewhat less than the frequency found in Maa, where about 27% of the bases were listed with formations in -barlich. It may be, then, that the productivity of such deadjectival formation is decreasing, which would correspond to similar changes elsewhere (see 7.2.5.). Table 54: Representation of operations affixing -bar in Sti and Stb Operations Bases in Sources Representation in % Maa

Sti

Stb

Maa

Sti

Stb

54

16

69

37

89

85

90

55

1

10

8

5

12

20

56

1

7

5

5

9

12

57

1

17

6

5

21

15

8

1

5

10

12

1

1

1

5

1

2

18

81

43

4

8

6

58 59 Totals

Corpus 450 1040 744 χ - statistically significant change since preceding source χ - statistically significant change since two sources previous (e.g. from Maa to Stb)

7.2.4. Semantic organization of the denominal adjective paradigm In this section we will consider just one semantically defined subset of the morphological paradigm, that of operations involving the semantic function WrTH('X'). If we compare this set (Figure 89) with that found in Maa, we see that in terms of membership, little if anything has changed: the same number of operations are found with the same form-meaning mappings.

330 Denominal adjective derivation in German

1·

< χ e ge ...>

; Oj;

< ς ν - x Adj ...> 15.

< χ θ isch ...>

25.

Γ

< X © icht ...>

-

< WITH( 4 X') ...> < Σ Ν - EAdj ...>

r

L

< W r r a ( ' X ' ) ...> < Σ Ν - XAdj ...>

r

39. r

s.c.: N, LSC: *Objects/*Substances o.e.: slot-I

; Ό 15 '; s.c.: N, LSC: Abstracts/Processes/

< WITH('X') ...> < Σ Ν -* ZAdj ...> 19.

s.c.: N, LSC: Objects/ Substances/ Body Parts/Landscape/Abstracts/ Mental States o.e.: slot-I

Mental States/[Objects/[Landscape o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!)

; Ό 1 9 ';

s.c.: N, LSC: Objects/Body Parts/ Substances/[Metals/Landscape/Dlness/Animals/Food/Abstracts/ Mental States/Process/[Media/ [Places-Institutions/[Measures o.e.: slot II;(Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/OplO!)

; '0 2 5 ';

s.c.: Ν, LSC: Objects/Body Parts/ Substances/Hlness/Landscape/ [[* Animals/Food/Abstracts/ Mental States/Processes/Media/ Measures/Institutions/*Time Units o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!)

; '0 3 4 '; s.c.: N, LSC: [Substances < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Op7!) < Σ Ν - XAdj ...> < χ ® ern ...> < WITH('X') ...> < Σ Ν - Σ Α 4 ...>

; Ό 3 9 ';

s.c.: Ν, LSC: *Substances/[Objects o.e.: slot II; (Op7!)

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

ρ

,'0^';

< WITH('X') ...> < ΣΝ - ZAdj ...>

331

s.c.:N,LSC: [Objects/[Substances/ [Body Parts/[Landscape/[Food/ [Institutions/Abstracts/ Mental States/Processes/Media o.e.: slot II; (Op 9!/ OplO!)

< χ ® sam ...>

; '0^'; s.c.: N, LSC: Abstracts/Mental States/ Processes/[*Media < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π < ΣΝ -

...>

< χ Θ lieh ...>

; '0 48 '; S.C.: Ν, LSC: [Objects/[Body Parts/ [•Substances/Abstracts/Mental States/Processes/Media/Institutions/*Time Units < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; χ = y/θϊϋ : /t/-epenthesis! ;(Op7 !/0p9 !/Op 10!) < ΣΝ - EAdj ...> 54 r

< χ θ bar ...>

; Ό 54 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [Objects/Abstracts/ Mental States/Processes/Institutions

o.e.: slot Π < ΣΝ - ZAdj ...>

* - marginal (4-5 attestations) [ - Sti only [[ - Stb only Figure 89: Operations involving the semantic function WrTH('X') in Sti/Stb However, we can also observe that the operation contexts (stem conditions) have expanded to include more lexico-semantic classes for a number of operations in the set; this has the result that these operations apply to a potentially broader range of bases. Thus, the choice of operations for a given base may be more diffuse, less clear than before; without other checks on word creation, the potential for word-formation synonymy is higher in at least certain areas of the systemic paradigm. For example, given a base denoting a Concrete Object, the selection is no longer restricted to Operations 1, 19, and 25; for Sti at least, Operations 39, 40, 48, and 54 are also possibilities, if only marginally productive ones as yet. For another example, given a base denoting a general Abstract, one may now, in addition to the already large catalogue available in Mod's time, also exploit an operation adding -icht or -sam, the former no longer restricted to Concrete bases, the

332 Denominal adjective derivation in German latter now found fairly frequently with other than Mental State bases. We shall see in texts whether these potential synonymies are actually realized; for the time being, let us simply note that this is a dynamic characteristic of the period. Although the contexts have expanded, the choice between synonymous operations is of course still subject to and partly directed by relative frequency and productivity of those operations. A more frequent or productive operation, or one becoming more productive, will tend to form more complex words. At this time, there would not seem to be any pressure requiring the selection of a unique formation amongst the set of potential ones; in other words, semantically equivalent formations may exist alongside each other. There does not, therefore, appear to be any competition at the lexical level that would imply a low tolerance for synonymy.

7.2.5. The deadjectival adjective paradigm The deadjectival adjective paradigm is virtually unchanged since Maa, consisting of a prefix operation, a base operation (umlaut), and the same set of slot I and slot Π operations. There is one new operation attested first in Stb and contemporary texts, Operation 12. This operation coexists with the synonymous Operation 6; judging by distributions in Stb and the texts, Operation 6 is applied much more frequently. The appearance of Operation 12 alongside the combination of Operations 4 and 6 will prove significant with respect to the evolution of ic/tf-affixation (see 7.3.5.). 1.

< χ ® ge ...>

2-C7.)r

< ν * - ν.^ ...> ; '0 2 '; s.c. Adj/N/V;! < Ι('Χ')..·> o.e. χ = (a)V(b), χ a base

3

· (8·) Γ < χ θ « Ι ...> < I('X') ...> .

; 4 (V;

; Ό 3 ';

s.c.: Adj... o.e.: slot -I

S.C.: Adj/N;! o.e.: slot I; (Op2!)

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

4.

< χ ® el ...> ; Ό 4 '; s.c.: Adj/N/V ... < DIM('X') ...> o.e.: slot I; (0p2!); 0p4!

5.


; Ό 5 '; < I('X') ...> < ΣAdj - EAdj ...>

s.c.: Adj... o.e.: slot Π; (Op2!/Op3!)

s.c.: Adj ...

; Ό6';

< DIM('X') ...> < ^Adj - Σ Adj .·•>

333

o.e.: slot II; (0p2!)

< χ © ig ...> ; Ό 7 '; s.c.: Adj... < I('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; (0p2!) < ^Adj ^Adj •··> 8.

x © sam ...> < I('X') ...>
; Ό 9 '; < I('X') ...> < SAdj - SAdj ..·>


; Ό10'; s.c.: Adj... < I('X') ..·> o.e.: slot II; x=y/Gn/: /t/-epenthesisi;

(Op2!)


; Ό,,';

< ^Adj "" Σ Adj ···> 12.

s.c.: Adj ... o.e.: slot Π

s.c.: Adj ...

o.e.: slot Π

x © lich...> ; Ό12'; s.c.: Adj... < DIM('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Op2!) < Σ Adj - Σα^ ..·> Figure 90: The deadjectival adjective paradigm in Sti/Stb


; Ό 15 '; s.c.: N, LSC:[Objects...

o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!)

19.

< χ ® icht ...>

25.

< χ ® ig ...> ; 'Oy'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Objects... < WUHCX') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!) < ΣΝ - Σ ^ ...>

40.

< χ ® haft ...>

; Ό19'; s.c.: N, LSC: Objects... < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/

OplO!)

< WITHCX') ···> < ΣΝ - ΣΑ4) ...>

6/2

; Ό4Ο'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [Objects ...

152/70

22/17

37/3

o.e.: slot II; (Op9!/OplO!)

48.

< χ φ lieh ...>

; Ό48'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [Objects... < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot II; χ = y/θη/ : /t/-epen< ΣΝ - EAdJ ...> thesis!;(Op7!/Op9!/Op 10!)

6/3

54.

< χ φ bar ...> ; Ό54'; s.c.: N, LSC: ["Objects... < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot II

9/3

< ΣΝ - SAdj - > 21.

< χ φ icht ...> < OF('X') ...>

< χ φ haft ...>

< OF('X') ...> < ΣΝ - Σα4 ...>

; '0 21 '; s.c.: N, LSC: Objects ... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/ OplO!) ; Ό42'; s.c.: N, LSC: [Objects... o.e.: slot Π; (Op9!/OplO!)

31/5

18/2

342 Denominal adjective derivation in German

49.

< χ φ lieh ...>

< OF('X') ...> < ς ν - XAdj ...> 57.

< χ ® bar ...>

< OF('X') ...>

Ό 49 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [Objects... o.e.: slot Π; χ = y/9n/ : /t/-epenthesis!; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!)

6/3

Ό 57 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: ["Objects ... o.e.: slot Π

5/1

< Σχ 18.

< χ ® icht ...>

< LIKE('X') ...>

< Σ ν - Σ ^ ...> 41.

< χ θ haft ...>

51.

< χ ® lich ...>

22.

< χ ® icht ...>

Ό 24 '; S.C.: Ν, LSC: Objects... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!)

Ό 4 ,'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Objects... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op9!/OplO!) < Σ ν - ΣΑ Ό 51 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [*Objects... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; χ = y/Θη/: /t/-epenthesis! ;(Op7 !/Op9 !/Op 10!) < ΣΝ - ΣΑ(^ ...>

< REL('X') ...> < Σχ 2Adj —> 23.

Ό 18 '; S.C.: N, LSC: Objects... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/ OplO!)

< χ θ icht ...>

< DIST('X') ...> < Σχ

Σ α 4 ···>

Ό 22 '; s.c.: N, LSC: [Objects ... o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/ OplO!) Ό 23 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [Objects ... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/ OplO!)

91/31

10/9

36/5

5/2

8/-

8/1

* - marginal (4-5 attestations) [ - Sti only Figure 91: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the class of Concrete Object Designations in Sti/Stb

If we are to accept the data found in Sti, a subset of the systemic denominal adjective paradigm can be established according to the same principles as in section 7.1.6.1., namely, that any operation represented five

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

343

times or more will be deemed as constituting part of the class norm. W e shall refer to the resulting structure as the "systemic class subparadigm". The systemic class subparadigm established on the basis of Sti's data, then, gives the complex structure shown in Figure 91; in spite of its complexity, it is still considerably smaller than the entire systemic paradigm assumed to be available to speakers, so that it does serve to limit their choices for bases of the class. When we consider only those operations productive for Stb, we find a very much more restricted set, given in Figure 92.

19.

< χ © icht ...> ; Ό Ι 9 '; s.c.: N, LSC: Objects... < W I T H ( ' X ' ) ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/

. OplO!)

70

25.

< χ φ ig ...> ; Ό 25 '; < WITHCX') ...> < Σ Ν - ZAdj ...>

s.c.: Ν, LSC: Objects... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!)

17

21.

< χ φ icht ...> < OF('X') ...>

s.c.: N, LSC: Objects ... o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/ OplO!)

18.

24.

41.

; Ό 21 ';

< χ φ icht ...> ; Ό 18 '; s.c.: N, LSC: Objects... < LIKECX') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/ OplO!) < Σ Ν - ΣΑφ ...>

31

< χ ® ig ...> ; Ό 24 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Objects... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!) < Σ Ν - Σ ^ ..·> < χ φ haft ...> ; Ό 41 '; < LIKE('X') ...>

s.c.: N, LSC: Objects... o.e.: slot Π; (Op9!/OplO!)

< Σ Ν - SAdj ···> * - marginal (4-5 attestations) Figure 92: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the class of Concrete Object Designations in Stb Here just two form rules do all the work, not counting Operation 41; only three semantic rules are involved. If we consider now the contemporary

344 Denominal adjective derivation in German

texts, accepting that they are only representative of a restricted text type, we find that the productive systemic class subparadigm for the late 17th and early 18th centuries is far more restricted formally, consisting of the operations listed in Figure 93. iy

·

25

Γ < χ θ icht ...> ;'0 19 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Objects... < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/OplO!)

· Γ ; ' ( V ; s.c.: N, LSC: Objects... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op9!) .

18

· Γ < χ Φ icht ...> ; Ό18'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Objects... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - LAdj ...>

Figure 93:

Proposed systemic subparadigm for the class of Concrete Object Designations based on text sources

Both Operations 25 and 18 in Figure 93 are of marginal status. We can safely assume that this structure represents the real nucleus of the systemic class subparadigm for the class of Concrete Object Designations. If we consider these structures as a historical progression, then we are witnessing the set of operations available to the paradigm undergoing a substantial expansion between Maa and Sti, with a subsequent return to something similar to the original (but with, of course, significant modifications to the relative productivities of the operations involved). If we consider StV s data as representing a distortion, then at least we can highlight the six operations listed in Figure 92 as being the most prominent for all. A number of bases undergo more than one operation or series of operations (not considering further derivation in the deadjectival adjective paradigm): 137 in Sti (53%) and 31 in Stb (26%). Again, as a reflection of historical development, it seems that it has become less common for a base to give rise to several formations after a high normalcy in Sri's time. Otherwise, we can say that the phenomenon is quite common. The text corpus shows that two or more of Operations 18, 19, and 25 may account for the denominal adjective lexical paradigm for a given base, but it would appear to be, in actual fact, rare. We could hypothesize that there may be a lexical association of an operation with a base in at least some cases; the speaker may choose to apply one of the other available operations, thus overriding the

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

345

lexical specification. There would appear to be no negative consequences to this, judging by the dictionary sources. The situation observed for Maa whereby semantic differentiation of members of the lexical paradigm was not usual is maintained here. Both word-formation synonymy and polysemy are common, and differentiation (i.e. where different forms map onto different semantic function) is highly exceptional: there is, in the whole combined corpus, one clear example of this, Stb stammhaft (LIKE) and stämmicht WITH from STAMM 'stem, trunk'. If a paradigm contains more than one member, then, either a) one form will map onto two semantic functions, or b) two forms will map onto one function. Given the relative frequencies of the operations in the class subparadigm, we would expect Operations 19 and 25, 18 and 24 (and for Sti 40 and 41 as well for each pair, respectively) to form lexical paradigms or subsets of paradigms with a synonymy relationship, and Operations 18, 19, and/or 21 on the one hand and 24 and 25 to form paradigms showing polysemy on the other hand (with additional possibilities for Sti). In fact, the regularly occurring lexical paradigm structures are of this type. Among the two-member lexical paradigms, Stb contains five examples of the structure in Figure 94 and one of that in Figure 95, while Sti contains two of the former and one of the latter.



; Ό 19 ' ; s.c.: N, LSC: Objects ...

o.e.: slot Π etc.

X

; Ό25'; S.C.: Ν, LSC: Objects ... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot II etc.

Figure 94: Synonymy in two-member lexical paradigms

346 Denominal adjective derivation in German

; Ό18' ; s.c.: N, LSC: Objects ... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot II etc.

X

; Ό24' ; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Objects ... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e. :slot Π etc.

Figure 95: Synonymy in two-member lexical paradigms Interestingly, Sti has far more synonymy relations holding between formations formed with -haft and -icht than between -icht and -ig, with eight examples of lexical paradigms with the structure given in Figure 96 and 13 examples with the structure given in Figure 97.

; Ό19'; s.c.: N, LSC: Objects ... < WrrH('X') ...> o.e.: slot II etc.

X

; Ό«'; s.c.: N, LSC: Objects ... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π etc. Σιηι 'Adj ...> 'Ν Figure 96: Synonymy in two-member lexical paradigms

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German 347

; '0, 8 ' ; s.c.: N, LSC: Objects ... < LEKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π etc. "" ^ A d j — >

'

;'0 41 ' ;s.c.:N, LSC: Objects... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot II etc.

.




Figure 97: Synonymy in two-member lexical paradigms This would not be inconsistent with an interpretation of Sti such that when considering the derivational possibilities of a base, the lexicographer often adds a formation in -haft as an equivalent to the current or more likely formation in -icht. This is further supported by the lack of autonomy of haftformations: in Sti, one-member paradigms consisting of a regularly-derived formation in -haft do not occur. The remaining two-member paradigms exhibiting synonymy relations generally involve at least one of the lesser productive or marginally productive operations. The findings here are corroborated by the texts, as indicated in the discussion of alternative forms. We can conclude, then, that word-formation synonymy is a typical characteristic of lexical paradigms of this class; in other words, on the lexical level there may be some realization of the systemic potential of this paradigmatic relation. Generally, this will be of a predictable type directly derivable from the relative frequency of operations over the lexical system. The norm for the speaker may be something like "If a formation other than the expected one (mapping WITHCX') onto an ic/ii-suffixation) occurs, it will likely have the same meaning" or from the point of view of production, an alternative operation may be selected with the same semantic value as the expected one. With regard to word-formation polysemy, Sti has a total of 41 polysemous two-member lexical paradigms, of which two types in particular recur frequently; the others present no systematic regularity. The most frequently recurring type (19 examples) is that shown in Figure 98; as can be seen there, it contains the most frequent operations in the class.

348 Denominal adjective derivation in German

• ; Ό 1 9 '; s.c.: N,LSC: Objects ... < Wrra('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π etc.



< UKE('X') ...>

; '0 18 ' ; s.c.: N, LSC: Objects ...

o.e.: slot Π etc.

Figure 98: Polysemy in two-member lexical paradigms

The bases for which this structure is given include STACHEL 'sting, prick, thorn', KNOLLE 'clod', KRÜMEL 'crumb'. This is also the most commonly recurring type in Stb, with seven examples (including the lexical paradigms for the bases QUELLE 'spring', FLAMME 'flame', FADEN 'thread'). The other recurring type (four examples for Sti, two for Stb, including FEILE 'file', KETTE 'chain', SCHRANK 'cupboard') maps the same forms onto OF('X'); remember that this type did not occur in the texts. Stb furthermore has five examples (including the bases BLATT 'leaf, KLOSS 'dumpling', SCHNEIDE 'blade') of the type shown in Figure 99; this is not typical for Sti, who only has one example here (KLOSS). Word-formation polysemy, then, is likewise characteristic of the lexical paradigm in this lexical-semantically defined class. The corresponding norm condition would be that, given appropriate linguistically-external conditions, a form may be used to express a semantic function in addition to WITH('X'), whereby the context will allow a clear disambiguation.

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

-

.

349

; '0 25 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Objects ... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π etc.

; Ό ^ ' ; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Objects ... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π etc. S

Figure 99: Polysemy in two-member lexical paradigms: Stb

There are a number of paradigms of three or more members, 52 in Sti and nine in Stb. Sti has seven lexical paradigms of three or more members each exhibiting pure polysemy, generally involving ic/ii-formations. Four of these (e.g. for the bases BEERE 'berry' and OHR 'ear') contain the three most frequent semantic functions, while the others are anomalous in some way. Sti contains 16 examples of lexical paradigms exhibiting synonymy relations amongst their three to four members, a typical example being that of SCHWAMM 'sponge', as shown in Figure 100.

SCHWAMM ^

^

schwammicht

LKE('X')

schwammig

LIKE('X')

schwammhaft

LIKE('X')

Figure 100: Lexical paradigm of SCHWAMM 'sponge' This is the only type occurring more than once. Sti further contains 30 lexical paradigms of three to eight members in which both polysemy and synonymy relations are found. A typical example here is that of GERTE 'switch, sapling', shown in Figure 101.

350 Denominal adjective derivation in German gerticht

WITH('X') WITH('X')

GERTE

LIKE('X') Figure 101: Lexical paradigm of GERTE 'switch' Many of these larger paradigms contain anomalous members, in addition to the ones formed by productive means. In Stb, three of the larger lexical paradigms show pure polysemy, all involving jcAi-formations only, while the others show a mix of polysemy and synonymy, with no lexical structure occurring twice. The example most closely resembling a combination of the most productive operations is that of the base BLATT 'leaf, shown in Figure 102. blättericht

wrracx')

blätterig

WITH('X')

blättericht

LKE('X')

blätterig

LIKE('X')

BLATT

Figure 102: Lexical paradigm of BLATT 'leaf' The other lexical paradigms of this mixed sort are anomalous in some way, either by containing semantic functions unusual for the class, or unusual forms. Very occasionally, formations of other types are mentioned as equivalents or complements of the suffixed derivations. For example, Sti lists the compound Hülsenfrüchte as an alternative to (first listing) hülsichte Früchte 'legumes'115. As in Maa, the serial compounding element of choice is -reich (corresponding to WITH('X')), listed for seven bases in Sti. In fact, this is the only possibility listed for some bases (i.e., no suffixal derivation at all is given), e.g. BUCH 'book'. Interestingly, no such formations are listed in Stb within lexical entries. Participle formation is frequently listed in both Sti and Stb as an alternative and even primary means of derivation; Sti contains 22 examples in this class, while Stb has 19. There is not much overlap between the two sets of bases undergoing this operation complex. In the case of Sti,

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

351

all participle formations are listed alongside purely suffixational derivations, but in the case of Stb, quite a number of bases have participle formations listed in the absence of purely suffixational derivations, e.g. FESSEL 'chain, fetter', MANTEL 'coat', GIEBEL 'gable', SCHIRM 'umbrella, screen'. For the latter two, Sti gives suffixational derivations only. The dynamics here indicate the strength of participle formation in this class at least respective to other processes. We can thus conclude that participle formation is a strong competitor in the class of Concrete Object Designations. The text sources give a somewhat clearer picture of the relation between suffixation and other processes in this domain. As in the dictionaries, serial compounding elements are -reich and the adverbial -weise (DIST('X') e.g. 'by drops'); these may alternate with suffixed adjectives (e.g. scheiblicht or scheibenweis schneiden 'cut into slices'. These formations are not particularly common in the texts. Compounding is common (e.g. GAB SteinObst 'stone fruit', i.e. drupes, ΑΜΑ kugelrund 'sphere round', i.e. 'round as a ball', SAM Rosenwasser 'rose water'); the semantic functions involved are not only OF('X') or EX('X') but also WITH('X'), as in SteinObst. Participle formations also occur with some frequency (e.g. AO gesprenckelt 'speckled', GAB gepflastert 'cobblestoned', ΑΜΑ geblühmt 'flowered', gestreifft 'striped\ gezackt 'jagged' (alternating with zackigt), SAM geblättert 'leafed' (referring to flaky pastry), gewiirfflet 'cubed' (alternating with würfflicht). In general, then, the text sources confirm the observations of the dictionary data. It appears that this class carries on certain characteristics evident in Maa, such as a strong tendency towards synonymy in the lexical paradigm, while also undergoing some modifications, such as a degree of semantic diversification. A strong increase of formations in -haft was found, which based on Stb and textual evidence seemed suspect.

7.2.6.2. The lexico-semantic class of Concrete Substance Designations The class of Concrete Substance Designations is smaller than that of Concrete Object Designations, but still relatively large, with 147 bases in Sti and 121 in Stb. It will be noted that the discrepancy between the two sources is much less here than in the previous class, which may be a result of Sti's listing potential but not lexically established formations in the Object class particularly. As in Maa, the function WITH('X') is dominant in terms of number of bases listed as undergoing it, with LIKE('X') and the classdefining EX('X') also well-represented. OF('X') is fairly frequent here too, as shown in Table 57. Any other functions are extremely rare.

352 Denominal adjective derivation in German Table 57: Representation of semantic functions in the Concrete Substance Designations class in StilStb Functions Bases in Sources Representation in % Maa

Sti

Stb

Maa

Sti

Stb

WITH(4X')

59

116

95

77

79

79

EX('X')

23

36

34

30

24

28

LIKE('X')

14

43

22

18

29

18

OF('X')

6

24

12

8

16

10

7

4

5

3

147

121

14

16

REL(4X') Total

77

17

1040 744 Corpus 450 χ - statistically significant change since preceding source χ - statistically significant change since two sources previous (e.g. from Maa to Stb) Going from Maa to Sti, we may note significant increases in the representation of the semantic functions UKE('X'), OF('X'), and a slight decrease in the representation of EX('X'); this correlates with an increase in the number of different functions listed for each base, and possibly some increase of productivity or activity of operations involving LIKE('X') and OF('X'). Some of this may reflect the generally high frequency of entries indicating the application of the functions LIKE('X') and OF('X') in Sti across the board; at any rate, by the time of Stb, these are much closer to the levels found in Maa, and the frequency of application of EX('X') is pretty much identical with that found for Maa. If any definite trends may be noted, then, there is some increase in productivity amongst the sets of operations that involving LIKE('X') and OF('X'); one might say that the class is become somewhat more like other Concrete classes, or less well-defined, due to the relative loss of position of the class-defining function EX('X'). It would appear, then, that absolute norms concerning semantic functions typically associated with the class have not changed; however, under the assumption that speakers are sensitive to small adjustments in relative frequencies, some modification in canonical expectations for semantic distributions in this class may be expected to have taken place. In the additional texts, the formations attested for the class of Substance Designations predictably show the three principal semantic functions, WITH('X'), EX('X'), and much more rarely LIKE('X'). Others were not attested.

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

353

The representation of the various form rules, indicated by their affix, is shown in Table 58. The formal class-defining characteristics noted in Maa, namely a unique proportion of bases affixing -ig and the relatively prominent position of bases affixing -en (and now -ern as well) persevere to a large degree in the period represented by Sti and Stb. In fact, the figures for Maa and Stb are virtually identical. Thus formations in -ig are more numerous here than in the Object class in all sources, while formations in -icht are relatively less prominent. While Maa and Stb are quite comparable, it seems that Sti widens the gap between the two formation types; the question is whether this represents a real historical development, or a distortion. The sources confirm the general pattern, indicating that Stb provides a more accurate representation of relative frequencies. Although no statistical frequencies were established for text tokens, the number of bases giving rise to /^-formations was greater than in the Object Designations class. For example, GAB, Sif s contemporary, had 21 bases adding -icht in the Objects class and seven adding -ig·, in the Substances class, however, the ratio was 20 to 13116. SAM (Stb's contemporary) represents an extreme case in this regard: whereas in the Objects class bases undergoing icht-affixation outnumbered bases undergoing ig-affixation by 14 to four, in the Substances class the relative positions are reversed, with 13 bases undergoing tg-formation and one base (SCHIMMEL 'mould') undergoing ic/ii-formation. The list of bases affixing only -ig contains many affixing both or -icht only in other text sources (e.g. KOT 'muck', SCHLEIM 'slime, scum, mucus', WASSER 'water'). As noted previously, there did seem to be some strong affiliations between some bases and a formal type (e.g. GIFT 'poison' and BLUT 'blood' invariably affixed -ig; in GAB there were 16 attestations found for sandicht 'sandy' and only two for sandig). With respect to affixation in -en!-ern, the situation represented by Sti is unclear; Maa and Stb show almost identical proportions of bases affixing one of these suffixes (for Stb, this number is 32/121 or 26% of the total), so it would seem that over the long term, the norm has remained unchanged and these forms continue to distinguish the class from Object (and Abstract) classes. However, the total for Sti is 27/147 bases or 18%,117 much lower than the other dictionary sources. This may well be partly due to an (over-)abundance of other forms listed by Sti for this class, as was suggested for the semantic functions, where it seemed that the loss of prominence for EX('X') could be partly accounted for by the high representation of other functions (e.g. LIKE('X')). It may also be that, quite by chance, StV s corpus simply contains a greater number of bases which for extralinguistic or semantic reasons do not qualify for the appropriate operations (see below). Depending on the text and text topic, en-formations may be quite frequent in

354 Denominal adjective derivation in German texts contemporary to Stv, AO for example has more formations in -en than -ig or -icht in this class. It may be significant that while new bases of the appropriate type may be added (Stb lists for example BAST 'bast', TAFT 'taffeta', TUCH 'cloth', ASCHE 'ashes', GERSTE 'barley', LEDER 'leather', SCHAUM 'foam', none of which were found in Maa), other bases apparently lose their lexical en-formation, e.g. ZIEGEL 'brick', 'tile', PELZ 'fur'. The nature of the qualifying base is becoming, possibly, more specific, although some new formations (e.g. schäumen) show that this can only be a non-exclusive trend for the time being. As in the Object Designations class, Sti gives a prominent position to operations adding -haft\ this, as there, has no counterpart in Stb. The sources contemporary with Sti give no support to the notion of a short-lived popularity of affixation with -haft, as no corresponding formations occur for this class there. Table 58: Representation of formal types in the Concrete Substance Designations class in Sti/Stb Affixation Types Bases in Sources Representation in 9iΌ Maa

Sti

Stb

Maa

Sti

Stb

icht

44

120

73

57

82

60

ig

22

27

35

29

18

29

en

22

18

19

29

12

14

9

13

6

11

38

3

1

26

2

1

1

ern haft

1

sam

1

lich

1

6

3

1

4

2

isch

3

7

4

4

5

3

Total

77

147

121

17

14

16

450 744 Corpus 1040 χ - statistically significant change since preceding source χ - statistically significant change since two sources previous (e.g. from Maa to Stb) The most common mappings in the class involve < χ θ icht...> and < χ θ ig ...> onto WITH('X'); < χ Φ icht... > onto LIKE('X'); and < χ Φ en...>, < χ Φ em ... > onto EX('X'). Outside of this core, there are a number of other mappings attested more than five times; the marginal operations will be

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

355

indicated with an asterisk below. The resulting system paradigm for the class of Substance Designations is as in Figure 103. 19.

χ ® icht ...> ; '0 19 '; s.c.: N, LSC: Substances... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/

OplO!)
; '0 25 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Substances... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!) < Σ ν - XAdj ...>

34.

< χ φ en ...> ; '0 39 '; s.c.: N, LSC: [Substances.... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!) < ΣΝ - ZAdj ...>

6/2

40.

χ φ haft ...> ; Ό^'; s.c.: N, LSC: [Substances... < WITH(4X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op9!/OplO!)

34/3

48.


; Ό48'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [*Substances... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; χ = y/θη1: /t/-epenthesis!; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!) < ΣΝ - Σ ^ ...>
< ΕΧ('Χ') ...>

; Ό20'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Substances... o.e.: slot II; (Ορ7!/Ορ8!/Ορ9!/ ΟρΙΟ!)

31.

< χ φ en ...> < ΕΧ('Χ') ...>

; Ό31'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Substances... o.e.: slot Η; (Ορ7!)

15/17

; '0 36 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Substances.. o.e.: slot Π; (Ορ7!)

9/12

36.

18. r

< χ φ ern ...> < ΕΧ(4Χ') ...> < ΣΝ - Σ μ ...>

< χ © icht ...> ; O l g '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Substances... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/

OplO!)

33/15

356 Denominal adjective derivation in German 24.

< χ ® ig ...> ; Ό24'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: »Substances... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!) < ΣΝ - ZAdj ...>

4/5

37.

< χ θ ern ...> Ό37'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [»Substances... < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Ορ7!) < Σ Ν - Σ Adj

5/3

41.

< x ® haft ...> Ό41'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [Substances.. < LIKE('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op9!/OplO!)

10/-

< ς ν - Σμ] ...> 21.

42.

22.

< χ θ icht ...> < OF('X') ...> < Σ ν - Σ μ ...>

Ό21'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [Substances ... o.e.: slot Π; (Ορ7!/Ορ8!/Ορ9!/ ΟρΙΟ!)

< χ θ haft ...> < OF('X') ...> < ΣΝ - Σ ^ ...>

Ό42'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [Substances... o.e.: slot Π; (Op9!/OplO!)

icht...> ; Ό22'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [»Substances ... < REL('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/

; Ό19'; s.c.: N, LSC: [Metals... < Wrra('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/

OplO!)

4/2

31.

< χ φ en ...>

< ΣΝ -·· XAdj ...>

Ό31'; s.c.: N, LSC: Metals... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!)

8/5

36.

< χ φ ern ...> < EX('X') ...>

O 36 '; s.c.: N, LSC: Metals. o.e.: slot II; (Op7!)

4/6

[ - Sti only Figure 109:

Proposed systemic paradigm for the Metal Designations class in

Sti/Stb

368 Denominal adjective derivation in German 20.

< χ θ icht ...> < EX('X') ...> < ΣN αηι ...> 'Ν - Σ'Adj

; Ό 20 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: ["Trees... o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/ OplO!)

4/1

31.

< EX('X') ...> < ΣΝ - Z^j ...>

; Ό 31 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Trees... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!)

9/7

36.

< χ φ em ...>

; '0 36 '; s.c.: N, LSC: [[«Trees... o.e.: slot Π;(Ορ7!)

-/3

* - marginal (4-5 attestations) [ - Sti only [[- Stb only Figure 110: Proposed systemic paradigm for the Tree Designations class in StilStb Clearly, Operations 19 and 20 have marginal status in these structures. Other mappings do occur, such as era-affixation or ic/ii-affixation onto LIKE('X') (e.g. bleyern, stälern in Sti, stalicht, kupfricht 'coppery'). Operations 31 and 36 are the only ones frequently represented in the text sources for the Metal Designations class, and Operation 31 is the only attested operation in the Trees class. Most lexical paradigms in the Tree Designations class have one member only for Stb; synonymy is occasionally present there with the two operations 31 and 36 (ERLE, ESCHE 'ash'). Polysemy does not, obviously, occur for Stb. Larger lexical paradigms and accordingly polysemy and synonymy are characteristic of Sti, however. In fact, only three lexical paradigms (ERLE, BIRKE, EBEN) contain one member. Many of these formations do not conform to the systemic class paradigm. Synonymy obtains between Operations 20 and 31, as in the case of BUCHE, shown in Figure 111; LINDE and WEIDE have identical lexical paradigms. buchicht

EX('X')

BUCHE EX('X') Figure 111: Lexical paradigm of BUCHE 'beech' in Sti

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

369

Here sample phrases show that the formations are interchangeable: ein weidener/weidichter Knüttel ' a willow cudgel/club'. A combination of polysemy and synonymy is found in e.g. the lexical paradigm of EICHE, where both formations eichicht and eichen apparently map onto OF('X') and EX('X'), as shown in Figure 112.

EICHE

Figure 112: Lexical paradigm of EICHE 'oak* in Sti Lexical paradigms in the Metals class appear to be more complex, on the whole. Paradigms of more than one member are the rule here for both Sti and Stb (nine of 12 for Sti, six of ten for Stb). Paradigms of one member in almost all cases contain Operation 31 or 36 (for Stb: BLECH, EISEN, ZINN, METALL; for Sti: BLECH, DIAMANT, GOLD). Otherwise, paradigmatic synonymy and polysemy are typical features of the lexical paradigm of this class. As far as pure synonymy is concerned, a paradigm type containing Operations 31 and 36 is the usual structure, as shown in Figure 113 for the base ZINN (Sti), also found for ERZ (Stb) and EISEN (Sti). EX('X') ZINN EX('X') Figure 113: Lexical paradigm of ZINN 'tin, pewter' Stb's KUPFER-paradigm also shows synonymy with EX('X') the common meaning, this time with formations in -icht and -ig as well as -en. Two paradigms in Sti contain pure paradigmatic polysemy, and both (MESSING, SILBER 'silver') are of the same type: the forms are in -icht, the meanings are the typical EX('X') and WITH('X'). Stb contains four paradigms exhibiting pure polysemy, those of ERZ 'ore', GOLD, SILBER,

370 Denominal adjective derivation in German

and STAHL. For the two latter, the meanings found are EX('X') and LIKE('X'), the forms in -en and -ern respectively. GOLD represents an expansion of this, in that the meaning WITH('X') is also present (the forms, again, all in -en). ERZ contains formations in -icht, mapping onto the meanings WITH('X'), OF('X'), and LIKE('X'). Unlike the situation observed hitherto, there is some tendency towards semantic differentiation within larger, complex paradigms (although these may well contain other relations of polysemy and synonymy). Paradigms such as Sti' s STAHL, with formations in -icht and -ern mapping onto both EX('X') and LIKE('X'), as shown in Figure 114, are rather the exception here. EX('X') EX('X')

LIKE('X') LKE('X') Figure 114:

Lexical paradigm of STAHL 'steel'

An example of a paradigm showing partial differentiation is that of METALL (Sti), where only metallen maps onto EX('X'), as shown in Figure 115, and only metallicht onto WITH('X'), although there are other overlaps. metallicht

WITH('X')

metallicht

OF('X')

metallen

OF('X')

metallen

EX('X')

METALL

Figure 115:

Lexical paradigm of METALL

A somewhat different situation prevails in the paradigm of BLEI, again from Sti, where one formation enters into a biunique relation with the meaning OF('X'), synonymy holding otherwise (Figure 116).

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German 371

BLEI

bleyicht

EX('X')

bleyern

EX('X')

bleyicht

wrracx')

bleyern

wrracx')

bleyhaft

OF('X')

Figure 116: Lexical paradigm of BLEI 'lead' in Sti It might be expected that this situation is unstable, such that bleyhafi, if it persists, would assimilate to the other formations at least to the point of mapping onto the function WITH('X'). We in fact observe a reassignment of forms to meanings in Stb, although differentiation is still present. Here, bleyern is now in a biunique relationship with its meaning, and bleyhaft is only partially differentiated from bleyicht. EX('X') wrracx') BLEI wrra('X') LIKE('X') Figure 117: Lexical paradigm of BLEI 'lead' in Stb In Sti, finally, the paradigm of ERZ is a clear case of semantic differentiation on the lexical level:

ERZ

erzin

EX('X')

erzieht

WITH('X')

erzieht

OF('X')

Figure 118: Lexical paradigm of ERZ'ore, iron' These patterns are quite similar to what one finds in the Substance class. Remember, however, that the forms in actual use as reflected in the texts reflect much simpler structures.

372 Denominal adjective derivation in German Compounding is an alternative to derivation by suffixation, particularly with regard to the functions OF('X'), REL('X'), and EX('X'). The text sources provide frequent examples of this: in the case of the Tree Designations class, CvH has (des) Eschenbaums 'of the ash tree', Eschenlaub 'ash leaves', Lindenholtz 'lime wood', and in the Metals class, AO has Blechpforten 'sheet-metal shutters' (lit. 'gates')119, while the later ΑΜΑ has Kupferfigur 'copper figure' as well as the more frequent kupfern. As well, ΑΜΑ uses a compound to express LIKE('X') in bleyfarbigt 'lead-coloured', making the point of comparison explicit. Sti lists one serial compound, goldreich, which expresses WITH('X'); there is no synonymous formation in the lexical paradigm, so this process acts as a complement to the paradigm. No serial compounds were found for the Trees class or in the texts for either class. Finally, participles fromornative verbs may be competitors to suffixational formation in the denominative lexical paradigm in the Metals class, such as vergoldet 'coated/plated with gold'. Note that vergoldet and goldreich have different lexical meanings, the latter to be interpreted as 'containing gold', with reference to rock, for example. No examples were found in the text sources for this process either. In general, then, it appears that the class paradigm for these two small Substance subclasses are productive and not particularly subject to competition from other processes, with the exception of compounding. The derived adjective formations are quite common in texts, particularly for the Metals class, and in terms of text frequency appear to be the most common form of expressing the canonical meaning EX('X').

7.2.6.4. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Body Part Designations The general characteristics of the lexico-semantic class of Body Part Designations are as given for Maa in 7.1.6.4. The class is a good deal larger here, with 91 and 81 bases for Sti and Stb respectively. The bases newly listed as giving rise to adjectives derived by suffixation come from all subclasses of the Body Part Designations: internal organs etc. (e.g. DARM 'intestine'), inalienable external parts (e.g. FINGER, DAUMEN 'thumb', FERSE 'heel', PFOTE 'paw', SCHNABEL 'beak', LIPPE 'lip', AUGE 'eye'), "temporary" or alienable and/or anomalous parts (e.g. SCHRAMME 'scrape', WARZE 'wart'), and of course Substances as well as Objects. Whether or not Maa contains a high number of omissions, it would at least seem that it is potentially possible to create a formation from virtually any Body Part Designation at this point.

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German 373

As far as semantics is concerned, the class appears quite stable: there have been no significant modifications in the distribution of semantic functions expressed by suffixational derivates, with one exception. Thus the dominant function is overwhelmingly WITH('X'), while the other functions do not play much of a role (see Table 63). The only significant change is a lessening of the importance of the peripheral function OF('X') in Stb with respect to Sti and Maa, which is consistent with trends noted in the Substance and Object Designations classes. Potential but as yet non-significant trends include a slight increase in the representation of the function LIKE('X'). In the text sources, the majority of formations in this class express WITH('X') in accordance with the findings here; exceptions are a number of examples of EX('X') with the interpretation 'made o f , found for bases BEIN 'bone' {GAB, SAM, ΑΜΑ) and HAAR (ΑΜΑ, SAM). There is further an example of LIKE('X') in (GAB) gelenckhajft ('joint-like' from a description of a plant root, referring to the absence of bumps). Bases such as LEIB 'body', FLEISCH 'flesch, meat', and KÖRPER 'body' give rise to formations involving OF('X') and REL('X') as described in 7.1.6.4. Table 63: Representation of semantic functions in the Body Part Designations class in StilStb

Bases in Sources

Functions

Representation in %

Maa

Sti

Stb

Maa

Sti

Stb

wrracx')

31

81

73

94

90

91

EX('X')

5

9

8

15

10

10

LIKE('X')

3

10

10

9

11

13

OF('X')

8

19

9

24

21

11

4

1

4

1

90

80

9

11

REL('X') Total

33

7

1040 450 744 Corpus χ - statistically significant change since preceding source χ - statistically significant change since two sources previous (e.g. from Maa to Stb)

374 Denominal adjective derivation in German Table 64: Representation of formal types in the Body Part Designations class in Sti/Stb Bases in Sources Representation in % Affixation Types Maa

Sti

Stb

Maa

Sti

Stb

icht

24

73

53

73

81

67

ig

12

23

27

36

26

33

en

4

5

3

12

5

4

2

4

2

5

er η haft

3

13

3

9

14

4

lieh

5

12

7

15

15

9

sam

1

isch

1

3

4

3 3

3

1

bar Total

3

33

90

80

1 7

9

11

744 1040 Corpus 450 χ - statistically significant change since preceding source χ - statistically significant change since two sources previous (e.g. from Maa to Stb) As far as forms are concerned (Table 64), the dominant rule is still that adding -icht; however, a significant modification to formal distributions occurs here with a significant decrease in relative representation with Stb. Although there is no corresponding increase elsewhere, the relative positions of icht- and ig-affixation change quite dramatically by virture of the apparent decline in ic/ri-affixation. This decrease appears to be tied to the frequency of application of the rule adding -ig; although the proportion of formations undergoing it is less in both Sti and Stb than in Maa, it was often a rule listed alongside that adding -icht. By Stb, however, it is no longer the case that a base having any kind of suffixational derivation will undergo an operation adding -icht (and perhaps some other or others); it may well be an operation adding -ig instead. It would thus appear that operations containing -icht are being slowly replaced by those containing -ig. Such a trend is not noticeable for Sti. Both suffixations are well-represented in the text sources, with an apparent edge for ic/ii-suffixation overall. As noted in 7.2.6.2., certain bases do have an affinity for one type over another and the corresponding formations recur frequently, e.g. blutig 'bloody', eitrig 'pusy'. Another significant

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

375

development is the decrease in operations adding -en and -ern, or perhaps the lack of increase proportionate to the increase in the number of bases listed. In fact, the bases undergoing one of these operations are the same as in Maa. Sti lists a relatively large number of formations in -haft, as in the previous two classes; as this is unmatched by Stb, we may consider this to be a potential distortion (note, however, the form gelenckhajft mentioned above). Forms in -lich are associated with the semantically unusual bases LEIB, KÖRPER, FLEISCH, and HERZ as before; they are occasionally also found with very typical bases, such as BACKE 'cheek', FAUST 'fist', GLIED 'limb, member', SCHWANZ 'tail', ZÄHRE 'tear', TRÄNE 'tear', RÜCKEN 'back', and the text source CvHhas runzellich 'wrinkly'. This rule still plays a very peripheral role in the class, however. The class paradigm representing the productive operations in the class is given in Figure 119. It appears, first of all, far more complex than that postulated for Maa. One factor here may certainly be the much larger number of bases in the (sub-)corpus, meaning that the peripheral operations may now qualify according to our conditions. The core, it is clear, is still formed by Operations 19 and 25 as in Maa. Operations 31 and 36 (involving -en and -ern respectively), which we indicated in 7.1.6.4. for Maa might qualify for system status later do not, unless we consider them together, in which case they still remain marginal. Operation 40 qualifies for Sti only, as in all other classes considered so far, and skepticism is justified here as those classes regarding StV s representation of the status of this operation. Crucially, only Operations 19, 25, and 18, the latter being marginal, constitute the systemic class paradigm for Stb, and this situation, given again in Figure 120, is after all not much different from Mao's class paradigm, and is identical with the corresponding structure (i.e. Stb's) derived for the Object Designations class. The text sources strongly confirm the validity of the structures proposed here; by far the majority of formations found involved the dominant operations 19 and 25, with a few examples of the peripheral operations, such as for bases like LEIB, HERZ, or FLEISCH.

376 Denominal adjective derivation in German 19.

< χ ® icht ...> ; Ό19'; s.c.: N, LSC: Body Parts... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/

OplO!)

65/50

25.

; Ό25'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Body Parts... < WrTH('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op9!) Σ < Ν - ^Adj ...>

19/23

40.

< χ ® haft ...> ; Ό,,ο'; s.c.: N, LSC: [Body Parts... < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op9!/OplO!) < Σ Ν - I A d j ...>

10/2

48.

< χ φ lieh ...> ; 'CV; s.c.: N, LSC: [Body Parts... < WrrH('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; χ = y/8n/: /t/-epen thesis !;(Op7!/Op9!/Op 10!)

10/3

21.

< χ ® icht ...>

Ό21'; s.c.: Ν, LSC: [Body Parts ... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/ OplO!)

12/3

' < V ; s.c.: N, LSC: [Body Parts... o.e.: slot II; χ = y/8n/: /t/-epenthesis!; (Op7!/Op9!/OplO!)

7/4

< OF('X') ...> < Σν Σα 49.

< χ e lieh ...> < OF('X') ...>

< Σ Ν - Σ μ ...>

ΟΛ

< χ ® icht ...>

O,g'; s.c.: N, LSC: Body Parts... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/ OplO!)

10/7

'Oio'; s.c.: N, LSC: [Body Parts... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/ OplO!)

6/4

[ - Sti only Figure 119: Proposed systemic paradigm for the Body Part Designations class in

Sti/Stb

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German 377 19.

< χ φ icht ...>

< WITH('X') ...> 1, < ΣN · 'μ - Σ'Aαλdj: ...> 25.

18.

; Ό ,19, ' ' s.c.: Ν, LSC: Body Parts...

50

o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/ OplO!)

;'Oy'; s.c.: N, LSC: Body Parts... < Wrra('X') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!) < ΣΝ - ΣΑ4 ...>

23

; Ό 18 '; s.c.: Ν, LSC: Body Parts...

7

o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/

Σ S OplO!) < Ν Adj ···> Figure 120: Proposed systemic paradigm for the Body Part Designations class in Stb There are fewer paradigms than we have been used to for these sources with more than one member (about half for Sti, about one third for Stb)·, the rest consist of an operation from the class paradigm, typically Operation 19 or 25. This is in line with the ideal of relative paradigmatic simplicity for this class and with the findings in Maa. The potential for paradigmatic polysemy at the lexical level is of course greater for Sti than for Stb. Sti lists 12 paradigms of two members and one of three members exhibiting "pure" polysemy. The only type to recur consists of formations undergoing Operations 18 and 19, for the bases BUCKEL 'hump', FEDER, STACHEL 'sting, prickle'; most others involve formations in -icht as well, such as that of DARM 'intestine', containing a formation with the meaning LIKE('X') and another with OF('X'). All three paradigms with three or more members demonstrating pure polysemy consist of formations in -icht, namely those of AUGE 'eye', GEIFER 'spittle', and OHR 'ear'. The first of these contains, as well as formations with WITH('X') and OF('X'), an anomalous formation with REL('X'), while the third has formations in WITH('X'), LIKE('X'), and OF('X').120 Stb has a much more restricted paradigm, as we have seen, so that the potential for polysemy is much less. Correspondingly, there are only two two-member paradigms exhibiting pure polysemy relations, and one threemember paradigm — all three mentioned previously as members of the Substance Designations class, FETT 'fat', FELL '(animal) skin', GEIFER. None of these, incidentally, consists wholly of operations contained in the reduced class paradigm shown in Figure 120. For example, geifericht is assigned the meaning OF('X') as well as the expected WITH('X') and LIKE('X'); fellicht apparently has the meaning EX('X') as well as WITH('X'). We may conclude that word-formation polysemy is not typical

378 Denominal adjective derivation in German

of this class for Stb, although it is quite frequent in Sti. A typical paradigm is one consisting of one formation in -icht or -ig mapping onto WITH('X'). Sti contains a number of two-member paradigms in which the formations are word-formation synonyms; of the 13, one type occurs more than once, namely that consisting of a formation in -icht and another in -haft, both mapping onto WITH('X') (SCHRAMME, SCHRUND 'chap', SCHWEISS — all alienable Body Parts). The only such paradigm for an Inalienable Body Part designation is that of ZUNGE 'tongue' (with an slot I operation adding -el). Synonymy relations between formations in -ig and -icht exist as well, although there are only three examples of this: GLATZE 'bald head', with WITH('X'), STIMME 'voice', also WITH('X'), SCHWEIF 'tail' with LIKE('X'). There are further two paradigms with three or more members, all with the meaning WITH('X') in common (BACKE, SCHWANZ); these both contain atypical forms in -lich, and the latter also contains a form in anomalous -isch. Only six paradigms in Stb exhibit pure word-formation synonymy (FLÄCHSE, HAUT, SCHLEIM, HOCKER 'hump', NASE, STIMME), and only one type recurs (that of HAUT and SCHLEIM, with a formation in -icht and -ig, both with the meaning WITH('X'); these are both Substance bases). The paradigms of NASE and STIMME contain formally anomalous members (nasisch, stimmbar). Synonymy, although not very frequent, is a more typical characteristic of paradigms of this class in Stb than polysemy, which coincides with our findings in Maa. The text sources show that formations in -ig and -icht tend to be synonymous, e.g. GAB haaricht, harig (both WITH('X'); only the icht-forms occur in complex formations such as langhäricht 'long-haired', schwartzhaaricht 'black-haired'. SAM has synonymous haaricht and harig likewise; SAM's fleischig is synonymous with GAB's and ΑΜΑ7s fleischicht. Both Sti and Stb contain a number of lexical paradigms with complex form-meaning relations, resulting in both synonymy and polysemy. With few exceptions (HAAR, FLEISCH, HORN, BEIN) the two sets do not intersect. In some of these paradigms, all forms map onto all functions, so that all members enter into both synonymy and polysemy relations: a non-typical example from Sti is shown in Figure 121, and an example containing members of the class paradigm from Stb is shown in Figure 122.

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

fausticht

WITH('X')

faustig, feustig

WITH('X')

faustelich

WITH('X')

fausticht

OF('X')

faustig

OF('X')

faustelich

OF('X')

379

FAUST

Figure 121: Lexical paradigm of FAUST 'fist' in Sti

schweificht

wrra('X')

schweifig

WITH('X')

schweificht

LIKE('X')

schweifig

LIKE('X')

SCHWEIF

Figure 122: Lexical paradigm of SCHWEIF 'tail' in Stb A number of paradigms show a certain degree of semantic differentiation, but in most of these cases, one or more members are anomalous in that they belong to another class (i.e. the polysemous base has dual, non-inclusive class membership). In addition to the paradigm of FLEISCH mentioned in this context in the Substance Designations class, HERZ and MUND form further examples here (see also Maxi). In general, then, there is no particular trend towards semantic differentiation in this class. Compounding is as expected the process of choice for the expression of semantic functions other than WITH('X'), e.g. (SAM) Niernsafft 'kidneyjuice' (i.e. juice from the (cooked) kidney), (ΑΜΑ) Haartuch 'hair-cloth', i.e. cloth (made) of hair'. It should be noted, however, that formations in -icht and -ig particularly are very often second elements of compounds, as in e.g. großnasicht 'big-nosed' or dreyhodicht 'three-testicled' (Stb). Formations of the former type can be considered competitors to e.g. nasicht, due to the particular logic of alienable/inalienable possession, nasicht, for example, only means 'big-nosed' through inference, as described in 7.1.6.4., whereas großnasicht is explicit. Many potential formations in this class are pragmati-

380 Denominal adjective derivation in German cally unlikely — those perhaps needing more specification than 'large' or 'unusual' — but would fit well as second parts of compounds, such as schultricht (listed in Sti) 'shouldery' vs. breitschultricht 'broad-shouldery'. We will consider these formations equivalent to the non-compounded types with respect to e.g. choice of form rule; the question of productivity of the simple type and competition between the two types must not, however, be neglected. Serial compounding occurs as in Maa, with the formation blutreich occurring in CSw as there, aderreich from ADER 'vein' in Sti. These formations are not very common. Participle formations are fairly typical of this class, and occur more frequently than in Maa; the bases for which such formations are listed include: BEIN (new), FIEDER, BART 'beard', SCHNABEL (new), STIRN 'forehead' (new), TRÄNE (new), STIMME (new), FLÜGEL 'wing' (new), HORN, PANZER 'shell' (new), HAAR, SCHWANZ (new), gehörnt is also found in the text sources, as is behertzt 'hearted' with the figurative meaning 'brave', to be discussed further in 7.2.6.12. Generally, participle formations are used when the possession of an "alienable" body part is to be expressed, as in gehärtet 'bearded' or behaart 'hairy', or when a the presence of a differentiating characteristic — between animal species, for example — is being expressed, as in geflügelt 'winged', geschnäbelt 'beaked'. Usually, a synonym is present in the lexical paradigm, as bärticht, bärtig or schnäblicht. As in Maa, the class of Body Part Designations reflects its hybrid nature as a set of Substance and Object Designations. It has its own character, however, as seen in the unusually high proportion of bases giving rise to formations with the meaning WITH('X'), and the relatively low representation of operations with the meaning EX('X') as would be found in a pure Substance class. This is partly due to the fact that most Substance bases do not make an interpretation 'made of plausible; amongst such bases EX('X') is rarer, as we have seen. The lexical and systemic paradigms are generally simpler in structure than in the Substances and Objects classes, polysemy and especially polysemy being possible but not highly frequent, and lexical paradigms being on average small. The class is also unusual in the role that the alternative word-formation process of participle formation plays.

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German 381 7.2.6.5. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Landscape Feature Designations The basic characteristics of the class of Landscape Feature Designations are as given for Maa in 7.1.6.5. WITH('X') with its typical interpretation is still the dominant semantic function, as shown in Table 65. Although the proportion of bases selecting WlTH('X') varies somewhat from that established for Maa, the differences are not statistically significant. There are some significant changes in this class, however. As might be expected by this point, Sti includes a relatively higher number of formations with the meaning OF('X'); the value for Stb is comparable to that of Maa. This function is much better represented in the Landscape Designations than in most other Concrete classes for all dictionary sources. A significant increase is also to be noted for the function LIKE('X'), again a finding consistent with other Concrete classes; in the case of Stb, LIKE('X') even surpasses OF('X') to become the foremost of the "minor" functions of the class. The number of bases undergoing the function EX('X') seems fairly constant. The bases typically undergoing EX('X') are Substance designations, often referring to plants of which things might be made, such as SENDE 'rush', HANF 'hemp'. Table 65: Representation of semantic functions in the Landscape Designations class in Sti/Stb Functions Bases in Sources Representation in % Maa

Sti

Stb

Maa

Sti

Stb

WITH('X')

36

75

44

77

82

76

LKE('X')

7

27

16

15

29

28

EX('X')

5

8

9

11

9

16

OF('X')

9

30

12

19

33

21

5

1

5

2

92

58

9

8

RELCX') Total

47

10

744 Corpus 450 1040 χ - statistically significant change since preceding source χ - statistically significant change since two sources previous (e.g. from Maa to Stb) Given the nature of the subject matter of the texts, the additional sources contain a great many formations in this class. Although by far the majority of suffixational derivations in the Landscape Designations class involve

382 Denominal adjective derivation in German

WITH('X'), the other functions do occur. LIKE('X') appears more frequently than for most other Concrete classes; amongst the fairly numerous examples are sumpffig and especially sumpfficht 'swampy, boggy' (GAB, CvH), schilficht and schilfericht 'reedy' (GAB and CvH), windicht (ΑΜΑ) and windig (SAM) 'windy', neblicht 'foggy', eisig 'icy', schneehaftig 'snowy' (GAB). There are only a very few occurrences of OF('X') in the texts, one being (GAB) sumpfficht, and none of EX('X'). These distributions confirm the dictionary findings, particularly the prominence of LIKE('X'), in addition of course to the dominance of WITH('X'). It would appear from the texts at least that OF('X') might not have the status indicated by Sti and Stb. Table 66 shows that the dominant form rule adds, as before, the suffix -ichf, there is a significant decrease in its relative representation to Stb, however, probably due to the statistically non-significant increase in the frequency of the rule adding -ig. In other words, there is a certain interdependence of the sets of operations containing these two rules; both contain highly productive operations in the same semantic and lexico-semantic domain, and the balance between the two would appear to be shifting. Given the observations here and in the previous classes, that operations adding -ig seem to be gaining some ground at the expense of those containing -icht, while the dominant status of the latter has not been seriously affected, at least not lexically. Consistently across all text sources examined, however, the formations in -icht dominate to a very high degree. A change from StV s contemporaries to Stb's mirroring that shown by the dictionaries is not apparent. The usual remarks apply with respect to the rule adding -haft (cf. e.g. 7.2.6.1.). Only two examples of Ziayi-formations occur in the texts, both in (StVs contemporary) GAB, namely schneehaftig and regenhaft 'rainy'; Sti lists both of these, and Stb the latter. The number and proportion of ischformations is small, yet considerably higher than in the Concrete classes seen so far; this is new in this period. Some of the bases in question have other class assignments, such as HIMMEL 'sky', but others are full members of the Landscape Designations class, such as FELD, WEIDE 'pasture', HAG 'hedge, grove', STURM 'storm'. The only examples of this formal type in the text sources are (GAB) irdisch (here as a Substance designation) and (ΑΜΑ) gebürgisch from GEBIRGE 'mountains, mountain chain'. As in Maa, some anomalies are presented by those bases referring to seasons, which act both as Time Unit Designations and members of this class, and have derivational forms appropriate to the Time Units class, that is, with lichsuffixes. GAB also contains a pair of forms in -lich, neblich from NEBEL 'fog' (again, a base in -el), griiblich from GRUBE 'pit, ditch', but they are clearly not typical of the class.

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German 383 Table 66: Representation of formal types in the Landscape Designations class in Sti/Stb Affixation Types Bases in Sources Representation in % Maa

Sti

Stb

Maa

Sti

Stb

icht

37

79

38

79

86

66

ig

8

16

15

17

17

29

en

5

2

2

11

2

3

ern

1

3

1

5

haft

25

5

27

8

lich

4

5

4

9

5

7

sam

1

1

1

2

1

2

isch

2

10

7

4

11

12

bar Total

3 47

92

3 58

10

9

8

1040 744 Corpus 450 χ - statistically significant change since preceding source χ - statistically significant change since two sources previous (e.g. from Maa to Stb) The most typical mappings involve the most typical form and semantic rules, as usual, with some functional distributions, such as the fact that whereas < χ θ icht ...> and < χ θ ig ... > both map most frequently onto WITH('X'), the former maps far more frequently than the latter (or any other) onto LIKE('X'). The class subparadigm is given in Figure 123.

384 Denominal adjective derivation in German 19.

; Ό19';

< W I T H ( ' X ' ) ...>

25.

< x ® ig...> ; 'CV; < W I T H ( ' X ' ) ...> < Σ Ν - XAdj ...>

s.c.: Ν , L S C : Landscape... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/ OplO!) s.c.: N , L S C : Landscape... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!)

40.

< χ © haft

15.

; O1S'; < W I T H C X ' ) ···>

s.c.: N,LSC:[Landscape... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!)

21.

< χ φ icht ...>

Ό2ι';

s.c.: Ν, L S C : [Landscape ... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/ OplO!)

Ό 4 2 ';

s.c.: N, L S C : [Landscape... o.e.: slot II; (Op9!/OplO!)

Ό 1 3 ';

s.c.: Ν, L S C : Landscape... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!)

'0,8';

s.c.: N, L S C : Landscape... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/ OplO!)

Ό 1 2 ';

s.c.: N, L S C : [»Landscape... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!)

...> ; Ό ^ ' ; s.c.: N, L S C : [Landscape... < W I T H ( ' X ' ) ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op9!/OplO!)

< O F ( ' X ' ) ...>

42.

< χ θ haft ...> < O F ( ' X ' ) ...> < Σ Ν Σ ^ ...>

13.

< χ e isch ...> < O F ( ' X ' ) ...> < Σ Ν - ΣΑφ ...>

18.

< χ φ icht ...> < L I K E ( ' X ' ) ...> < Σ Ν " SAdj " · >

12

Γ

< χ φ isch ...> c L I K E ( ' X ' ) ...> < Σ Ν - Σ ^ ..·>

65/37

12/11

19/3

6/1

22/2

11/2

6/5

19/10

5/2

* - marginal (4-5 attestations) [ - Sti only

Figure 123: Proposed systemic subparadigm for the Landscape Feature Designations class in Sti/Stb

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German 385

Again, this structure is very complex; it should be noted, however, that many operations here are only marginally represented. The set of operations qualifying for Stb is much smaller, and corresponds more closely to the mappings found in the text sources. This set is given in Figure 124. 19.

< χ ® icht ...> ; '0 19 '; s.c.: N, LSC: Landscape... < WITH('X') ...> o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/ OplO!) < ΣΝ - LAdj ...>

25. r ; Ό^'; s.c.: N,LSC: Landscape... < WITHCX') ...> o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op9!) < ΣΝ - XAdj ...> 13.

< χ ® isch ...> < OF('X') ...> < ΣΝ - ZAdj ...>

; Ό13'; s.c.: N, LSC: Landscape... o.e.: slot II; (Op7!/Op9!)

18.

< χ φ icht ...> < LIKE('X') ...>

; '0 lg '; s.c.: N, LSC: Landscape... o.e.: slot Π; (Op7!/Op8!/Op9!/ OplO!)

37

11

10

* - marginal (4-5 attestations) Figure 124\ Proposed systemic subparadigm for the Landscape Features Designations class in Stb This structure represents an expansion from Maa, where only Operations 19 and 25 qualified for system status in the Landscape Designations class. More diversity, and a closer approximation to other Concrete and Substance classes, is achieved by inclusion of Operation 14. Operation 13 barely qualifies for membership in the class paradigm, but even this is rather remarkable given the distributions in the other Concrete classes seen so far. Whereas a considerable majority of lexical paradigms in Maa consisted of one member only, most of these created by means of Operation 19, this is no longer the case in Sti and Stb. It is true that paradigms containing one formation involving Operation 19 is still the most common paradigm type, but more than half — well more than half, for Sti — of the lexical paradigms in these later sources have two or more members. The potential for semantic relations such as word-formation polysemy and synonymy is therefore available, particularly in Sti.

386 Denominal adjective derivation in German

This potential is also realized to a considerable extent. Sti contains eighteen lexical paradigms exhibiting pure synonymy relations, all but three of which consist of two members, and most of which (12) contain mappings onto the primary function of the class, WITH('X'). Two types recur here, the most frequent being Sti's preferred type so far, namely that containing a formation in -icht and another in -haft (EIS 'ice', QUALM 'smoke', RAUCH 'smoke', SCHMUTZ 'dirt', SCHNEE 'snow', WETTER 'weather', WIND), both meaning WITH('X'). The other type, occurring three times in Sti (GRIESS 'sand', SAND, SUMPF 'swamp, bog') contains formations in -icht and -ig, again meaning WITH('X'). Another paradigm, this time with four members (KLIPPE 'cliff), contains formations in -icht, -ig, -haft, and -lich, with the same meaning. Other paradigms exhibiting synonymy may be based on other meanings, such as OF('X') (PFLANZE 'plant', FORST 'forest', SOMMER 'summer) orLIKE('X') (BAUM 'tree', STURM). Stb only has six paradigms exhibiting pure synonymy, all of which are based on WITH('X'). Four of these are of the same type, namely containing a formation in -icht and another in -ig (BERG 'mountain', MOOS 'moss', SCHATTEN 'shade', SCHLAMM 'mud'); this of course conforms to the systemic class subparadigm. Another is of Sti's preferred type, with a formation in -icht and another in -haft (EIS). Although synonymy is not a very common feature of this class for Stb, then, at least there seems to be no inclination towards differentiation of meaning within the lexical paradigm. The text sources provide occasional examples of word-formation synonymy. The most frequently occurring type involves the most frequently occurring operations, Operations 19 and 25. Examples here are (GAB) gewiilckicht and gewiilckich121, wassericht and wässerig 'watery', (AO) morassicht and morassig 'boggy', and (ΑΜΑ) sandicht and sandig. Synonymy relations can be established across texts as well, as we find for example (AO) windicht and (SAM) windig (bothLIKE('X'), as mentioned earlier, or (GAB) windig, CvH windicht (both WITH('X')). Other forms may be involved as well, as in (GAB) neblicht and neblich (both WITH('X')), or regnigt and regenhajft. There is no discernible difference in the contexts in which formations derived by means of Operations 19 and 25 from the same base are used, as shown by examples such as bey regnigtem Wetter 'in rainy weather', regenhajftes Wetter 'rainy weather'. It is thus evident that the potential synonymy suggested by the structures in Figure 123 and especially Figure 124 is indeed taken advantage of. As far as polysemy is concerned, it is present in both sources as the systemic class subparadigm(s) would predict. Sti has 11 two-member paradigms with pure polysemy, most of these belonging to one of two types, and all involving formations in -icht. Four paradigms (BÜHEL 'hill', GRENZE

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

387

'border', HOLM 'holm', SEE 'sea') have formations meaning WITH('X') and OF('X'), while five (BRÜHL '(wet) meadow', HEIDE 'heath', PFÜTZE 'puddle', ROHR 'reed', WELLE 'wave') have formations meaning WITH('X') and LIKE('X'). Five of the seven three-member lexical paradigms exhibiting pure polysemy also consist of formations in -icht. No type is found more than once in the corpus; some contain the most typical meanings, e.g. WITH('X'), LIKE('X'), and OF('X') (HÖHLE 'cave'), while others contain non-typical meanings, such as REL('X') in addition to typical ones (e.g. BLITZ 'lightning'). Stb has ten two-member lexical paradigms exhibiting pure polysemy; there is more formal variety here, as formations in -ig (KRAUT) or -lich (GRUND 'ground; reason'; due to dual class membership, formally anomalous) also occur. Nevertheless, most do involve formations in -icht, and five involve the only type provided for by the reduced paradigm, that containing formations meaning WITH('X') andLIKE('X'): (QUELLE 'spring, source', SAND, SCHILF 'reeds', BODEN 'ground, earth', STAUDE 'shrub'). There is only one paradigm of three members (all in -icht, again) for which pure polysemy holds, namely that of SENDE 'rush', the meanings here being WITH('X'), LKE('X') and EX('X'). Again, based on these observations, there is no apparent tendency towards semantic differentiation of members of the lexical paradigm. Only one two-member lexical paradigm, that of the Substance designation GRAS, shows functional differentiation: grasicht means 'with grass, grassy' while gräsern means '(made) of grass'. Due to the relatively high number of formations with the meaning LIKE('X') in the text sources, polysemy occurs here too, although not as frequently as synonymy. In all examples within texts, polysemy involves, as we would expect given the structure in Figure 124, formations in -icht: (GAB) neblicht 'foggy', WITH('X') and LIKE('X'); sumpficht 'swampy, boggy' WITH('X'), LIKE('X'), OF('X'), and EX('X'), the first two being the most common. Across texts we find e.g. (GAB) windig WITH('X') and (SAM) windig LIKE('X'). 18 paradigms in Sti contain both synonymy and polysemy relations. Generally speaking, as before, in these, all forms map onto all meanings, or, all members enter into both synonymy and polysemy relations. One type of this kind is found three times (GRABEN 'ditch', STERN 'star', WALD 'forest'); it consists of forms in -icht and -haft mapping onto WITH('X') and OF('X'), thus the most common forms mapping onto the most common meanings. Another occurs twice, with formations in -icht and -ig also mapping onto WITH('X') and OF('X') (BERG, SONNE 'sun'). Other types involving members of the reduced class paradigm include one mapping formations in -icht and -isch onto WITH('X') and OF('X') (HAG) and

388 Denominal adjective derivation in German another onto WITHCX') and LIKE('X') (STAUDE). The paradigm of FELD 'field' is quite large with nine members (see Figure 125), but all belong to the reduced class paradigm of Sti.

FELD

feidicht

WITHCX')

felderisch

WITHCX')

feldhaft

WITHCX')

feidicht

LIKE('X')

felderisch

LIKECX')

feldhaft

LIKECX')

feidicht

OF('X')

felderisch

OF('X')

feldhaft

OF('X')

Figure 125: Lexical paradigm of FELD 'field' Other paradigms contain anomalous forms or form-meaning mappings, such as that of FELS 'rock' with formations in -in as well as -icht (mapping onto WITH('X') and LIKECX')) or of WEIDE, containing in addition to formations in -haft and -isch, formations in -lich (mapping onto WITHCX') and OF('X')). Only one paradigm not mentioned in the Substances class shows any kind of semantic differentiation, namely that of NEBEL; here, only one formation maps onto the meaning LIKECX'), although synonymy holds otherwise. As we see in the texts, however, nebelicht can map onto LIKECX') too, so that this differentiation is only apparent.

NEBEL

nebelicht

WITHCX')

nebelhaft

WITHCX')

nebelhaft

LIKE('X')

Figure 126: Lexical paradigm of NEBEL 'fog'

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

389

Stb only contains two complex paradigms, one that of BUSCH. It maps the typical formations in -icht and atypical formations in -lich onto the expected meanings, WITH('X') and LIKE('X'), so that complete synonymy and polysemy result. The other, that of WIND, shows partial semantic differentiation, as shown in Figure 127; thus windicht is the only formation which may mean 'like (a/the) wind'. Again, the texts show us that windig can indeed map onto LIKE('X'), so that the differentiation does not reflect the usage of all speakers.

WIND

windicht

wrracx')

windig

WITHCX')

windicht

LKE('X')

Figure 127: Lexical paradigm of WIND in Stb

Other word-formation processes may serve as competition or complements to suffixal derivation in this class, although there were not listed frequently. Compounding is always the process of choice, of course, for the semantic functions OF('X'), REL('X'), and EX('X'). Sti lists a number of serial compounds with -reich which would compete with formations expressing WITHCX'), for the following bases: QUELLE, SCHATTEN, WALD, WASSER, BLUME. CSw uses steinreich (Wasser) 'stone-rich (water)'; this is the only example of a serial compound in the texts for this class. Both dictionaries include participle formation, as a possibility in this class, as an alternative for the expression of the meaning WITH('X'). Sti lists here the bases LAUB 'foliage', MOOS, REIF 'hoarfrost', STERN (as did Mad), STRAND 'beach', while Stb has WOLKE 'cloud', BLUME, SCHLAMM, and again STERN. There are no examples of participle formation in the texts. The class of Landscape Feature Designations appears to be a typical Concrete class in many ways; it manifests both formal and semantic characteristics which serve to set it apart to some degree from other Concrete classes, principally the relative prominence of the functions LIKE('X') and OF('X') and the resulting relative complexity of the class paradigm, the relative distributions of icht- and ig-formations, and the larger-than-usual role played by some marginal formal types («cA-affixation). In this class as in others, word-formation synonymy and polysemy are typical, and there is no discernible attempt made to differentiate members of the lexical paradigm based on form-meaning mappings.

390 Denominal adjective derivation in German

7.2.6.6. Hybrid classes: the lexico-semantic class of Animal Designations Some very considerable changes have taken place within this lexical class, according to the data collected from the corpora, regarding both typical forms and typical meanings (and thus, of course, typical operations and typical lexical paradigm types). As far as meanings are concerned, the relative proportion of bases undergoing operations involving the function EX('X') has decreased substantially; this is partly due to increases elsewhere and competition from compounding, but we must acknowledge that application of this function has become less normal within the suffixation domain; we can no longer assume that any (non-Pest) Animal designation may undergo an operation involving EX('X'). Increasingly, those that do involve EX('X') become restricted to those referring to animals which may provide a source of meat; in the text sources, these are the only bases giving rise to EX( 'X' )-derivations. On the other hand, we see very substantial increases in the number of bases to which the function LIKE('X') applies; it is now one of the most typical functions of the class, and with OF('X') the most characteristic. As before, WITH('X') continues to play a minor role and is reserved for the Pest division of the class. The proportion of bases to which WITH('X') applies is quite constant, pointing to real stability here. Table 67: Representation of semantic functions in the Animal Designations class in Sti/Stb

Bases in Sources

Functions

Representation in %

Maa

Sti

Stb

Maa

Sti

Stb

WITHCX')

4

10

1

18

19

21

LIKE('X')

4

41

21

18

77

64

EX('X')

14

16

11

64

30

33

OF('X')

17

31

22

77

58

67

1

1

2

3

53

33

4

4

REL('X') Total

22

5

1040 744 Corpus 450 χ - statistically significant change since preceding source χ - statistically significant change since two sources previous (e.g. from Maa to Stb) The data from the text sources confirm the relative status of the semantic functions: there are a good many examples of WITH('X') with Pest designa-

Period II: 17th- and 18th-century German

391

tions (e.g. GAB wurmigte Frucht 'wormy fruit'); otherwise most examples are attestations for OF('X') or EX('X') (e.g. SAM kälberne Lungen 'calf lungs'). LIKE('X') appears very infrequently in the text sources (e.g. SAM gewurmlet 'like worms', referring to the process of noodle-making); this is due foremostly to the text type (as mentioned in 7.1.6.6., LIKE('X') formations from the Animals class are generally used in the description of people, which is not a subject in these texts). Table 68: Representation of formal types in the Animal Designations class in Sti/Stb

Affixation Types

Bases in Sources

Representation in %

Maa

Sti

Stb

Maa

Sti

Stb

icht

1

33

8

5

62

24

ig

3

4

5

14

8

15

en

12

12

γ21

55

23

3

4

6

8

18

ern haft

1

18

6

5

34

18

isch

5

15

13

23

28

39

lich

1

1

2

3

bar

1

Total

22

53

2 33

5

4

4

744 Corpus 450 1040 χ - statistically significant change since preceding source χ - statistically significant change since two sources previous (e.g. from Maa to Stb) As far as forms are concerned, parallel changes have been effected, shown in Table 68. The proportion of bases giving rise to forms in -en (and now -ern) has decreased substantially, from over half of all bases in the class to a good deal less; this change appears to be gradual, Sti presenting an intermediate value and Stb a quite low one, in fact, the least well represented formal type in the corpus. Note also that Stb shows an increase (statistically not significant, however) in