The Semantics of Word Formation and Lexicalization 9780748689613

Citation preview

The Semantics of Word Formation and Lexicalization

The Semantics of Word Formation and Lexicalization Edited by Pius ten Hacken and Claire Thomas

© editorial matter and organization Pius ten Hacken and Claire Thomas, 2013 © the chapters their several authors, 2013 Edinburgh University Press Ltd 22 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LF www.euppublishing.com Typeset in Ehrhardt by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire, and printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 0 7486 8960 6 (hardback) ISBN 978 0 7486 8961 3 (webready PDF) The right of the contributors to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Semantics of Word Formation and Lexicalization

Contents



List of figures List of tables

vii ix

  1. Word formation, meaning and lexicalization 1 Pius ten Hacken and Claire Thomas   2. Semiproductivity and the place of word formation in grammar28 Pius ten Hacken   3. Lexicalization in Generative Morphology and Conceptual Structure45 Claire Thomas   4. Term formation in a special language: how do words specify scientific concepts? 66 Kaarina Pitkänen-­Heikkilä   5. Nominal compounds as naming devices: a comparison of English and Polish land surveying terminology 83 Pius ten Hacken and Ewelina Kwiatek   6. Semantic and formal structure: a corpus-­based study of Swedish NN compounds and their French counterparts 102 Maria Rosenberg   7. The semantics of lexical modification: meaning and meaning relations in German A+N compounds 121 Barbara Schlücker   8. Semantic transparency and anaphoric islands 140 Martin Schäfer   9. Semantic coindexation: evidence from Portuguese derivation and compounding 161 Alexandra Soares Rodrigues and Graça Rio-­Torto

vi  semantics of word formation and lexicalization 10. Deverbal nominalizations in English: an LMBM approach 180 Maria Bloch-­Trojnar 11. Degrees of lexicalization in Ancient Greek deverbal nouns 203 Germana Olga Civilleri 12. How many factors influence the meaning of denominal and deadjectival verbs? The case of Modern Greek verbs in -­(ι)άζω225 Angeliki Efthymiou 13. Analysing en-­and its Romance equivalents in Jackendoff’s Conceptual Structure 247 Jessica Forse 14. Semantics of diminutivization: evidence from Russian 266 Renáta Panocová Notes on contributors Bibliography Author index Subject index

286 290 309 315

List of figures

 1.1 Latin facio and conficio2   1.2 Model of grammar adopted in LMBM 13   1.3 Distributed Morphology 16   1.4 Parallel Architecture 20   2.1 Male blackbird Turdus merula38   3.1 Parallel Architecture 52   3.2 Representation of settlement57   3.3 Lcp lexicalized as a single lexical item 60   3.4 The logical polysemy of settlement60   3.5 Split lexicalization of an lcp 61   3.6 Lexicalization of motion and manner of motion in French and English 62   3.7 The projective conclusion space of settlement64  4.1 Emi, hede, sepivä and sulkasuoninen69   4.2 Part of the derivative table by Elias Lönnrot 70  4.3 Purje and kannus72  4.4 Kärhi, sepivä, terälehti and verholehti73  4.5 Lanttopäinen and silposuoninen75  4.6 Sahalaitainen, toissahainen and vastosahainen77  4.7 Puikea vs. vastopuikea and parilehtinen vs. toisparinen78   4.8 Suffix -­mAinen in the names of the various forms of a flower’s corolla: kellomainen, perhomainen, ruusumainen, ristimäinen79  4.9 Päätöparinen, tasaparinen and vuoroparinen80   5.1 Compounds in the English termbase 93   5.2 Compounds in the Polish termbase 94   5.3 Distribution of compounding types in the English termbase 95   5.4 Distribution of compounding types in the Polish termbase 95

viii  semantics of word formation and lexicalization   5.5 Compounds in each subfield of the English termbase 97   5.6 Compounds in each subfield in the Polish termbase 98   5.7 Distribution of compounding types per subfield in English 99   5.8 Distribution of compounding types per subfield in Polish 100 10.1 Derivational and spelling operations in LMBM 189 10.2 LMBM representation of deverbal nominalizations in English191 11.1 Continuum of the semantic values of AG suffixes 204 11.2 Semantic chain of θυμός [thumós] 216 11.3 Continuum between transparent and lexicalized forms 219 12.1 The distribution of -­άζω and -­ιάζω verbs in RDMG 229 12.2 The distribution of [+/–learned] and [–learned] -­(ι)άζω verbs in RDMG 229 13.1 The Tripartite Parallel Architecture 249 14.1 Complete semantic definition of deadjectival verbs in Slovak 268 14.2 Denominal diminutive nouns in Russian 273 14.3 Deverbal diminutive nouns in Russian 277 14.4 Deadjectival diminutive nouns in Russian 278

List of tables

  2.1 Adjective formation with -al and -ary36   6.1 Total number of tokens in the parallel corpus 106   6.2 Swedish NN compounds and French counterparts in the parallel corpus 106   6.3 Formal structure of the French counterparts in the parallel corpus107   6.4 Semantic relations within the Swedish NN compounds and their French counterparts 113   8.1 Absolute occurrences of the anaphoric reference search pattern154   8.2 Absolute frequencies of compounds in the corpus 155   8.3 Asymmetry in the absolute frequency of phrasal and compound A N constructions 157   9.1 Contextualized comparison between the argument and the lexical-­conceptual structures of verbs and their deverbal nouns163   9.2 Verbal bases and their deverbal nouns with affixes -­dura, -­ção and -­mento168 10.1 Countability distinctions in lexicalized deverbal nominals 185 10.2 +/− Singular and +/− Plural as operators 189 10.3 An LMBM analysis of deverbal nominalizations in English 197 12.1 Verb-­forming suffixes: token frequency in printed school Modern Greek 229 12.2 The meanings of -­ίζω, -­(ι)άζω, -­ώνω, -­εύω, -­αίνω, -­άρω derivatives and -­ποιώ formations 241 12.3 Verb forming processes 242 12.4 Token frequency in printed school MG 243 12.5 Type frequency in printed school MG 243

x  semantics of word formation and lexicalization 13.1 14.1 14.2 14.3

Variables by semantic type Denominal diminutive nouns in Russian Deverbal diminutive nouns in Russian Deadjectival diminutive nouns in Russian

259 281 284 285

chapter 1

Word formation, meaning and lexicalization Pius ten Hacken and Claire Thomas

W

ord formation is a rule-­based process for producing new words. Often, the study of word formation has been undertaken from a purely formal perspective. This book looks at how the meaning of the resulting words is determined and how they are lexicalized. It brings together new work undertaken from a variety of theoretical perspectives in order to shed new light on a subject of growing interest in linguistics, computational science, semantics and lexicography. This introductory chapter provides a broad historical overview of the field (section 1) and describes the main current approaches (section 2). Against this background, section 3 introduces each of the contributions and explains its position in the resulting theoretical map.

1  HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

In understanding the historical development of linguistic thought in the twentieth century, it is convenient to distinguish the European tradition from the American tradition, even though Joseph (2002: 47–70) shows quite convincingly that it is hard to characterize either in a rigorous way. The main cause of the difference is that the European tradition of linguistic research developed out of philology, whereas the American tradition developed out of anthropology. As we will show, this difference has interesting consequences for the study of word formation. 1.1  The European tradition Saussure’s (1916) Cours de Linguistique Générale can be seen as the seminal work of the European tradition of linguistics. Even though modern

2  pius ten hacken and claire thomas research has shown that certain aspects of the book may not represent the actual views held by Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), the posthumous text compiled by his colleagues and students is the version that inspired several generations of linguists. The study of word formation hardly constitutes an issue on its own in the work, but a number of Saussure’s central tenets are important because they have influenced work on word formation by later scholars. In order to understand these tenets fully, we have to consider them in their original context, which was determined by nineteenth-­century comparative-­historical linguistics. The main interest of nineteenth-­century linguists was the study of historical processes. In the early nineteenth century, it was discovered that many languages could be analysed as related to each other. This led to efforts to represent these relations in genealogical trees and to reconstruct earlier stages of the languages than the ones for which direct evidence could be gathered. August Schleicher (1821–68) was an important representative of this work. Later, the so-­called Junggrammatiker or Neogrammarians, aimed to formalize and improve the procedures that were used in these reconstructions. Word formation did not play a significant role in this type of linguistics. The main objects of attention were phonology and inflectional morphology. Semantics was important only in the sense that it helped establish that two word forms from different languages or periods actually corresponded to each other, as a preliminary to explaining the underlying phonological or morphological processes. In an apparent reaction to this general orientation of the field, Saussure (1916: 114–40) emphasizes the importance of distinguishing synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Of the two, synchronic linguistics is more basic. For Saussure, the study of the history of a language is only possible as the study of a number of successive states. This view is inspired by observed shortcomings of the earlier practice of comparative-­historical linguistics, but it also has consequences for the study of word formation, not all of which are made explicit in Saussure (1916). Figure 1.1 represents an example Saussure (1916: 137) gives to illustrate diachronic and synchronic approaches. Saussure objects to the common statement that the short a in facio (‘make’) becomes an i in conficio (‘produce’). Instead, he argues that we facio

confacio

Époque A

facio

conficio

Époque B

Figure 1.1  Latin facio and conficio

word formation, meaning and lexicalization  3 should describe such a relationship in terms of two successive stages. The diachronic opposition is then rather between confacio and conficio than between facio and conficio. This account is typical in its focus on phonological change. The word formation relationship between facio and conficio is not represented diachronically but only synchronically, i.e. there is no account of the formation process, but only of its result. Another opposition that is central to Saussure’s view of language is the one between langue and parole. For Saussure (1916: 30), langue encompasses the social as opposed to individual aspects of language and the essential as opposed to accidental aspects. It is a system of signs (signes). These signs are implemented in the speaker’s mind. The formation of sentences is assigned to the parole, as reflecting the choices of an individual speaker in expressing thoughts. Word formation can then be seen as the formation of new signs. A sign is composed of a signifiant (‘signifier’, i.e. acoustic image) and a signifié (‘signified’, i.e. concept). As a first principle, Saussure (1916: 100) proposes ‘l’arbitraire du signe’, i.e. the arbitrariness of the relation between the signifié and the signifiant. At one level, this principle is straightforward. If it did not apply, we could not explain that the same animal is called dog in English, Hund in German, chien in French, and pies in Polish. However, its validity depends on the strict separation of synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Historical linguistics explains French chien as derived from Latin canis by a sequence of regular phonological changes. This means that the form chien in its relation to the concept it stands for is not (entirely) arbitrary in this diachronic perspective. Word formation is for Saussure above all a source of partially motivated words. Saussure (1916: 181) gives the example of poirier (‘pear tree’), which is partially motivated by poire (‘pear’) and by the existence of other pairs such as cérise (‘cherry’) and cérisier (‘cherry tree’). However, Saussure does not distinguish between these cases and the relation between the various English plural nouns in -s. In neither case is there an explicit rule under­ lying the relationship between the signs. Such a rule would not have any natural position in Saussure’s theory. Saussure’s system of langue does not include a rule component for syntax either. As mentioned above, Saussure assigns the formation of sentences to parole. For the study of word formation, the most influential continuation of the general themes of Saussure’s system is the so-­called Prague School. The Cercle Linguistique de Prague was founded in 1926 (Simpson 1995: 247). Its most enduring achievements are in the domains of phonology and syntax. In phonology, the notion of phoneme was developed by Trubetzkoy (1939) in a theory that involved minimal pairs, neutralization and archiphonemes. In syntax, the major contributions were the study of

4  pius ten hacken and claire thomas valency, topic-­focus articulation and the opposition between theme and rheme (see Hajičová 1995). The general view of the nature of language and the organization of linguistics is formulated in Thèses (1929), a discussion document presented at the Premier Congrès des philologues slaves. For the study of word formation, the Prague School emphasized three aspects that, compared to Saussure’s view, mark more of a shift of emphasis than a sharp distinction. The first of these is the functionalist approach to language. Thèses (1929: 33) starts with a section about methodological problems and the first heading is ‘Conception de la langue comme système fonctionnel’.1 The idea that the system of the langue should be studied in its communicative use is also found in Saussure (1916: 27), but it is more prominent in the work of the Prague School, leading, for instance, to such analyses as Jakobson’s (1960) model of communication with six functions linked to each of the factors involved. A second change of emphasis can be observed in the discussion of synchronic and diachronic perspectives. According to Thèses (1929: 34), ‘la description synchronique ne peut pas [. . .] exclure absolument la notion d’évolution’.2 Whereas Saussure kept these two perspectives apart rather radically, no doubt as a reaction to the preceding school of the Neogrammarians, the Prague School restored a certain degree of interaction between the two. Thus Thèses (1929: 34) states that ‘Les éléments stylistiques sentis comme archaïsmes, en second lieu la distinction de formes productives et non productives sont des faits de diachronie, que l’on ne saurait éliminer de la linguistique synchronique.’3 For the study of word formation, we noted some of the problems involved in a rigorous separation of synchronic and diachronic views in the discussion of conficio. It is interesting to observe in this respect that Thèses (1929) refers to ­productive forms, rather than productive rules. The third point in which the Prague School diverges from Saussure is the one most directly relevant to the study of word formation. Thèses (1929: 38) observes that ‘Le mot, considéré du point de vue de la fonction, est le résultat de l’activité linguistique dénominatrice.’4 As the quotation indicates, this observation is directly related to the functionalist perspective chosen. To the extent that an instance of naming changes the langue, it is also a case where diachronic aspects interact directly with synchronic description. The Prague School view of language created a good background for the systematic study of terminology. In individual domains, the study of how concepts could be meaningfully named had been studied before. In biology, the work of Carl von Linné (1707–78) is the basis of the system of designating species that is still in use today. In chemistry, the publication of  the Méthode de Nomenclature Chimique in 1787 marked the replace-

word formation, meaning and lexicalization  5 ment of a confusing collection of names for chemical substances, based on various principles, by a set of names indicating their origin (see Bensaude-­ Vincent and Stengers 1995: 116–18). However, attempts like these were by their nature limited to individual disciplines. In the 1930s, a more systematic approach to terminology emerged. A landmark was Wüster’s (1931) doctoral dissertation, which is often taken to be the starting point of modern terminology, e.g. Pearson (1998: 9), Cabré (1999: 7). Wüster’s approach focused on the systems behind the naming of concepts and on standardization. It is interesting to note that the Prague School was also interested in the standardization of national languages. Thus Thèses (1929: 56–8) discusses the issue of establishing standard literary languages in the Slavic language family. It is possible, but by no means obvious, that Wüster was aware of some of the ideas of the Prague School. Nikolaj Trubetzkoy was professor of Slavic linguistics at Vienna University from 1922 until his death in 1938 (Honeybone 2005). According to Lang’s (1998) biographical note, after completing his PhD in Berlin Eugen Wüster returned to Austria in 1931 to take over his father’s tool manufacturing business in Wieselburg, a good 100 kilometres from Vienna. The Technical Committee for the standardization of terminology of the International Standards Association, the forerunner of ISO/TC37, was founded in Vienna in 1936, and Lang (1998: 15) states that much of the work done was carried out in Wieselburg, by Eugen Wüster. 1.2  The American tradition In North America, at the start of the twentieth century, there was no philological tradition rooted in indigenous languages as there was in Europe. Matthews (1993: 5) lets his history of American linguistics begin ‘around 1910’. This excludes William Dwight Whitney (1827–94), but his work on linguistics, including for instance his 1879 Sanskrit Grammar, was in many respects closer to the European than to the American tradition. An important impetus for a specifically American approach to linguistics was the anthropologically inspired work by Franz Boas (1858–1942). One of the main differences between the American and the European approaches to linguistic analysis is that the American approach does not assume the same level of knowledge of the object language at the start of the linguistic investigation as does the European approach. The linguist starts by collecting data and the methods of data collection and analysis should work equally well for previously unrecorded languages, unknown to the linguist. As a consequence, word boundaries are not assumed to be known and the set of contrastive phonemes is to be established without recourse to traditional analyses of the language.

6  pius ten hacken and claire thomas The first comprehensive overview of linguistic analysis in the American tradition is Bloomfield (1933).5 Many of Bloomfield’s ideas on word formation as formulated there still play a role in determining the attitude towards particular linguistics problems, so it is worth presenting them here as a background for further developments. Central to Bloomfield’s (1933) view of linguistics is the assumption that the study of language should only concentrate on the utterance as the physical, observable part of communication, to the exclusion of the mental processes of the speaker and hearer. As described in more detail by Matthews (1993: 52–75), the stimulus-­ response model introduced by Bloomfield (1933: 22–7) constitutes an innovation with respect to his earlier writings. Bloomfield is reluctant to refer to meaning in crucial points in linguistic analysis because ‘[i]n order to give a scientifically accurate definition of meaning for every form of a language, we should have to have a scientifically accurate knowledge of everything in the speakers’ world’ (1933: 139). Against this background, it is no surprise that the study of morphology concentrates on forms rather than meaning. Bloomfield’s definition of morpheme appeals to meaning, ‘[a] linguistic form which bears no partial phonetic-­semantic resemblance to any other form’ (1933: 161), but meaning is used primarily to recognize homonyms as different morphemes (e.g. pear and pair) and to exclude arbitrary formal resemblances such as bird and burr to affect linguistic analysis. Bloomfield (1933: 209) gives re-­ceive, de-­ceive, re-­tain, de-­tain as examples of derived words without an underlying free form, implying that -ceive and -tain are morphemes, although it is hard to assign them any coherent semantic value. In the discussion of the distinction between word formation and inflection, Bloomfield (1933: 222–6) gives a range of properties that can be used as criteria to distinguish them, but also states that ‘[t]his distinction cannot always be carried out’ (1933: 223). Developing Bloomfield’s approach, Bloch and Trager (1942: 54) describe the nature of the distinction as in (1). (1)

For some languages, it is useful to divide the morphological constructions of complex words into two kinds according to the grammatical function of the resulting form: derivational and inflectional.

In a number of ways, (1) plays down the importance of the distinction, and in particular of the semantic aspect of it. First, the distinction is not universal but only applies to ‘some languages’. Second, the division is said to be ‘useful’ rather than natural or compelling. Finally, the basis of the distinction is the ‘grammatical function’ rather than the meaning of the resulting form in relation to the base.

word formation, meaning and lexicalization  7 As a final component of this overview of how Bloomfield’s theory approaches the topic of this volume, it is worth outlining his idea of the lexicon. According to Bloomfield (1933: 274), ‘[t]he lexicon is really an appendix to the grammar, a list of basic irregularities.’ The distinction between regular and irregular is that ‘any form which a speaker can utter without having heard it, is regular’, whereas ‘any form which a speaker can utter only after he has heard it from other speakers, is irregular’ (1933: 274). It should be noted here that for Bloomfield, ‘the terms regular and irregular are used only of features that appear in the grammar’ (1933: 275). The overall picture emerging for Bloomfield’s approach to the meaning and lexicalization of word formation is then that there is no general class of word formation (because it is a matter of language-­specific convenience whether it should be distinguished from inflection), no basis for a specific interest in meaning (because it reaches too far beyond the aspects of language we can study) and lexicalization is merely a matter of irregularity. Given this situation it is not surprising that Bloomfield and his followers concentrated on other aspects of language. It was a widely shared assumption that the starting point for linguistic research must be a collection of utterances (see Harris 1951: 12), and the first steps of analysis focused on the recognition of a set of phonemes, followed by the identification of a set of morphemes. Thus Bloch and Trager (1942) devote more than half of their overview of linguistic analysis to phonology and Harris (1951) divides his overview into methodological preliminaries (ch. 2), phonology (chs 3–11), and morphology (chs 12–19), where the latter is restricted to the recognition of morphemes and allomorphs. In what is known as the Chomskyan revolution, a number of foundational assumptions of Bloomfield’s approach to linguistics were replaced by a new set. As described by ten Hacken (2007: 156–79), this did not affect every aspect of linguistic analysis, but it affected above all the stimulus-­response model and its consequences. Whereas Bloomfield insisted on keeping the scientific study of language clear of mentalism, Chomsky argued for the systematic study of individual speakers’ competence. Chomsky’s (1965: 3) distinction between competence and performance has often been compared to Saussure’s langue and parole. Competence and langue are both realized in the mind, but whereas competence is individual, Saussure places the individual aspect of language in parole. For Saussure, langue is not fully realized in an individual, but only in a speech community. This distinction has far-­reaching implications for lexicalization, see ten Hacken and Panocová (2011). The lexicon in Saussure’s theory is part of the socially shared langue so that a new entry is an expression that has been accepted by the speech community. In Chomsky’s model, the speech community does not play an essential theoretical role. Chomsky (1980)

8  pius ten hacken and claire thomas argued that named languages such as English or French do not exist as real entities in the world. What exists are the speakers of these languages and their individual competence. An entry in the lexicon is for Chomsky a piece of knowledge in the individual speaker’s mind. Apart from competence, another crucial focus of Chomsky’s theories is syntax. This was quite innovative as older theories had studied syntax much less than other aspects of language. In the Bloomfieldian framework, analysis had to start from the phonetic data and, as formulated by Hockett (1942: 21), ‘[t]here must be no circularity’, i.e. morphological analysis cannot start until phonological analysis has been completed. This requirement made it very hard to reach the level of syntactic analysis. Saussure’s theory of the signe allocated syntax to the parole, as a component of the individual speaker’s choice of words in an utterance. This new focus on syntax meant that Chomskyan linguistics covered new ground in this area, which therefore attracted most attention. The earliest study of word formation in the new framework was Lees’ (1960) work on compounding. As described by ten Hacken (2009a), Lees’ basic idea was to generate compounds in much the same way as Chomsky proposed to generate sentences. Rewrite rules would generate a sentence-­ like structure, from which transformations would produce a compound. The obvious appeal of this theory was that it accounted for both the meaning and the form of compounds in a way that assimilated them to sentences. The equally obvious drawback was the lack of constraints on the power of the rule system. At the time Lees (1960) proposed his theory of compounding, Chomsky did not yet assume the existence of a lexicon as part of his linguistic theory. The grammar would generate a tree structure by means of rewrite rules and the leaves of the tree would be morphemes. The introduction of the lexicon was a response to theoretical problems with this model. Chomsky (1965: 142) presents the lexicon as consisting of lexical entries and redundancy rules. The lexical entries are a combination of phonological, syntactic, and semantic features that cannot be predicted by rules. The redundancy rules express generalizations so that they do not have to be specified in the individual lexical entries. Therefore ‘the lexical entries constitute the full set of irregularities of the language’ (1965: 142), an image that corresponds very closely to Bloomfield’s conception of the lexicon. The introduction of the lexicon created an alternative approach to the coverage of word formation. Instead of using syntactic rules to combine morphemes, word formation could also be accounted for by means of redundancy rules in the lexicon. This was one of the battlefields in what Newmeyer (1986) calls the ‘Linguistic Wars’ between generative semantics and Chomsky’s interpretive semantics. The main bone of contention

word formation, meaning and lexicalization  9 was the status of Deep Structure. Chomsky (1957) had introduced Deep Structure as the interface between rewrite rules and transformations. In generative semantics, Deep Structure was taken to be more and more abstract, leading to its eventual merger with semantic representation. In interpretive semantics, Deep Structure was taken to be less and less abstract, resulting ultimately in its abolition as a level at which constraints are stated. Traces of movement made it possible to state the constraints on the structure after movement. When we consider the study of word formation, it is striking that the most influential publications reflecting the different sides of the opposition are of a very different nature. Chomsky’s (1970) contribution to the debate is a highly programmatic overview that can be seen as the start of lexicalist morphology. Levi’s (1978) presentation of a fully elaborated system for the treatment of compounds is rather the endpoint of the generative semantic approach to morphology. Chomsky’s (1970) main concern is how the different components of his grammatical framework are related to each other, in particular the base component, which contains the rewrite rules, the transformational component and the lexicon. He discusses nominalizations and argues that the degree of irregularity they display requires that they be treated in the lexicon. Jackendoff (1975) elaborates this idea and develops a system of redundancy rules that encode generalizations about semantic and form-­based regularities. Instead of generating strings of morphemes and transforming them into a structure that can be interpreted semantically, Jackendoff proposes a full-­entry theory, where all words have an entry in the lexicon, but regular aspects covered by redundancy rules do not cost as much to store as idiosyncratic pieces of information. This view of redundancy rules differs somewhat from the one proposed by Chomsky (1965) and leads to a conception of the lexicon that does not coincide at all with Bloomfield’s (1933) idea of it as a collection of irregularities. Levi (1978) can be seen as the culmination of the transformational approach to word formation initiated by Lees (1960). In line with the assumptions of generative semantics, Levi assumes that the derivation of a complex word should account for its meaning. Lees’ (1960) system had been found too powerful to be explanatory. Chomsky (1964: 41) proposed, therefore, that ‘[a] deleted element [. . .] is always recoverable.’ In order to comply with this constraint, Levi (1978) proposes a restricted number of recoverably deletable predicates (RDPs) that characterize the relationship between components of a compound. Although this is an ingenious way of making the transformational approach compatible with Chomsky’s recoverability condition, it did not lead to much further research along similar lines. One of the main reasons was the collapse of the support for generative

10  pius ten hacken and claire thomas semantics in the late 1970s. This not only removed the theoretical foundation of Levi’s work, but, as described by ten Hacken (2009a), also directed attention away from the research questions she tried to answer. 2  CURRENT APPROACHES

Current approaches to the meaning and lexicalization of word formation build up in various ways from the historical background described in the previous section. We will describe here the development of the onomasiological approach in terminology and in lexical semantics, Lexeme-­ Morpheme Base Morphology (LMBM), Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar and the most prominent offshoots of generative grammar. 2.1  The onomasiological approach in terminology In a purely onomasiological approach to terminology, the starting point is the study of a domain, resulting in the identification of the relevant concepts and the relations between them. These concepts are then given a name and a definition. In the 1930s, when terminology emerged as a field of study, the decision to adopt an onomasiological approach was arguably motivated as much by practical as by theoretical reasons. Before the advent of large electronic corpora, the use of text as a basis required a large reading programme of the type adopted by James Murray for the Oxford English Dictionary (see Craigie and Onions 1933). Sager (1990) strongly advocates the use of corpora in terminology. A well-­documented early example of terminological research based on electronic corpora is Pearson (1998). In principle, one could imagine a clash between terminologists who persist in using a purely onomasiological approach and those who insist on a corpus-­based approach instead. In practice, a handbook such as Wright and Budin (1997) shows hardly a trace of such an opposition. Corpus-­based work has been integrated seamlessly into the mainstream of terminology. The reason that this did not cause any major problems is that the two approaches complement each other in their strengths and weaknesses. As Wright (2006: 19–20) notes, ‘standards serve their best function when we use them all the time, but remain oblivious to their presence.’ Therefore standardization should be based on the knowledge of existing practice. A corpus-­based approach to terminology gives first of all access to the actual forms in use in a field. An approach starting from the analysis of the relevant domain yields the concepts to be named. By reconciling these two approaches, a standard that wherever possible coincides with common usage while at the same time covering all relevant concepts can be established.

word formation, meaning and lexicalization  11 A more pertinent challenge to this mainstream is posed by the sociocognitive approach of Temmerman (2000). Following work such as Labov (1973) and Rosch (1978), it is now widely accepted that the meaning of general language words has a prototype structure. Temmerman claims that the meaning of terms also has such a structure. It is certainly true that in many fields the standardization of terminology is more a matter of choosing standard names than of establishing exact boundaries of the concept. As Arntz et al. (2009: 125) state, an important task of terminology is the elimination of synonymy, polysemy and homonymy. In order to incorporate these insights without giving up the core of the classical approach to terminology, ten Hacken (2008) proposes a distinction between specialized vocabulary and terms (in the narrow sense), where the former may involve prototype concepts but the latter not. Precise definitions are necessary (only) when scientific claims or law enforcement depend on them. Temmerman’s approach applies to specialized vocabulary. In the case of terms in the narrow sense, terminologists attempt to counteract the vagueness of the boundaries of the concept they name, but the interaction between terms and corresponding general language words complicates this process, as exemplified for some legal terms by ten Hacken (2010c). 2.2  The onomasiological approach to lexical semantics As noted in section 1.1, the Prague School developed an interest in the word as what Thèses (1929: 38) calls ‘le résultat de l’activité linguistique dénominatrice’, the result of a linguistic naming act. Štekauer (2005b) and Grzega (2009) give overviews of the work on word formation that emerged from the elaboration of this perspective of the nature of a word. Word formation is in competition with semantic change of existing words and with borrowing from other languages when it comes to naming concepts. An important milestone in the onomasiological study of word formation was Dokulil (1962), which Štekauer (2005b: 207) calls ‘the first comprehensive onomasiological theory of word-­formation’. As Dokulil’s work was published in Czech, his influence was mainly felt in countries with Slavic languages. Dokulil (1962) introduced the term onomasiological category for the central strategy that language users use to structure a concept in order to come up with a name for it. He distinguishes mutational, transpositional and modificational types as different onomasiological categories. In each of these strategies, the concept is first classified by means of the choice of an onomasiological base. Then it is further specified by an onomasiological mark. Thus, in textbook, book is the onomasiological base and determines

12  pius ten hacken and claire thomas the general class, whereas text is the onomasiological mark, which distinguishes textbooks from other books. This approach is reminiscent of the Aristotelian approach to definition, based on genus and differentiae, but instead of resulting in a definition, it produces a name. The different onomasiological categories reflect differences in the relationship between the onomasiological base and the onomasiological mark. The base is classified according to its conceptual category, e.g. substance, action, quality. The relationship to the mark constitutes the naming motive. In the mutational type, the conceptual category of the base is changed by the mark (e.g. speciality is a substance related to special, a quality). In the transpositional type, no such change takes place (e.g. curiousness is a quality, like curious). In the modificational type, a modifying feature is added, e.g. collectivity in mankind. Based on Dokulil’s ideas, Horecký (1983) developed a model involving a sequence of levels of representation. The sequence models the steps in the process a speaker goes through in determining the name for a particular new concept. Starting with a description of the concept, in several steps the speaker comes up with and organizes semantic features, and gradually specifies properties of the resulting name. Štekauer (1998) developed the cognitive basis of the model and proposed five onomasiological types, corresponding to different patterns for the realization of the onomasiological base and mark. Another line of research based on Dokulil’s ideas is the investigation of the types of meaning that can be expressed by derivation. Szymanek (1988: 93) proposes the Cognitive Grounding Condition, which states that ‘[t]he basic set of lexical derivational categories is rooted in the fundamental concepts of cognition.’ He then presents a methodology for identifying these and proposes a set of categories that can serve as a basis for explaining some of the cross-­linguistic similarities and differences in available derivational types. 2.3  Lexeme-­Morpheme Base Morphology Robert Beard’s system of Lexeme-­Morpheme Base Morphology (LMBM)6 can be seen as an attempt to reconcile insights from the onomasiological approach to lexical semantics that emerged from the Prague School tradition with some of the basic assumptions of generative grammar. It is interesting to observe in this context that Beard has a background in American linguistics as well as a specialization in Slavic languages. Beard (1995) gives the most comprehensive overview of the theory. Concise introductions can be found in Carstairs-­McCarthy (1992: 181–6) and Bloch-­Trojnar (2006: 45–56).

word formation, meaning and lexicalization  13 The starting point for Beard’s theory is the observation that it is very difficult to represent morphemes as Saussurean signs, because within a particular language, the same meaning is often expressed by different forms, whereas one form can often stand for more than one meaning. When we consider -al in English refusal as a sign, it shares the same form with -al in developmental and the same meaning with -ance in acceptance. What Beard proposes is to solve this problem by radically separating the operation on the meaning from the operation on the form. He calls the operation on the meaning derivation and the operation on the form affixation. Derivation is further divided into L-­derivation, corresponding to word formation (‘lexical’), and I-­derivation, corresponding to inflection. This leads to quite complex mismatches between Beard’s use of the terms derivation and affixation and the traditional use of these terms. As Carstairs-­McCarthy (1992: 182) observes, Beard’s idiosyncratic use of terminology ‘has almost certainly hindered discussion of his ideas.’ As a consequence of the separation of derivation and affixation, there is only a single L-­derivation process for refusal and acceptance and a single affixation process for refusal and developmental. In describing the formation of refusal, we have to refer separately to the action nominalization process and to -al suffixation. Beard (1995: 45) matches the different components of his morphological theory to the model in Figure 1.2, which corresponds closely to the one adopted by Chomsky in the 1980s. In the model in Figure 1.2, the earlier notions of Deep Structure and Surface Structure have been replaced by D-­structure and S-­structure. Whereas in earlier models, phonological interpretation was based on Surface Structure and semantic interpretation on Deep Structure, now Lexicon Base rules Lexical insertion

L-derivation D-structure I-derivation

Transformations S-structure

Affixation PF

Interpretive rules LF

Figure 1.2  Model of grammar adopted in LMBM

14  pius ten hacken and claire thomas phonological form (PF) and logical form (LF) are both derived from S-­structure. To the right of the components of the model, the rule types assumed by Chomsky are indicated. Chomsky (1981) replaces base rules with X-­bar theory and transformations and interpretive rules with move α without changing the architecture. The labels to the left of the model indicate the positions of Beard’s L-­derivation, I-­derivation and affixation. It is interesting to note that Figure 1.2 implies the rejection of the view about the distinction between inflection and word formation formulated by Bloch and Trager (1942) in (1). Beard’s model requires them to be separate in all languages, because they are in different positions. 2.4  Cognitive Grammar Cognitive Grammar is a framework developed by Langacker (1987a, 1991). Although it emerged in the US, its assumptions diverge from the traditional ones in the American linguistic tradition quite significantly. Thus Langacker (1987a: 5) states that ‘[t]he most fundamental issue in linguistic theory is the nature of meaning and how to deal with it.’ He presents it as ‘an alternative to the generative tradition’ and claims that it ‘is not in any significant sense an outgrowth of generative semantics’ (1987a: 4). Langacker’s idea is that ‘language is shaped and constrained by the ­functions it serves’ (2008: 7). Cognitive Grammar shares with generative semantics the idea that syntax is not an autonomous component. Langacker (1987a: 57–8) recognizes three types of unit: phonological units, semantic units and so-­called symbolic units, associating phonological and semantic structures. Syntactic categories are reduced to units of these types, so that a noun is defined as ‘[a] symbolic structure whose semantic pole designates a thing’ (1987a: 183) and a verb as ‘a symbolic expression whose semantic pole designates a process’ (1987a: 244). The idea of phonological, semantic and symbolic units constituting the system of language is strongly reminiscent of Saussure’s theory of the signe. Another point in which Cognitive Grammar converges with Saussure is Langacker’s (1987a: 62) assumption that ‘[t]he grammar of a language is a characterization of established linguistic convention. Conventionality implies that something is shared [. . .] by a substantial number of individuals.’ Heyvaert (2009) gives an overview of the consequences of these assumptions for word formation, although her scope is both wider (cognitive linguistics also beyond Langacker’s theory) and narrower (compounding). Word formation is the creation of a new, automatized symbolic relationship in the mind of a speaker and its spread through the speech community. The main difference from sentence formation is that the formulation of a

word formation, meaning and lexicalization  15 sentence is less commonly automatized. However, the difference is one of degree. As such, it is not substantially different from other oppositions in linguistics, including the one between linguistic and non-­linguistic units (see Langacker 1987a: 60). Langacker (2008: 346) notes that establishing a demarcation line between word formation and inflection is ‘both gratuitous and empirically problematic’. This is in line with Bloch and Trager’s (1), but the approach is extended to other contrasts. Thus the first example of a grammatical construction he discusses in detail is in fact a compound, jar lid factory (2008: 161–74). In cognitive grammar, morphology (and language in general) is considered a domain with prototypes rather than precise boundaries. 2.5  Distributed Morphology Distributed Morphology (DM) is one of the main current approaches to morphology in generative grammar. It was originally developed by Halle and Marantz (1993) and has developed significantly since then. Mainstream generative grammar has always been oriented towards syntax. For morphology, the consequences are that most of the work focuses on inflection rather than word formation and on form rather than meaning. An example of the bias towards inflection is Stump’s (2011) assessment that the two dominant approaches to morphology are the one based on morphemes and the one based on paradigms. Paradigms are primarily discussed in the context of inflection, as Stump’s (2001) own study illustrates. DM is a theory based on morphemes. The tendency to concentrate on form rather than meaning is illustrated by Selkirk’s (1982) presentation of her theory of word formation. She describes her purpose as the investigation of ‘the structure of words and the system of rules for generating that structure’ (1982: 1), which leaves very little room for the study of meaning and lexicalization. For Selkirk, the account of root compounds such as apron string is restricted to the rewrite rule N → NN (1982: 16) and the right-­headedness (1982: 22). In generative semantics, such a compound was considered the result of transformations operating on a sentence-­like structure, so that the meaning can be explained as based on the sentence. The lexicalist alternative adopts the position that the question of where the meaning comes from is not a well-­ formed question and should not be studied in morphology. Compared to Selkirk (1982), DM takes a much more radical approach to introducing syntactic structure in the domain of morphology. The architecture of the grammar assumed in DM is represented in Figure 1.3. The framed items in Figure 1.3 correspond to different components of what in other approaches is called the lexicon. Harley and Noyer (2003:

16  pius ten hacken and claire thomas feature bundles

syntax vocabulary MS

LF encyclopaedia

PF meaning Figure 1.3  Distributed morphology

465) call them ‘List A’, ‘List B’ and ‘List C’. The representation of syntax has developed considerably over the period since DM was first proposed and in Figure 1.3 it is therefore simply labeled as ‘syntax’. Halle and Marantz (1993: 384) adopt a model with D-­structure and S-­structure as in government-­binding theory (see also Figure 1.2). Embick and Noyer (2007: 292) assume a ‘syntactic derivation’ resulting in ‘(Spell Out)’, in accordance with Chomsky’s (2000) phase-­based syntactic derivation. ‘MS’ in Figure 1.3 stands for ‘morphological structure’. It is an innovation introduced by Halle and Marantz (1993: 384) in order to account for the mismatches between morphosyntactic and phonological ‘pieces’. One of the central ideas of DM is that morphology does not take place in the lexicon (see Marantz 1997). There is no lexical component, but its function is distributed among the three framed components in Figure 1.3. Syntax operates on feature bundles that are not marked phonologically or semantically. Lexical insertion takes place at MS (Halle and Marantz 1993: 390). Lexical meaning is encoded in the encyclopaedia. Introduced by Marantz (1997), this is a list consulted in the semantic interpretation of LF. LF represents the effects of operations that are not visible in PF, but it is still a syntactic (as opposed to semantic) representation. Clearly, the effects of lexical insertion at MS have to be visible in order to consult the right entries of the encyclopaedia. In their diagram, Harley and Noyer (2003: 465) bring this about by linking PF to meaning. Embick and Noyer (2007: 301) propose instead that the encyclopaedia is consulted in a step they call ‘(Interpretation)’, following the generation of PF and LF. They leave unspecified how PF and LF are linked to Interpretation.

word formation, meaning and lexicalization  17 The unit of operation in DM is the morpheme. Harley and Noyer (2003: 468) distinguish between l-­morphemes and f-­morphemes, where the former are lexical and the latter functional. This distinction has an impact on the way lexical insertion operates. There is no distinction between affixes and function words. Marantz (1997) introduces the idea that Roots do not have a syntactic category but have to be associated with a functional category in order to get one. Whereas the Root attack can be associated with empty noun (n0) or verb (v0) morphemes, the Root grow has an n0 morpheme realized as -th when it becomes a noun. Barner and Bale (2002) argue that such an analysis is supported by various types of psycho­linguistic data. However, these arguments have been contested (see Panagiotidis 2005). As Halle and Marantz (1993: 432) state, in DM ‘word formation is syntactic or postsyntactic, not lexical’. The distinction between inflection and derivation ‘has no explicit status in DM’ (Harley and Noyer 2003: 474). Every Root has to pick up a syntactic category from an f-­morpheme, which may or may not induce phonological changes. In the case of developmental, the Root develop is associated first with a nominal f-­morpheme, then with an adjectival one. These associations are represented in the syntactic tree and realized through vocabulary insertion at MS. For compounds, Harley (2009: 135–40) presents a similar analysis. The main difference from affixation is that for compounds more than one l-­morpheme appears in the tree structure. In the case of phrasal non-­heads, e.g. repetitive strain injury, an XP, here an AP, is recategorized as an N by association with a ­phonologically empty n0 head (2009: 143). Let us now consider how these considerations affect the study of lexicalization and meaning in relation to word formation. A first observation is that the categories in which we state the topic of this volume do not match the categories adopted in DM. Whereas lexicalization establishes a relation to the lexicon, DM does not recognize a lexicon. As Harley (2009: 129) states it, DM ‘attempts to present a fully explicit, completely syntactic theory of word formation.’ Harley and Noyer (2003: 466–7) present various interpretations of lexical and show that they are either rejected or have no significance in DM. Lexical cannot be opposed to syntactic in DM, because for every expression, the generation is driven by syntax. Idiosyncratic meanings are treated as idioms in the encyclopaedia. When we turn to the notion of word formation, an immediate issue is that DM does not recognize a level of word in between morphemes and syntactic constructs. This is the basis for Williams’s (2007) criticism of DM. Of course, DM claims to be able to account for all instances of word formation, but it does not recognize them as a separate category. As mentioned above, there is no distinction between inflection and derivation. In addition, there

18  pius ten hacken and claire thomas is no distinction between periphrastic and synthetic expressions of the same information. Perhaps even more significant than the difference in categorization, however, is a difference in orientation. The DM framework attracts attention away from the questions that are central in this volume. Halle and Marantz (1993) devote their entire article to inflection. The only mention of derivation is when they point out the parallel between the vowel change in keep – kept and deep – depth (1993: 397). In her contribution to the Handbook of Compounding, Harley (2009: 130) admits that ‘there have been very few Distributed Morphology proposals concerning compounding’. In fact, her overview of the treatment of different types (2009: 135–40) does not contain a single reference to DM sources. In the treatment of meaning, we also find this orientation to other questions. Meaning is relegated to the encyclopaedia. Halle and Marantz (1993) do not mention this component. Embick and Noyer (2007: 292) present a diagram with ‘morphology’ in a box at the point where in Figure 1.3 the arrow from ‘vocabulary’ arrives at MS. Harley (2009) only discusses the generation of the correct forms of compounds. Therefore we can conclude that the general orientation of the research carried out in DM does not primarily address questions of meaning, but rather the question how the form of an expression can be accounted for. In Harley and Noyer (2003: 470), the encyclopaedia is identified as the place where idioms are stored. In the same way as Hockett (1958), they assume that any expression whose meaning cannot be derived compositionally is an idiom. This includes all unstructured words. Harley and Noyer correctly point out that questions about the relation between vocabulary and encyclopaedia are important, but although they mention that it is ‘the topic of much current debate’ (2003: 471), not much of it is published. This again indicates that most of the work in DM concentrates on generating the forms without any concern for the semantic aspect. In sum, in DM the study of lexicalization and meaning in relation to word formation is not a cutting-­edge research area but rather a backwater. There is no reason to assume that nothing could be said about it, but researchers working in DM focus on other questions. The framework directs attention away from the issues that are central in this volume. This explains why none of the contributions in this volume takes DM as its point of departure. 2.6  Other generative approaches Whereas DM does not concentrate on questions of meaning and lexicalization, they are more central in a number of alternative approaches that

word formation, meaning and lexicalization  19 developed out of generative grammar. There are at least three such theories that are of particular relevance here, each starting from a different perspective. Rochelle Lieber developed a theory starting from morphology while Ray Jackendoff took semantics as his starting point and James Pustejovsky the lexicon. When Lieber (2004) addressed the semantics of word formation, she observed that ‘[t]o [her] knowledge, there is no comprehensive treatment of the semantics of word formation in the tradition of generative morphology’ (2004: 1–2). In her own earlier work, e.g. Lieber (1983), she had studied morphology with a set of questions similar to Selkirk’s (1982) in mind, although arriving at different answers. Lieber (2004) takes the issue of why there is a many-­to-­many mapping between form and meaning as the central question about the meaning of word formation. She identifies four different shapes of this mismatch (2004: 2): affixes can have more than one meaning, meanings can be realized by more than one affix, meanings can be realized in the absence of a correlating form (zero derivation) and affixes can be required without contributing to the meaning. The theory she develops takes as its starting point the assumption that affixes are lexical items and that their meaning is encoded in the lexicon as two parts, which she calls the skeleton and the body. The skeleton contains ‘all and only those aspects of meaning which have consequences for the syntax’, whereas the body is ‘encyclopedic, holistic, nondecompositional, not composed of primitives, and perhaps only partially formalizable’ (2004: 10). In word formation, the skeleton of an affix and a base, or of two bases in the case of compounds, are combined to create a new lexical item. Lieber (2004) uses a system of semantic categories and semantic features to describe the skeleton. Her main semantic categories are substance/ thing/essence and situation. Although they are presented as semantic categories, they correspond directly to syntactic categories. In fact, substance/thing/essence is ‘the notional correspondent of the syntactic category Noun’ (2004: 24) and the disjunctive label is caused by the inhomogeneous meanings expressed by nouns. A situation may correspond to a verb or an adjective. Semantic features are, for instance, [±material] and [±dynamic]. They are used both as binary-­valued and as privative features. These features take arguments, as in (2), taken from Lieber (2004: 25): (2) a. chair b. leg

[+material ([ ])] [+material ([ ], [ ])]

The difference between chair and leg is that something cannot be a leg without being a leg of something. Therefore (2b) has one more argument than (2a). The argument in (2a) is the one corresponding to ‘x is a chair’,

20  pius ten hacken and claire thomas formation rules phonological structure

syntactic structure

conceptual structure interface rules

Figure 1.4  Parallel Architecture (after Jackendoff 2002: 125, by permission of Oxford University Press)

used in model-­theoretical semantics as a basis for the expression of quantification. Lieber (2004) uses these variables in her account of word formation as the basis for combining the affix and the base in affixation and the two bases in compounding. Thus in table leg, the second argument of leg is coindexed with the first argument of table, which has the same structure as chair in (2a). Whereas Lieber is a morphologist who turned to semantics, Jackendoff is a semanticist who turned to morphology. Jackendoff was an important representative of the Chomskyan position in the so-­called Linguistic Wars (see section 1.2). Whereas the mainstream of generative linguistics concentrated on syntax after the end of this period, Jackendoff (1983, 1990) developed a theory of semantics. Jackendoff (2002) presents a fuller account of the Parallel Architecture (PA), which, as argued by ten Hacken (2007: 245–69), constitutes a research programme separate from Chomsky’s, even though a number of assumptions are shared. The PA is represented in Figure 1.4. The idea in PA is that the phonological, syntactic and conceptual representations of an expression are generated by formation rules for each type of structure and linked by interface rules. Compared to Saussure’s system described in section 1.1, the PA in Figure 1.4 makes it possible to include syntax in the language system instead of leaving it to the domain of language use. Whereas Chomsky in his various architectures goes to the opposite extreme and instead of excluding syntax takes it to be the only component with a set of generative rules, Jackendoff proposes to make phonological and conceptual structure equal to syntax in this respect. This means that they are not derived from syntax by interpretive rules, but generated by their own rule sets. The interface rules can further specify a representation on the basis of information in one of the others, but their

word formation, meaning and lexicalization  21 main function is to link the three structures, i.e. establish them as representations of the same expression by coindexing corresponding components. The position of the lexicon is not explicitly marked in Figure 1.4 but Jackendoff (2002: 131) states that ‘the lexicon as a whole is to be regarded as part of the interface components’. From this perspective, Jackendoff then considers morphology as the combination of morphemes. Rather than distinguishing inflection and derivation, Jackendoff (2002: 155) makes a distinction between regular and irregular morphology. For irregular morphology, the redundancy rules proposed by Jackendoff (1975) take on an important role. Jackendoff (2009) elaborates this system for a number of word formation rules and extends its scope to compounding. In Jackendoff (2010), this system is developed further. A third example of a generative approach that has a direct relevance to our domain of meaning and lexicalization of word formation is Pustejovsky’s (1995a) generative lexicon. Although it has generative in its name, Pustejovsky’s theory makes much less contact with mainstream generative linguistics than Lieber’s or Jackendoff’s. The reason is that Pustejovsky presents a theory of lexical meaning with a scope not reaching beyond the structure of the lexicon. Therefore it is in principle compatible with any architecture that assumes an autonomous lexical component. Pustejovsky’s central argument is that the lexicon should not be conceived of as what he calls a Sense Enumerative Lexicon (SEL). A good example of the problems an SEL raises is the contrast in (3). (3)

a. Last night, Anna started a new book. b. Reluctantly, Barbara started the exam.

The verb start in (3) requires as its object a process. Neither a book nor an exam is a process. Nevertheless, (3a) and (3b) can be readily interpreted. The process in (3a) is probably ‘reading’, but if we know that Anna is a writer, we can also interpret it as ‘writing’. In (3b), the process depends on Barbara’s role. If she is a student it is ‘writing’, whereas if she is a teacher it is ‘marking’. The question is how we know about these processes. If we assume that they are part of the meaning of start, an SEL will have to list each of these meanings as a separate entry for this verb. This is not attractive, because it would lead to a very large number of entries for verbs such as start. Moreover, we cannot be sure that any particular set of entries covers the full meaning of the verb. Intuitively, the contrast in (3) depends on the object. Therefore Pustejovsky proposes a theory in which the entries for start and book contain information that in their interaction have the potential to generate the meaning of the predicate in (3a), while the same entry for start can interact with the entry for exam to produce the meaning of the predicate in (3b).

22  pius ten hacken and claire thomas Although Pustejovsky (1995a) does not directly address word formation, problems similar to (3) occur both in derivation, as the polysemy of affixes noted by Lieber (2004), and in compounding, as the discussion in Jackendoff (2009) shows. As an example of a polysemous affix, Lieber (2004: 2) gives -ize in randomize (‘making . . .’), containerize (‘putting in . . .’), and anthropologize (‘performing . . .’). In compounding, contrasts such as the one between water mill (‘. . . powered by . . .’) and paper mill (‘. . . producing . . .’) are well known. The solution Pustejovsky (1995a) proposes is that lexical entries have a much more articulated structure than can be represented in an SEL and that there are generative mechanisms using elements of this structure to produce an appropriate meaning in context without having to list all possible meanings exhaustively. In the case of (3), the so-­called qualia structure is central to the solution. The entries for book and exam specify in their qualia structure what is typically done with these items. In the case of book, the agentive quale, which specifies ‘[t]he manner in which something is created’ (1995a: 97), has the information that it is written and the telic quale, which ‘defines what the purpose or function of a concept is’ (1995a: 99), specifies that it is meant to be read. In the case of exam, the perspectives of writing and marking are encoded in different qualia as well. The mechanism activating these qualia in (3) is what Pustejovsky (1995a: 111) calls type coercion. As start requires a process, book and exam have to become processes by using appropriate components of their lexical entries. While Pustejovsky does not offer a full theory of word formation, the qualia structure and type coercion are particularly useful in accounting for the range of meanings found in word formation. 3  OVERVIEW OF THE VOLUME

The contributions to the present volume give a multifaceted overview of current research on the meaning and lexicalization of word formation. The differences between the approaches appear in a number of dimensions. First, the type of morphological phenomenon discussed varies. We have taken this dimension as the leading principle for the organization of the volume. Although we have not placed the contributions into sections, their sequence is based on a gradual shift from one chapter to the next. A secondary criterion in this respect was the relative importance of data analysis and theory, with the more theoretically oriented contributions at the start of the volume. Apart from these dimensions, contributions also differ in the theoretical framework adopted and in the languages their data are taken

word formation, meaning and lexicalization  23 from. In this section, we will briefly introduce each chapter, indicating its theoretical framework and some of its main arguments. The second chapter, by Pius ten Hacken, addresses the question of the place of word formation in the model of grammar. He takes Jackendoff’s (2002) PA as a starting point and concentrates on the question of what Jackendoff calls ‘semiproductivity’, which he considers ‘one of the central issues of linguistic theory’ (2010: 34). In English, denominal adjectives for nouns in -ion and -ment can be formed by means of the suffixes -al (e.g. national) and -ary (e.g. complimentary). Both processes are productive in the sense that new items can be formed, but it cannot be predicted which one of them is used in a particular case. They are productive in the sense of what Corbin (1987: 176) calls ‘disponible’ (‘available’), but not fully productive in the sense that syntactic rules are. This raises the problem of how to account for this type of productivity. Ten Hacken argues that the solution is to consider such processes from an onomasiological perspective in the sense that they provide names for a given concept. He claims that semiproductivity provides evidence for a separate word formation ­component, as opposed to Jackendoff’s (2010) approach. In the next chapter, Claire Thomas discusses the notion of lexicalization. In generative morphology, two senses of lexicalization occur. On one hand, a lexicalized output of a word formation rule is listed in the lexicon; on the other, lexicalization is the process of getting idiosyncratic, unpredictable senses. Clearly, these two senses are related, but one does not imply the other. Thomas discusses the interaction of these senses in Lieber’s (2004) system of morphology, using settlement, in its process and its result senses, as an example. A third sense of lexicalization is the one used by Jackendoff in the exposition of his PA. The lexicalization of a Conceptual Structure is the choice of lexical items to represent particular portions of it. Thomas argues that some concepts from Pustejovsky’s (1995a) theory of the generative lexicon can be used to reconcile the different perspectives and express the meanings of settlement as well as the relation between them in a way that leads to a more convincing, integrated approach. The fourth chapter, by Kaarina Pitkanen-­Heikkilä, is devoted to terminology. The question addressed is how names are chosen for concepts in a specialist field, more specifically botanical terms in Finnish. In the nineteenth century, inspired by nationalist and romanticist currents, borrowing from Latin or neighbouring languages was rejected in many countries as a source of naming. In the case of Finnish botany, Elias Lönnrot (1802–84) introduced a large number of terms that are still in use and exploit the language-­internal sources for new names available in Finnish. This study of the choice of names is a good example of the onomasiological approach to terminology. It also connects to the question of lexicalization in the sense

24  pius ten hacken and claire thomas that Pitkanen-­Heikkilä discusses to what extent the new terms are transparent and have been accepted by the language community and specialists. Staying within the field of terminology, Pius ten Hacken and Ewelina Kwiatek consider terms from a different perspective. Instead of looking at the naming devices used in one language, they consider the use of a single naming device, nominal compounding, comparing two languages, English and Polish. In order to compare compounding in the two languages, they first propose a language-­ independent definition of compounding and discuss its application to the systems of English and Polish. The terminological domain they study is land surveying, a domain in which conceptualization is in large part rooted in national traditions rather than determined by international communication. In order to exploit the contrast between the parts with and without a strong international influence, they also consider the domain of the global positioning system (GPS), where technological innovations are central. Ten Hacken and Kwiatek’s focus is on the question of how the different systems of compounding in English and Polish affect the use of compounds of different types in naming terminological concepts. This chapter therefore constitutes a transition from terminology to compounding, to which the next chapters are devoted. Maria Rosenberg also compares nominal compounding in two languages, Swedish and French, but her study has a somewhat different focus. She uses a parallel corpus from the European Parliament and analyses the translation equivalents of Swedish compounds in French. Again, this first requires a procedure to identify compounds. As a next step, Rosenberg classifies the compounds according to the semantic relation between the two components of the compound. She discusses a number of alternative classification schemes and uses one based on the system proposed by Jackendoff (2009). Her findings suggest that compounding in French is much less flexible than in Swedish, so that translators often have to use alternative expressions. Many of these alternatives require a more explicit description of the relationship between the components than the compounds in Swedish. In some cases, however, the French texts are less specific than the Swedish, for instance when Swedish bekämpningsmedelsrester (‘pesticide residues’) is rendered in French as pesticides. In the next two chapters, we turn away from the contrastive study of nominal compounding to focus on German A+N compounds. In the first of these, Barbara Schlücker explores the differences that mark the boundary between compounds and phrasal combinations of adjectives and nouns, e.g. the phrase alte Stadt (‘old city’) and the compound Altstadt (‘historic city centre’). The central issue is the semantics of compounding, or, more precisely, the question whether lexical modification differs systematically in meaning from phrasal modification. Schlücker argues that in fact there is

word formation, meaning and lexicalization  25 a basic meaning difference, such that compounds generally have a classifying meaning whereas phrases do not. Without strongly committing herself to any particular framework, she uses a variety of predicate logic with a λ operator as a formalism to express meanings. The other chapter of this pair, by Martin Schäfer, considers the contribution of the individual components of German A+N compounds to the sentence they occur in. More specifically, he studies in which contexts and under which conditions the component Stadt (‘town/city’) in Großstadt (‘big city’) can serve as an antecedent to an empty pronoun, as in eine kleine PRO (‘a small one’). The question of anaphoric islands of this type was originally introduced in the domain of linguistic discussion from the perspective of generative semantics, see Postal (1969), but later framed mainly in a pragmatic context, e.g. by Ward et al. (1991). Schäfer applies these insights to a set of German A+N compounds and corresponding phrases in a large corpus and argues that the possibility of anaphoric reference depends in part on what Langacker (2000a: 93) calls entrenchment. An important concept in lexical acquisition, entrenchment refers to the ­formation of ‘a well-­rehearsed routine’ through repetition. The chapter by Alexandra Soares Rodrigues and Graça Rio-­Torto constitutes a transition between the chapters on compounding and those on derivation, because it compares the processes by which derivations and compounds get their meanings. They study Portuguese data in a framework that is based on Jackendoff’s PA, but also incorporates insights from Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar and Pustejovsky’s Generative Lexicon. A central component of the framework is the notion of coindexation, which according to Soares Rodrigues and Rio-­Torto is a purely semantic mechanism, operating on semantic features of the morphemes involved in the formation of a word. They argue that syntax does not directly influence the assignment of meaning and that the difference between the complexity of the meaning of derivations and compounds can be explained by the richer semantics of bases. Whereas derivations combine a single base with a (semantically less complex) affix, the two bases in a compound can combine their richer semantic specification in more elaborate ways. The next two chapters are studies of deverbal nouns. Maria Bloch-­ Trojnar studies English deverbal nouns in Beard’s (1995) framework of Lexeme Morpheme Base Morphology. As in this framework the semantics and the form of the result are produced by different sets of rules, a central question is how meanings and forms are paired up. Although it is possible to identify a number of factors involved in this mapping, e.g. ± Latinate, these factors cannot fully predict the form of a nominalization derived from a particular verb. Often meanings are much more specialized than can be predicted on the basis of the verb and the derivation rule. Pustejovsky’s

26  pius ten hacken and claire thomas (1995a) theory of the generative lexicon can be invoked to explain some of these cases. The second contribution on deverbal nouns is by Germana Olga Civilleri. She takes Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar as her framework, which means that the analysis concentrates on somewhat different properties. Her study is corpus-­based, taking the Ancient Greek of the Homeric poems as its basis, but she also draws parallels with English and Italian. Here it is not so much the pairing of form and meaning, but the continuum between compositional and lexicalized (in the sense of idiosyncratic) meanings that constitutes the main focus. Civilleri develops an analysis in which individual derivations are placed on this continuum. When moving towards the lexicalized pole, we can also observe a gradual loss of typically verbal features and a parallel increase in typically nominal features. Following these two chapters on deverbal nouns, there are two chapters on verb formation. The first of these, by Angeliki Efthymiou, concentrates on the suffix -(ι)άζω [-(i)ázo] in Modern Greek. One of the problems with this suffix is that it triggers a wide range of different meanings. The first question Efthymiou addresses is whether we are dealing here with a single suffix or with two separate suffixes. She concludes that there are two different suffixes, one of which is [–learned] and still productive. This suffix also involves a phonological sequence that has a general role as a marker of pejorative evaluation in Modern Greek. In order to assess the productivity of the suffix, Efthymiou compares it to the competing verb-­forming suffixes of Modern Greek. She concludes that the [–learned] nature of -(ι)άζω as well as its pejorative connotation reduce its productivity, although it is still among the more productive competitors. In the second chapter on verb formation, Jessica Forse presents an analysis of the English prefix en- and its counterparts en- and a- in French, Spanish and Portuguese. She takes Jackendoff’s PA framework as a background, concentrating on the Conceptual Structure. In analysing the set of relevant verbs in English, she arrives at a single basic Conceptual Structure with a small number of variables. The instantiation of these variables leads to seven more specific classes that can be grouped into three clusters. For each of these seven classes, examples can also be found for en- in French, Spanish and Portuguese. These three languages have a competing prefix a-, which does not occur in English. In each of the three languages, a- has a more limited distribution in the sense that examples can only be found for three of the semantic classes distinguished for en-. Interestingly, these are not the same three in French, Spanish and Portuguese. The final chapter, by Renáta Panocová, is, like the preceding one, a demonstration of how a particular framework can be applied to a particular word formation process. In this case, the framework is Horecký’s

word formation, meaning and lexicalization  27 onomasiological model of word formation and the word formation process is Russian diminutivization. The contrast with the preceding chapter is a good illustration of how the framework shapes the questions to be addressed in word formation research. Horecký’s model requires the description of the so-­called complete semantic definition of a word formation process such as diminutivization, irrespective of the formal realization. The complete semantic definition is a classification of the base and the output in terms of a set of semantic features. The result is a tree structure with, as its leaves, classes of semantically similar words. Whereas most of the contributions to this volume are broadly based on generative ideas, this chapter gives an impression of the very different type of word formation research that is carried out in the onomasiological tradition. Together, the contributions to this volume give a wide-­ranging exemplification of the type of research that is currently carried out in the study of the meaning and lexicalization of word formation throughout Europe. Some of the approaches represent widely held views, others are only pursued in more specialized areas, but all have their role to play in furthering the study of word formation. We hope that collecting these examples of different currents and traditions in one volume will provide inspiration to researchers in this domain. NOTES

1. ‘Language conceived of as a functional system.’ Our translation, PtH&CT. 2. ‘synchronic description cannot categorically exclude the notion of evolution’. Our translation, PtH&CT. 3. ‘Stylistic elements felt to be archaic, as well as the distinction between productive and non-­ productive forms, are diachronic facts which cannot be eliminated from the domain of linguistics even in a synchronic approach.’ Our translation, PtH&CT. 4. ‘The word, considered from the point of view of its function, is the result of linguistic naming activity.’ Our translation, PtH&CT. 5. Bloomfield intended his book as a general overview of the entire field, so he also included chapters on areas such as historical linguistics and dialectology, which do not have a strong position in the type of linguistics typically associated with the American tradition. 6. In earlier work, Beard refers to his framework as Lexeme-­Morpheme-­ Based Morphology, e.g. Beard (1988).

chapter 2

Semiproductivity and the place of word formation in grammar Pius ten Hacken

I

n this chapter I will address the question of how to account for what appear to be different degrees of productivity of word formation processes in the framework of Jackendoff’s (2002) Parallel Architecture (PA). Section 1 explains Jackendoff’s approach to the notion of lexical entry, which is quite different from the traditional one. Section 2 turns to the analysis of productivity in PA and demonstrates why accounting for degrees of productivity that are neither maximal (full productivity) nor minimal (no new cases) is problematic in Jackendoff’s (2002, 2009) approach. Section 3 proposes an alternative approach that requires a ­separate word formation component but incorporates the semiproductivity of word formation rules in a more natural way. The conclusion in section 4 is that it is not so much certain classes of word formation rules, but rather semiproductivity that should be regarded as an epiphenomenon.

1 LEXICAL ENTRIES IN JACKENDOFF’S PARALLEL ARCHITECTURE

Jackendoff’s Parallel Architecture is a model of language that is intended to account for its integration into human cognition. Jackendoff (1983) develops conceptual structure as a representation of meaning in the mind that is compatible with the interpretation of vision and other sensual input, motor instructions, inferences and language. Conceptual structure itself is not part of language, but interacts with it. Jackendoff (1990) elaborates the formalism of conceptual structure by analysing a variety of complex linguistic phenomena. The interaction of conceptual structure with syntactic and phonological structures is indicated in early sources, e.g. Jackendoff

semiproductivity and the place of word formation  29 (1983: 21), but the position of the lexicon is only fully developed later, in particular in Jackendoff (1997). Jackendoff (2002) develops the argument that linking rules and formation rules should all be considered as lexical entries. Central in PA is the idea that a linguistic expression such as (1) has three correlated mental representations: phonological, syntactic and conceptual. (1)

Anna has a new car.

The phonological structure of (1) indicates how the sentence can be pronounced. The syntactic structure gives the constituents. These two structures are purely linguistic. The conceptual structure of (1) indicates the meaning. If we are interested in the linguistic expression of this meaning, only those aspects that can be mapped to syntactic and/or phonological structures need to be encoded. The three representations of (1) are given in (2). As the phonological representation is not central to the point to be made here, I will generally use orthographic representations instead. Jackendoff (2002: 6) gives a more detailed representation of a different example.1 (2) a. Annai hasj ak newl carm b. [S NPi [VP Vj [NP Detk [AP Al]p Nm]q ] ]r c. [State BEPoss ([Thing CAR; [Property NEW]p ]q, [Place ATPoss [Thing ANNA]i ]) ]r

The details of the analysis in (2) are less important than the distribution of information among the three representations and the links between them. Each word in (2a) is linked to a syntactic category in (2b) by means of an index. (2b) does not have the words themselves in it. Without the indices, it is indistinguishable from the syntactic representations of the sentences in (3). (3)

a. Swansea is a sunny city. b. Bernard won a major prize.

The representation of meaning in (2c) is underspecified. Only the concepts that correspond to linguistic expressions and the relations between them are represented. In the syntactic structure (2b), the higher nodes tend to be coindexed with the conceptual structure (2c) and the lower with the phonological structure (2a). This is typical of the way the three r­ epresentations are linked.

30  pius ten hacken The information necessary for generating (2) is in the lexicon. This is most obvious for words such as car. The lexical entry for car can be seen as a triple of linked phonological (or orthographic), syntactic, and conceptual structures, indicated in (4). (4) a. car b. N[+Count] c. [Thing CAR]

It is essential to see how (2) and (4) are of a different nature. Whereas (2) represents a sentence as written and understood, (4) represents information that is stored in a speaker’s mind. Whereas (4) is part of linguistic competence, (2) is an example of performance. The lexicon in PA consists of items such as (4). Jackendoff (1997) develops the point that the lexicon contains a lot more than entries of the type in (4), extending it to various types of multi-­word units. Jackendoff (2002: 153–82) generalizes this argument to an even wider range of items. The type of reasoning can be illustrated with the examples in (5). (5)

a. Carol made a genuine attempt to put Swansea on the map. b. It has finally stopped raining.

The example in (5a) is typical of the cases considered by Jackendoff (1997). In order to understand the meaning of put Swansea on the map, the reader will need a lexical entry along the lines of (6).2 (6) a. putp onq ther maps b. [VP Vp NPn [PP Pq [NP Dr Ns] ] ]m c. [CAUSE ([X]i, [INCH [BE ([Y]n, [AT [WELL-­KNOWN] ]) ]) ]m

The lexical entry in (6) only specifies for each representation what information the idiom contributes to a sentence that contains it and how this information is linked across the representations. The fact that there has to be an NP in the position of Swansea but that the choice of this NP is free is expressed in (6a) by not specifying any word form, in (6b) by having the NPn in the structure, and in (6c) by the variable [Y]n which indicates the position in the conceptual interpretation and the link with the syntactic structure. What (6) indicates is that lexical entries can have a rather ­intricate structure in their representations. In (5b), the expletive it is an example of the type of additional cases considered by Jackendoff (2002). The lexical entry for it is (7).

semiproductivity and the place of word formation  31 (7) a. it b. Det[3 sing neuter] c. Ø

While it as used in (5b) has a form and syntactic features, it does not have a meaning. The contribution to conceptual structure, as indicated in (7c), is empty. If we can have a lexical entry with structure at each representation, as indicated by (6), and a lexical entry need not contain information for each representation, as indicated by (7), we can model formation rules for each representation in the same way as (other) lexical entries. This point is made by Jackendoff (2002: 178–82) and can be illustrated with the rule for the object NPs in (1) and (3), given in (8). (8) a. Ø b. [NP Det AP N] c. Ø

The entry in (8) does not specify any phonological or conceptual information, because the only contribution it makes to the specification of the representation of an expression is that it combines a Det, an AP, and an N into an NP.3 This means that formation rules and linking rules are of the same formal type and that they are both part of the lexicon. On the basis of this reasoning, the lexicon in PA becomes a much more encompassing component than in more traditional approaches. It contains all the information a speaker needs in order to build up representations of linguistic expressions such as (2). The starting point for the process of building such representations can be a thought or it can be a visual (e.g. orthographic) or acoustic input. Individual lexical entries encode content words, function words, multi-­word expressions and formation rules. They constitute the core of linguistic competence. 2  REPRESENTING MORPHOLOGICAL PRODUCTIVITY

In a sense, the need to account for productivity can be seen as one of the main forces driving the generative enterprise throughout its history. As Chomsky formulates it, ‘the central fact to which any significant linguistic theory must address itself is this: a mature speaker can produce a new sentence of his language on the appropriate occasion, and other speakers can understand it immediately’ (1964: 7). As this quotation indicates, however, the main emphasis has not been on morphological productivity. When discussing nominalizations, Chomsky (1970) argues for the ­ ‘lexicalist

32  pius ten hacken hypothesis’, which implies ‘that derived nominals will correspond to base structures rather than transforms’ (1970: 193), i.e. are in the lexicon rather than the result of syntactic rule application. In Chomsky’s (1970) framework, there are two equivalent ways of formulating the lexicalist hypothesis, given in (9). (9)

a. Morphology is in the lexicon. b. Morphology and syntax are in separate components.

Given the interpretation of the lexicon in PA, (9a) and (9b) are no longer equivalent. The reason is that in PA, syntactic rules have become lexical entries. Therefore (9b) implies that morphology is not in the lexicon. It is not surprising that (9a) should be the starting point for Jackendoff, because it is the simpler hypothesis. Adopting (9b) requires the introduction of a new component, which by Occam’s razor should only be considered if it can be used to solve problems arising from the absence of such a component. Jackendoff’s (1975) Full Entry Theory, as discussed in section 2.1, was proposed as an elaboration of Chomsky’s Lexicalist Hypothesis. Jackendoff (2010: 35–9) presents this as the first publication that foreshadows PA. Against this background, section 2.2 presents the approach Jackendoff (2002) develops for productive morphological rules and section 2.3 his approach to less than fully productive rules. 2.1  Full Entry Theory The immediate question when we adopt (9a) is how much of morphology is stored in the lexicon and how it is represented there. Jackendoff (1975) argues for a Full Entry Theory with redundancy rules as a framework for the lexicon. One of his arguments is based on pairs and triplets such as (10). (10) a. aggression – aggressive – aggressor b. aviation – aviator c. retribution – retributive

In (10), the nouns in -ion may have associated adjectives in -ive and agent nouns in -or, but the underlying root does not exist or is only a back formation. The idea of the Full Entry Theory is that each of the nouns and adjectives in (10) has an entry, but that the cost of specifying these entries is less than the cost of seven otherwise unrelated words. There is a redundancy rule for -ion, which specifies common properties of nouns with this ending. The entry for aggression will then refer to this redundancy rule so that the information specified in the rule for -ion will not be counted in calculating

semiproductivity and the place of word formation  33 the cost of the entry aggression. As Jackendoff states it, the cost of storing a word such as aggression is ‘the information that there is a word, plus the cost of the root, plus the cost of referring to [the redundancy] rule’ (1975: 648). The cost of the root is basically the specification of what is common to the triplet in (10a). For the cost of the reference to the redundancy rule, Jackendoff (1975: 666) proposes (11) as a measure. (11) The cost of referring to redundancy rule R in evaluating a lexical entry W is IR,W × PR,W, where IR,W is the amount of information in W predicted by R and PR,W is a number between 0 and 1 measuring the regularity of R in applying to the derivation of W.

In calculating PR,W, Jackendoff (1975: 667) proposes to take as a basis the potential uses of R as the sum of the actual uses (i.e. lexical pairs related by R) and the non-­uses (i.e. cases where only the input or only the output of R exists). This means that the cost of referring to a redundancy rule is related to the degree of its productivity. Fully productive rules will have a cost of 0. In this context, it is interesting to consider Corbin’s (1987: 176–8) ­analysis of productivity into three different properties, régularité (‘regularity’), disponibilité (‘availability’) and rentabilité (‘profitability’). Regularity refers to the predictability of the form and meaning of the outcome of a word formation process. Availability is the property of a rule that means it can be applied to form new words. Profitability refers to the degree to which a rule is actually used to form new words. Availability is a binary property, whereas regularity and profitability can be expressed on a scale from 0 to 1. The measures (11) refers to are regularity and profitability. However, as Corbin (1987: 177) observes, availability is the more basic property, underlying the other two. Only available rules are a part of the speaker’s competence. Profitability can only be talked about for available rules. Regularity is a property of individual rule applications, not of the rule as such, but a rule has to be available before it can be applied. Jackendoff’s (11) fails to put availability in its proper place at the centre of the concept of productivity. 2.2  Productive morphology in PA Jackendoff (2002) does not distinguish inflection and word formation as different processes. He makes two distinctions that cut across both categories. On one hand, he distinguishes affixation from compounding. He suggests that compounding, with its potential to produce long strings of nouns, is a relic of protolanguage, a version of language that preceded modern

34  pius ten hacken language in evolutionary history and did not include a syntactic component (2002: 249–50). This motivates a separate treatment, elaborated in Jackendoff (2009; 2010: 413–51). Affixation includes both inflection and derivation. On the other hand, Jackendoff distinguishes productive and non-­productive morphology, where ‘[p]roductive morphology is totally regular’ (2002: 155). Jackendoff’s treatment of fully productive rules can be illustrated with the English nominal plural. The fact that this is generally considered a case of inflection does not make it unsuitable to illustrate the procedure, because inflection and derivation are treated in the same way. The entry for the regular plural affix can be represented as in (12).4 (12) a. [Wd Wdn [Cl s]q ]m b. [N Nn [Num Pl]q ]m c. [PLURAL [X]n ]m

In (12a), s is represented as a clitic which attaches to a word so that the two form a word together. In (12b), Number is represented as a constituent specified as plural and attaching to a noun. In (12c), what is referred to by the noun is the argument of the function PLURAL. Whereas (12) accounts for cars and buses, it does not cover feet. For buses, we would need to assume a rule inserting -e- in the relevant contexts.5 For feet there is a separate entry (13). (13) a. feetm b. [N Nn [Num Pl]q ]m c. [PLURAL [FOOT]n ]m

Both (12) and (13) are lexical entries. As such, they are in the same category as the lexical entries for car, bus and foot. This means that in some cases plural nouns are produced by combining two lexical entries, whereas in other cases they are retrieved from the lexicon directly. Clearly, the latter route is more efficient in terms of processing time. This is probably at least a partial explanation for the non-­occurrence of *foots. Whenever we try to lexicalize a conceptual structure including the part in (13c), the lexical entry in (13) is triggered immediately. However, Jackendoff (2002: 50) also refers to morphological blocking as a meta-­constraint. As an example of a productive derivational process, Jackendoff (2002: 155) mentions pre- as in pre-­season. In his analysis, the affix pre- attaches to nouns that denote time periods or events to form adjectives. Therefore a lexical entry could be (14).

semiproductivity and the place of word formation  35 (14) a. [Wd [Cl pre]n Wdq ]m b. [A Nq ]m c. [BEFORE [Time/EventX]q ]m

An interesting observation if we compare (12) and (14) is that the affix in (12) is represented in syntax, whereas the affix in (14) is not. This correlates more or less with the common distinction between inflection and derivation. Whether the analysis in (14) is the best one is something that may be doubted. The alleged adjective resulting from the application of (14) has a very limited distribution, basically limited to the attributive modifier position of nouns. In ten Hacken (1994), I propose a model of compounding in which the non-­head of a compound is not categorially specified. As shown by Wiese (1996), compounds can have foreign-­language expressions or non-­linguistic items (characters, gestures) in this position. In ten Hacken (2003a, 2003b), I discuss the case of phrases and other linguistic expressions that would not otherwise occur in the language. An example is copulative compounds of the true dvandva type, as in attribute-­value pair. In English, structures of the type attribute-­value cannot occur other than as the non-­head component of a compound. This distribution is similar to that of pre-­season. A detailed discussion of the two options would lead us too far afield. 2.3  Less productive morphology in PA Let us now turn to less productive morphological processes. Some of these are entirely non-­productive. An example of the prototypical behaviour of such processes is English -th as illustrated in (15). (15) a. warm warmth b. long length c. deep depth

The suffix -th makes nouns out of adjectives, but there are very few adjective-­noun pairs illustrating it. Moreover, most of them involve a vowel change in the stem, as illustrated in (15b and c). It is not necessary to set up a lexicon entry for -th, because all nouns resulting from this process are in the lexicon as nouns. Nevertheless, speakers can optimize their mental lexicon by noting the correlation between the pairs in (15) and a few other, similar ones. The result of this optimization is a redundancy rule, a generalization that reduces the cost of the information specified for each of the individual entries. Jackendoff (2002: 165–7) discusses a similar ­situation

36  pius ten hacken Table 2.1  Adjective formation with -­al and -­ary Base noun

Adjective in -­al

Adjective in -­ary

function nation foundation caution evolution development department compliment rudiment fragment

functional national foundational

(functionary)

(evolutional) developmental departmental (rudimental) fragmental

(foundationary) cautionary evolutionary complimentary rudimentary fragmentary

for patterns of irregular past tense formation involving the same vowel changes. He proposes that ‘no rule [for such cases] is stored explicitly in the speaker’s head’ (2002: 166). The regularity is only an epiphenomenon, emerging implicitly from the way the brain stores information. While such a solution may be attractive for (15), it is less so for the ­patterns illustrated in Table 2.1. For nouns ending in -­tion and in -­ment, there are two regular adjective forming processes, one with the suffix -­al and one with the suffix -­ary. Table 2.1 gives examples of five nouns each for -­tion and -­ment and indicates the corresponding adjectives. Forms in brackets are variants found in a dictionary that do not belong to my active vocabulary. In the case of fragment, the two adjectives have different meanings. Fragmental can be said of geological deposits put together from fragmented rocks, whereas fragmentary can be said of a manuscript of which only fragments survive. The details of the data in Table 2.1 reflect a single speaker’s mental lexicon, supplemented by dictionary information from Collins (1986). However, for the purpose of the discussion here, there is no need to ‘verify’ the data, for instance by means of a large-­scale questionnaire. There is no higher authority to be found in order to determine whether a particular adjective ‘really’ exists or is used in a particular sense. As stated by Uriagereka (1998: 27), ‘English does not really exist.’ What exists as a natural entity is each speaker’s competence and performance, but not a named language such as English (see ten Hacken 2007: 274–81 for more discussion). The situation illustrated in Table 2.1 can be summarized as follows. • There are open-­ended sets of nouns ending in -tion and -ment. • There are two competing processes of adjective formation, suffixation with -al and with -ary.

semiproductivity and the place of word formation  37 • Both processes are productive in the sense that new words can be formed (i.e. available). • Not all nouns can combine with both suffixes. • No obvious generalizations can be made on which of the suffixes a particular noun combines with. • For some nouns, both adjectives exist with different meanings. For Jackendoff, it is not immediately obvious how to account for the data illustrated in Table 2.1. If -al and -ary are lexical entries of the type illustrated in (12) and (14), many non-­existing words are predicted. This includes not only the words in brackets, but also, for instance, *developmentary and *cautional. Basically, all slots in Table 2.1 are predicted to be filled. It may then seem better to treat the data in Table 2.1 in the same way as (15). In that case, there are no lexical entries for -al and -ary, so that no unexpected new words are predicted. However, this also means that only the words already existing in the lexicon are covered. The suffixes -al and -ary are not available for the formation of new entries. Jackendoff (2010: 28–34) returns to the issue of semiproductivity and comes to a different conclusion than in his 2002 book. He concludes: Hence, apparently the only difference between a productive and a semiproductive rule is that productive rules license one to go beyond the listed instances without any special effort. This suggests that the formal distinction between the two sorts of rule is specifically localized in a diacritic on the variable: those in productive rules are marked [+productive] and those in semiproductive rules are not. (Jackendoff 2010: 32) In interpreting the scope of Jackendoff’s proposal, we should keep in mind two points of his discussion. First, according to Jackendoff (2010: 29), ‘Semiproductivity is not confined to morphology.’ Jackendoff does not want to separate the cases in Table 2.1 from syntactic constructions such as the NPN construction discussed by Jackendoff (2008) and illustrated by face to face. He also gives past tense vowel change in English as an example. This means that instead of emergent generalizations, all cases of less than full productivity are treated as rules encoded as lexical entries. The introduction of the diacritic feature [+productive] implies that without such a feature a lexical entry cannot be used to construct an expression that is not also a lexical entry. This means that regular lexical entries for words, such as car, and formation rules, such as the rule combining a determiner and a noun into a noun phrase, should have this feature.

38  pius ten hacken One may wonder why Jackendoff does not propose a diacritic feature [–­productive] instead, which would have a more limited distribution. The reason is probably that Jackendoff uses the feature as a privative one, i.e. either it is there or it is not there, rather than a binary one with two values. This means that adding the feature in the course of acquisition must be based on positive evidence. A feature [–productive] would not be learnable, however, without explicit correction. Jackendoff’s solution with a diacritic feature distinguishing fully productive and semiproductive rules is not particularly elegant. One of its disadvantages is that it loses the distinction between unavailable processes as in (15) and available but not fully productive processes as in Table 2.1. It is therefore worth considering alternatives. 3 WORD FORMATION AS THE FORMATION OF LEXICAL ENTRIES

In English, blackbird is used to refer to the species Turdus merula. Accounting for the meaning of blackbird is less straightforward than it may seem. Male blackbirds are black except for the yellow bill (see Figure 2.1) whereas female blackbirds are brown. There are other birds that are black, e.g. crows. In fact, crows (genus Corvus) are more black than blackbirds, because specimens of both sexes are entirely black. Yet it is only Turdus merula that is referred to as black-

Figure 2.1  Male blackbird Turdus merula (© Mike Langman, rspb-­images.com)

semiproductivity and the place of word formation  39 bird. We can explain this if we assume that motivation is not directed from the name to the object but from the concept to the name. When speakers of English wanted a name for the bird in Figure 2.1, they came up with blackbird. At that point, the existence of crows did not play a role. Once assigned to the species in Figure 2.1, the name was no longer available for other species. The observation that the motivation for new words comes from naming needs is of course not new. Downing (1977) discusses it in the context of compounding and proposes a distinction between compounds used as the name of a concept and deictic compounds, which are used as ad hoc names for individual objects in a particular context. Downing’s example for the latter is apple-­juice chair, used to identify a particular chair in a particular context. Regular compounds are not deictic; they are used as a name for a concept. This insight was also important in the onomasiological approach to compounding, following on from Dokulil’s (1962) seminal work. Grzega (2009) gives an overview of work in this tradition. The general idea that the motivation of the meaning of a word as the name of a concept is rather from the meaning to the form than the other way round can also be illustrated with examples from derivation. The suffix -ism is attached to a proper name to indicate a set of ideas associated with a person by that name. However, whereas Jansen is one of the most common Dutch surnames, Jansenism only refers to the set of ideas proposed by Cornelis Jansen (1585–1638) about salvation and determinism. This can hardly be seen as an example where the meaning gradually specialized, finally to settle on this particular doctrine. Rather, speakers were looking for a suitable name for this doctrine and found Jansenism appropriate because Cornelis Jansen had defended it in his posthumously published work Augustinus (1640). It is worth considering what happens in communication when a new word gets into use. The speaker or writer will have as their overriding concern to be understood. Therefore a name should be related to what the hearers or readers have in their mental lexicon. This is why new names are normally related to existing words, as metaphoric or metonymic meaning extensions, as input to word formation rules or as borrowings from another language. Often, more than one form will be possible. The choice will be governed by the intended impression on and the expected knowledge of the hearers or readers, the intended relation to other lexicon entries, existing regularities, etc. These considerations are of a fundamentally different nature to the ones that play a role in lexical retrieval, as used in the compositional formation of an expression. Once a name is established, the entry will be activated immediately when the concept is triggered, as described by Jackendoff (2002: 200–5).

40  pius ten hacken At this point it is interesting to consider the data in Table 2.1 again. In English, national is so strongly established that *nationary does not have a chance to be formed to refer to the same concept. This is of course a matter of individual speakers. For me, *functionary is as impossible as *nationary, but apparently Collins (1986: 614) found enough evidence to give the adjectival sense and describe it as ‘a less common word for functional or official’.6 Of particular interest is the contrast between fragmental and fragmentary. According to the OED (2011), fragmentary was attested in 1621, whereas fragmental did not appear until 1763 and was generally rarer. When the specialized geological sense emerged in the nineteenth century, fragmentary had a longer history of use. Therefore fragmental was a better choice for this new sense. However, the distinction is not clear-­cut for all speakers. Collins (1986: 600) gives ‘another word for fragmentary’ as the second sense of fragmental and ‘Also: fragmental’ as information about fragmentary. An essential consideration in the choice of a name is the opposite perspective, processing by the hearer or reader. In ten Hacken (2010b: 246–9) I discuss the case of image converter. A reader coming across this word while unfamiliar with it will have the information in (16) to work from. (16) a.  Image converter is a word. If it is not part of my mental lexicon, it probably designates a concept I am not familiar with. b.  Image converter is a complex word. Its morphological analysis suggests a range of possible meanings. c. Image converter is used in a particular linguistic context.

Jackendoff (p.c.)7 objects to this analysis, suggesting the analysis in (17). (17) a. ‘The morphological analysis, given the usual meaning of the -­er morpheme, suggests that image is to be understood as the patient of convert. Thus an image converter is something that converts images. b. So whatever readers can construe from context about the VP convert an image, such as what the image is converted into, they can also ascribe to image converter.

(17a) corresponds quite closely to (16b), although it is somewhat more specific about the nature of the inferences in this particular case. However, I think (16a) is an essential step. It makes the reader hypothesize a concept, which (16b) suggests is a particular device or profession. The phrase convert an image only evokes the process. This explains the difference between the way the context is used in (16c) and in (17b). In fact, an image converter is a device for producing an image on the

semiproductivity and the place of word formation  41 basis of invisible radiation, e.g. X-­ rays. Clearly, the precise meaning cannot be determined on the basis of the word formation analysis alone. The reader can anticipate, however, that the meaning will have this degree of precision. Both writer and reader are intuitively aware of the nature of the naming process. Therefore, depending on the context in (16c), there may well be a sufficient degree of specification for communicative success. Without an equivalent to (16a), however, no such precision is expected in (17b). The distinction between the word image converter and a corresponding phrase can be seen by comparing their use in two scientific articles in (18). (18) a. Before beginning the operation, it was verified that the entire upper or lower leg was accessible with the image converter in both planes. (Müller et al. 1998: 462) b. The screen is used to convert X-­ray energies into light, which is absorbed by photodiodes integrated into the active-­matrix flat-­panel array and stored as charge on the capacitance of the photodiodes. (Mail et al. 2007: 138)

Even with reduced context, (18a) clearly evokes the idea of a particular concept corresponding to image converter. It is not just anything converting from or into images, but a particular kind of thing with a specific function. (18b) gives more context, but does not invoke any specific concept. Here, only the conversion of X-­ray energies to light is referred to, not a particular device. The difference between the word image converter in (18a) and the paraphrase in (18b) is that the former is associated with a lexical conceptual structure whereas the latter is not. The process in (16) modifies the mental lexicon, i.e. competence. In interpreting (18b), information from the mental lexicon is used to create a conceptual structure, but this remains purely at the level of performance. Competence is not affected. The crucial distinguishing step is (16a), which is immediately invoked when image converter is encountered as a new word in (18a), but for which there is no correlate in the interpretation of (18b). The discussion in this section highlighted the difference between lexical and compositional processing. The examples of blackbird, Jansenism and image converter all illustrate how the naming function is implemented in relation to grammar and the lexicon. 4  WORD FORMATION AND PRODUCTIVITY

Let us now consider how the preceding discussion affects Jackendoff’s (2010) model of the lexicon in PA. A first observation is that this model

42  pius ten hacken does not incorporate the analysis of productivity by Corbin (1987) sufficiently. Of the three components of productivity, availability should be central. This is a binary property of rules as encoded in the competence of individual speakers. However, as the discussion of (11) showed, Jackendoff puts more weight on profitability and regularity. These are derived concepts because they address the application of a rule rather than its presence or absence. If we want to put availability back into the centre of productivity we have to find a place in the architecture of grammar where rules can be present or absent in the relevant sense. In ten Hacken (2010b), I propose to introduce a separate word formation component in PA. Admittedly, this goes against the programmatic tendency to reduce the entire account of linguistic competence to a single lexical component. However, as the discussion in section 3 showed, there is ample evidence for a distinction between on the one hand a lexical component used to build up expressions and thoughts in performance and on the other a concept naming component used to extend the lexical component and change a speaker’s competence. Whereas syntactic rules belong to the former, word formation rules belong to the latter. The central difference is the concept naming nature of word formation, as formulated in (16a). This maintains the lexicalist hypothesis in the sense of (9b). When we adopt a separate word formation component as part of the architecture of grammar, we can account straightforwardly for the availability aspect of productivity. Available word formation rules exist in the word formation component, whereas non-­available rules do not.8 This also means that we can restore the distinction between the data in (15) and in Table 2.1, which is lost in Jackendoff’s (2010) revised proposal. Non-­productive rules such as -th suffixation are not in the word formation component. For these cases, any generalization is of the emergent type, as proposed by Jackendoff (2002, 2009). Semiproductive rules such as -al and -ary suffixation exist in the word formation component. This brings us to the question of profitability and regularity, i.e. how to explain the semiproductive nature of such rules as -al and -ary suffixation. In the model I propose here, the starting point for word formation is the need to name a new concept. If a word formation rule is found that produces a form that is likely to be understood, it may be chosen. Regularity depends therefore at least as much on the nature of concepts to be named as on the word formation rule that is applied. Profitability is even more of a derived phenomenon. It depends not only on the rule for which the profitability is to be calculated, but also on the nature of concepts to be named and the alternative naming procedures that are available. These factors are usually not taken into account in measuring productivity, but

semiproductivity and the place of word formation  43 they are at least as important as communicative factors, normative pressure and personal preferences. The interaction of all these factors yields profitability. The relation between profitability and availability can be compared to the one between performance and competence. Therefore I propose that semiproductivity is an epiphenomenon. NOTES

1. In different publications, Jackendoff uses various, slightly different notational conventions. Here I will use a variety that I think is transparent and explicit enough for the expository needs in this chapter. 2. In order to increase readability, labels of functions and constituents as illustrated in (2b) have not been specified in (6c). These labels are not essential for the discussion, but should be included in a full Lexical Conceptual Structure. 3. Following Culicover and Jackendoff (2005), I adopt here a flat structure of the noun phrase with N as the head, rather than Abney’s (1987) DP hypothesis, which holds that the determiner is the head of the noun phrase. It should be noted, however, that Culicover and Jackendoff (2005: 78) argue against the DP analysis only by attacking the Uniform Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH). Abney (1987) supports his hypothesis by a range of observations, such as that that car can be replace by that but not by car. As far as I know, these points have not been addressed systematically in the Simpler Syntax Hypothesis. 4. The representation of each level in (12) follows the one for the regular past in Jackendoff (2002: 160), but replaces tree structures with labelled bracketing. 5. This could treated be along the lines of Two-­ Level Morphology, proposed by Koskenniemi (1983). Sproat (1992: 145–70) gives a brief overview of this formalism. Given its tier-­based nature, it would match the general approach of Jackendoff’s PA very well. 6. On the interpretation of the information in dictionaries in relation to the mental lexicon and the text corpora used as a basis in their compilation, see ten Hacken (2009b). 7. Jackendoff originally reacted to a pre-­publication of ten Hacken (2010b) in an email dated 19 August 2009, but provided the quotation in an email of 7 August 2011. I added the division into a and b for convenience of reference. 8. As argued in ten Hacken (1994), I assume that inflection and word formation are different. There is no space here to make this argument in

44  pius ten hacken any detail, but one aspect that Jackendoff’s (2002) account of the English past tense does not account for sufficiently in my view is the paradigmatic nature of inflection as opposed to the case-­by-­case ­application of word formation rules.

chapter 3

Lexicalization in Generative Morphology and Conceptual Structure Claire Thomas

L

exicalization has an important place in theories of word formation. From a very general point of view, it refers to the integration of an item into the lexicon, but what this actually implies is open to interpretation. The term has been used somewhat ambiguously, as Brinton and Traugott (2005) note in their effort to integrate the various different perspectives. They identify two divergent conceptualizations, one diachronic and the other synchronic. The diachronic one, found largely within Generative Morphology, characterizes lexicalization as both integration into the lexicon and meaning change. The synchronic perspective is found in theories of lexical semantics, notably Jackendoff’s theory of Conceptual Structure, and examines the way that systematic relations between semantic constituents are expressed by lexical items. The view that Brinton and Traugott arrive at is that Lexicalization is the change whereby in certain linguistic contexts speakers use a syntactic construction or word formation as a new contentful form with formal and semantic properties that are not completely derivable or predictable from the constituents of the construction or word formation pattern. Over time there may be further loss of internal constituency and the item may become more lexical. (Brinton and Traugott 2005: 91–2) While uniting divergent diachronic perspectives, this definition does not incorporate the synchronic view of lexicalization. The aim of this chapter is to show how these two seemingly divergent conceptualizations of lexicalization can be integrated. In section 1, I begin by outlining the way that it is dealt with within the field of Generative Morphology, in particular in Lieber’s (2004, 2009) theory. I then turn in section 2 to Jackendoff’s theory

46  claire thomas of Conceptual Structure, showing how this can broaden our understanding of lexicalization. However, the integration of Jackendoff’s theory does not complete the picture, so in section 3 I turn to Pustejovsky’s Generative Lexicon to show how this theory can fill in the missing link. Finally, in section 4 the three perspectives are integrated to form a more complete view of lexicalization. 1  LEXICALIZATION IN GENERATIVE MORPHOLOGY

Lexicalization within the field of Generative Morphology can be viewed as a largely diachronic process, examining changes to a formation over time. Within this, there are two broad and related conceptualizations. The first of these characterizes lexicalization as permanent incorporation into the lexicon (e.g. Plag 2003; Booij 2005). What this entails is a shift away from online production towards storage in the lexicon as a lexical item in its own right. In this sense, lexicalization is an inevitable step if a new formation is to become established: if the process does not take place the derivation remains a nonce word. Often associated with this permanent incorporation is the change or specialization of meaning that many (e.g. Anderson 1992; Kastovsky 1982; Lieber 2004) refer to in discussing lexicalization. This can usually be seen as a shift away from compositional, transparent meaning and towards a more idiosyncratic meaning (Plag 2003). This can in turn be taken as an indication that a new word has been incorporated into the lexicon: Having idiosyncratic properties thus implies for a word that it has to be listed, but the inverse is not necessarily true: a complex word that is listed may have fully predictable properties, and may be listed only because it is an established word. (Booij 2005: 17–18) How ‘idiosyncratic’ the meaning of a word has to be in order for it to count as lexicalized is not obvious. Bauer (2003: 272) states that ‘lexicalization ignores morphological structure. Typically, in lexicalization, the internal structure of a word is lost sight of’, which seems to imply that lexicalization is the endpoint of a process of shifting away from compositionality. For others, however, the entire cline is seen as part of lexicalization. Kastovsky, for example, takes the view that lexicalization is ‘a gradual phenomenon, both diachronically and synchronically’ (1982: 205). The diachronic scale is in line with the explanations pursued above, where a particular derivation or compound progresses from entire transparency to complete idiosyncrasy, as seen in the case of compounds such as hogwash, whose meaning

lexicalization  47 has shifted from ‘slops fed to pigs’ to ‘nonsense’. From a synchronic perspective, at any particular point in time, there will be different lexical items at different points on the lexicalization scale. So, for example, there are derived words in Modern English whose meanings are entirely predictable according to their form (e.g. unhappy), derived words whose meanings are entirely non-­compositional (e.g. considerable) and derived words which lie at some point along this scale. Here we might include deverbal nouns such as those in (1). (1) a. Access to attorneys might compromise Padilla’s ongoing interrogation by the military. b. Remember it’s an interview, not an interrogation. c. Condensation of water vapour on cold surfaces is a daily experience to all of us. d. Within two hours, condensation on the walls had disappeared. e. Political involvement in the appointment of judges would mean a more representative judiciary. f. This new appointment will complement and significantly strengthen the Partners’ highly regarded service. g. Indian resistance, sectionalism and racism forced some pauses in the process of westward settlement. h. The remains of an Iron Age settlement have been unearthed by archaeologists.

In (1a, c, e and g), the noun refers to the process of the action denoted by the base verb. In contrast (1b, d, f and h), denote the result of this action. The group of suffixes which includes -ment and -ation is often classified as deriving abstract nouns from verbs (Lieber 2004), and the process-­result alternation is well-­attested, but (1d and h) are examples of concrete usage. The fact that this is neither entirely compositional nor entirely unpredictable seems to indicate the position of such a derivation somewhere in the middle of the more extreme cases mentioned above. The perspectives outlined here seem to imply that lexicalization in terms of meaning change is equivalent to idiosyncrasy. This would appear to be what Lieber has in mind when she discusses lexicalization in the context of her theory of morphology and lexical semantics. As this theory is of some significance in the discussion of the lexicalization of derivations, it will be outlined here. According to Lieber (2004, 2009), the semantics of a lexical item (which includes affixes) is made up of two parts, which she calls the skeleton and the body. The skeleton contains ‘all and only those aspects of meaning which have consequences for the syntax’ (Lieber 2004: 10). The skeleton is made up of a set of cross-­categorial, e­ quipollent

48  claire thomas and privative features which are used in the characterisation of nine semantic categories. For example, the four semantic categories which make up the ontological class of substances/things/essences, which correspond to the syntactic category of nouns, are composed of the features shown in (2). (2)

a. simple, concrete substances/things/essences: [+material] (man) b. simple, abstract substances/things/essences: [-­material] (morning) c. concrete, processual substances/things/essences: [+material, dynamic] (author) d. abstract, processual substances/things/essences: [-­material, dynamic] (war)

For Lieber, word formation is a mechanism for extending the simplex lexicon and she assumes that usually the addition of an affix adds a function to the lexical item corresponding to the semantic category of that affix (2004: 37). For example, the skeleton of the nominalising suffixes -ation and -ment, among others, is illustrated in (3). (3)

[-­material, dynamic ([ ], )]

The feature [-­material] is associated with abstract nouns, and the feature [dynamic] indicates that this is a noun whose meaning involves the unfolding of some kind of process. The way that this interacts with the semantics of the base verb is illustrated in (4) for the verb settle. (4)

a. [+dynamic, +IEPS] (settle) b. [-­material, dynamic ([ ], [+dynamic, +IEPS])] (settlement)

For verbal meanings, Lieber uses the feature [dynamic] in an equipollent way. Its positive value in (4a) shows that this is an event or a Process1 rather than a state. Meanwhile, the positive value for [IEPS] (which stands for Inferable Eventual Position or State) indicates that there is a progression from one position or state to another. In the case of settle, this would be the transition from the state of not being settled to the state of being settled. The features added by the affix -ment in (4b) then show that settlement is an abstract noun denoting the process of settling. As discussed above, however, one of the features of nominalizations of this kind is that they tend to be polysemous between a process and a result reading, which presents a problem for Lieber’s framework given that (4b) encodes the process reading only. In order to avoid this problem, she suggests that the binary nature of the feature [dynamic] might be relevant here, although it

lexicalization  49 is not for other nouns. The interpretation of the noun is often dependent on the context, as shown in (5). (5)

a. The frequent expression of one’s feelings [+dynamic] b. An old expression [-­dynamic]

Lieber argues that the complex event reading of (5a) and the result reading of (5b) must be encoded at a higher level. This may be permissible given that in nouns, the feature [dynamic] does not already have a value. Less easy to explain is the fact that in a number of cases the result reading is a concrete noun, as shown by (1h), repeated in (6). (6)

The remains of an Iron Age settlement have been unearthed by archaeologists.

(6) refers to the concrete, rather than abstract result, of the process of settling. This requires the feature [material] to have a positive value rather than a negative one, so in line with Lieber’s (2004) argument about [dynamic], the binary nature of [material] would have to be determined at a higher level. This is problematic, first because it does not work for nouns whose meaning in this respect is not context-­dependent, i.e. where the lexical meaning of the noun is either [+material] or [-­material], and second because allowing the binary nature of the feature to be determined at a higher level in these cases would mean that derived nouns had a different status to simplex nouns. As mentioned above, word formation extends the simplex lexicon: derived nouns and simplex nouns should therefore have the same status. Finally, Lieber claims that each affix has a unified skeleton and therefore cannot belong to more than one semantic category. Allowing the binary nature of [dynamic] to be encoded at a higher level does not change the fact that the affix belongs to the semantic category in (2d), but the binary nature of [material] represents the difference between the semantic categories in (2c) and (2d). This means that the affix would have to belong to both categories, which is incompatible with Lieber’s approach. This seems to indicate that the encoding of the alternation between abstract and concrete deverbal nouns of this kind cannot be carried out by the skeleton. One solution is to call this ‘lexicalization’ in the sense of the development of an idiosyncratic meaning. This is how Lieber characterizes lexicalization, as shown in (7). (7)

Both derived words and compounds may, however, over time, develop substantial and distinctive bodies as a function of their lexicalization. Lexicalization [. . .] proceeds on an item by item basis, thus allowing a wide

50  claire thomas range of meanings to exist in items formed by the same process of derivation and compounding. (Lieber 2004: 10–11)

For Lieber, lexicalization is a function of the body, which as noted above is the second aspect of the meaning of a lexical item. Lieber (2009) explains that the body is in turn made up of two separate components. The first consists of ‘universal semantic features that are not syntactically active in the language in question’ (Lieber 2009: 83). The second consists of encyclopaedic ‘assorted bits of information’ and varies between speakers. If we are to treat the problem of concrete result readings in deverbal nouns as lexicalization, we should be able to encode it here. However, the first component does not permit this, as it has already been established that the alternation is between the two values of [material], a feature that Lieber claims is encoded in the skeleton (in English at least), meaning that it cannot also be encoded in the body. The second component is also not suitable, as this is meant to encode the more idiosyncratic aspects of meaning, and the alternation seen here is found in many different cases. The problem posed by these nominalizations for Lieber’s account then is that they are neither the kind of systematic polysemy that her skeleton is able to encode, nor the more ‘idiosyncratic’ form of lexicalization that is attributed to the body. It would seem that phenomena that fall somewhere in the middle of Kastovsky’s scale, ‘where some relation to the rule by which it was formed remains present, and it is at least partly interpreted on the basis of this rule’ (1982: 205), cannot easily be encoded in Lieber’s framework. If the specialization of meaning associated with lexicalization in cases like this is not entirely idiosyncratic, then how should it be accounted for? One solution lies in what Brinton and Traugott (2005) characterize as a synchronic view of lexicalization, which differs from the synchronic perspective discussed by Kastovsky (1982). They treat this as unrelated to the integrated view of lexicalization that they build up, but I will argue that it should not be disregarded for two reasons. The first comes from a practical standpoint. Theories of lexical semantics such as Jackendoff’s theory of Conceptual Structure have been used increasingly in the characterization of the semantics of word formation, as will be discussed in the next section. Given the usefulness of this approach, it is worthwhile seeing what else it can contribute to our understanding of lexicalization. The second reason concerns the lexicon. Theories of lexical semantics can tell us a great deal about the nature of the lexicon, and given that lexicalization from a very general point of view involves incorporation into the lexicon, it is worth examining the insights contributed by the theory. The following section will focus on Jackendoff’s view of lexicalization and examine how it might inform the perspective from Generative Morphology.

lexicalization  51 2  LEXICALIZATION IN THE PARALLEL ARCHITECTURE

Jackendoff’s theory of Conceptual Structure has been used by several different theorists as a basis for investigating the semantics of word formation. Jackendoff himself employed the framework to characterize English N+N compounds (Jackendoff 2009). While this has limited applications to the rest of morphology if we assume with Jackendoff that compounding differs from other morphology in many respects (2009: 114), it nevertheless demonstrates how the framework can be extended to cover it, which is what others have done. Plag (1998), for example, uses Conceptual Structure to characterize the semantics of -ize derivation. Still others, in particular Lieber (2004), have used Jackendoff’s framework along with other theories of decompositional semantics as a starting point from which to develop their own theories. In the current context, the clear compatibility of the framework with Generative Morphology leads to the question of how it might be relevant to the discussion of lexicalization. There is very little overt discussion of the process within Jackendoff’s work, but an investigation of the ­assumptions that underlie it allows the elaboration of a picture of lexicalization within the Parallel Architecture. This reveals that there are two strands relating to lexicalization, one of which corresponds closely to the diachronic view of lexicalization within Generative Morphology, but gives a somewhat more complete picture. The other adds a new dimension to the discussion by focusing on an area that is not normally dealt with in Generative Morphology as part of the phenomenon of lexicalization: the perspective that Brinton and Traugott (2005) identify as synchronic. In order to investigate these two strands, it is necessary first to take a step back from conceptual structure and examine Jackendoff’s view of language as a whole and the nature of the lexicon. Figure 3.1 illustrates the Parallel Architecture, a tripartite system consisting of three independent generative systems which are linked by interface rules: Phonological Structure, Syntactic Structure and Conceptual Structure. Within this framework, a lexical item should be viewed as a linkage of elements of Conceptual Structure, Syntactic Structure and Phonological Structure which is stored in the long-­term memory (Jackendoff 2002, 2009, 2010). As Jackendoff explains, ‘each lexical entry can be thought of as a small-­scale interface rule’ (2010: 15), meaning that the lexicon itself is made up of a collection of interface rules. The example in (8) shows how a typical lexical item can be broken down into pieces of ­phonology, syntax and semantics, and how these elements are linked.

52  claire thomas Phonological formation rules

Syntactic formation rules

Conceptual formation rules

Phonological structures

Syntactic structures

Conceptual structures

Interfaces to hearing and vocalization

PS-SS interface rules

SS-CS interface rules

Interfaces to perception and action

PS-CS interface rules

Figure 3.1  Parallel Architecture (Jackendoff 2002: 125, by permission of Oxford University Press)

(8)

Wdi N

-plural

k a t

Thing CAT i

i

From this arises the question of how far we can extend this picture of a typical lexical item. Jackendoff’s view of the lexicon is a broad one, and the status of ‘lexical item’ is not confined to words. Rather ‘words, idioms, rules of grammar and regular affixes are all stated in a common format, namely as pieces of stored structure’ (2010: 19). Particularly important for the purpose here is the status of affixes, as this allows us to encode an affix in exactly the same way as a word. Jackendoff (2009: 118) gives the following as his analysis of -er. (9) a. V1-er2 = PERSON2α; [F1, (α, . . .)] b. V1-er2 = OBJECT2α; [F1, (INDEF, . . . WITH α)]

(agentive -­er) (instrument -­er)

(9) shows the formalism used in Jackendoff (2009), where = is now used to show the interface between syntax and semantics and F stands for ‘a variable function of some unspecified number of variables’ (2009: 118) The two different structures indicate the two different meanings that the suffix -er can contribute. Note, however, that this does not show a link between these two different meanings, a point that will be important later on. Turning back to the idea of each lexical item comprising several linked structures, this is where we can begin to talk about lexicalization in one

lexicalization  53 of its guises. Suppose we take a word and an affix and combine them to make a new word. When this word is stored permanently in the lexicon, it is possible to speak of it as having been lexicalized. The view thus far is identical to that within Generative Morphology. What Jackendoff’s framework allows us to do is be more specific about what this actually means. Lexicalization here refers to the process by which a long-­term memory linkage between the phonology, semantics and syntax of the newly derived word is formed. This, along with the associated meaning change, is the process Jackendoff refers to when he discusses the principles for forming new compounds and claims that ‘[l]exicalized compounds are for the most part specialized instantiations of these principles’ (2009: 114). In this way, one view of lexicalization in the Parallel Architecture gives a more detailed description of the process described in Generative Morphology. However, this is not the whole story: the framework of the Parallel Architecture and in particular Conceptual Structure adds a further perspective to the discussion of lexicalization. To see this, it is n ­ ecessary to focus first on Conceptual Structure as independent of language. Conceptual Structure is universal and language-­independent; where d ­ ifferences in languages occur this can be attributed to ‘different strategies in how they typically bundle up conceptual elements into lexical items’ (Jackendoff 2010: 24), or in other words how they lexicalize them. An oft cited example of these cross-­linguistic differences is that discussed by Talmy (1985). This is the tendency displayed in Romance languages to lexicalize a path and motion together, in contrast to English where there is a tendency to lexicalize manner and motion together, as can be seen in the way that the conceptual structure in (10) is expressed. GO ([ThingBOY], [PathTO [PlaceIN [ThingHOUSE]]])

(10)

Event

[BY [MOVE ([ThingBOY])]]

(10) shows a universal Conceptual Structure, where the top line shows that a Thing traversed a Path into a Place and the second shows the manner of motion. (11) shows how (10) is lexicalized differently in English and French. (11) a. The boy runs into the house. b. Le garçon entre dans la maison en courant. ‘The boy enters the house running.’

54  claire thomas In (11a) the motion and the manner of motion, i.e. GO and BY + MOVE, are lexicalized by the verb run, while in (11b) the motion, i.e. GO + TO, is lexicalized by entre and the manner of motion, i.e. BY + MOVE, by en courant. Jackendoff (2010: 24) also discusses the fact that while some languages require certain elements of Conceptual Structure to be lexicalized, others do not. Jackendoff calls these ‘patterns of lexicalization’ (2002: 292), and they demonstrate an earlier stage in the lexicalization process: which elements of Conceptual Structure are selected to become a part of the long-­ term memory linkage that makes up a lexical item. Again, Jackendoff’s framework allows this to be extended to cover morphology. It makes it possible to explore which elements of Conceptual Structure are expressed by which affixes. For example, Lieber (2004) identifies the various elements of meaning lexicalized by English affixes, and shows that some are not expressed by affixes at all but rather by other types of word formation such as conversion. If elements of Conceptual Structure are not lexicalized in this sense, i.e. ‘bundled up’ by a particular affix, they can never be lexicalized in the other sense, i.e. stored permanently in the lexicon as part of the tripartite structure of that particular lexical item. To sum up so far, three closely related strands in the conceptualization of lexicalization have been identified in Jackendoff’s framework and Generative Morphology. Firstly, lexicalization is the selection of elements of CS expressed by a lexical item. Secondly, the term can be used to refer to the permanent storage of these elements as part of a small-­scale interface rule between Conceptual Structure, Syntactic Structure and Phonological Structure (a lexical item). Finally, lexicalization can refer to the specialization in meaning that often occurs when this permanent storage takes place. However, it could be argued that there is still a missing link. Taken together, Generative Morphology and the Parallel Architecture undoubtedly build up a fairly comprehensive picture of lexicalization, but they do not really account for the link between meanings of a lexicalized item. This was illustrated by (1), partially repeated here as (12). (12) a. Political involvement in the appointment of judges would mean a more representative judiciary. b. This new appointment will complement and significantly strengthen the Partners’ highly regarded service. c. Indian resistance, sectionalism and racism forced some pauses in the process of westward settlement. d. The remains of an Iron Age settlement have been unearthed by archaeologists.

In Generative Morphology, any shifts in meaning are treated as idiosyncrasies, while Jackendoff’s framework requires these two meanings of -ment to

lexicalization  55 be treated as separate lexical entries, as -er was in (9), whether or not the result meaning is abstract as in (12b) or concrete as in (12d). Neither of these adequately captures the systematic nature of the way that alternations like these are lexicalized. To do this it is necessary to look elsewhere. 3  PUSTEJOVSKY’S GENERATIVE LEXICON

The problem we are facing at this point concerns the question of how to represent the relationship between the compositional meaning and the lexicalized meaning of a derived word which essentially coexist. Jackendoff’s (2009) theory allows the description of the semantics of a derived word, but is not ideally designed to account for the more flexible picture of meaning that emerges. (13) illustrates a regular alternation between two different senses of a derived word. (13) a. The settlement of the first immigrants took place in the 1600s. b. There was a large settlement on top of the hill.

(13a) uses the derived noun settlement in its compositional sense, meaning ‘act of settling’, while in (13b) it refers to ‘result of settling’, further complicated (at least for Lieber’s framework) by the fact that the result meaning is concrete. It is important to note that the existence of the lexicalized meaning does not preclude the continued use of the compositional meaning. Obvious though this point may seem, it is crucial: both meanings must be available in the lexicon, and there is clearly a relationship between them. How should this relationship be accounted for? What we are dealing with here is a case of polysemy. Polysemy has been discussed in relation to word-­formation before, as in the case of Lieber’s exploration of what she calls the ‘polysemy question’ (2004: 2). However, Lieber (2004) dealt with the polysemy of certain affixes, and the question here concerns the polysemy of the derivation itself. (14) is an example of the process-­result alternation which is common across many deverbal nominalizations independent of the affix; another example is given in (14). (14) a. The construction of the Taj Mahal was entrusted to a board of architects under imperial supervision. b. The Millennium Dome is a huge construction being built on derelict land.

It is not appropriate to treat these alternations as separate lexical entries because of the link between the meanings: The process referred to in (14a) is what yields the result referred to in (14b). A framework is needed

56  claire thomas therefore that can account for the polysemy demonstrated here. This is one of the problems that Pustejovsky (1995a) takes as his starting point for his account of the lexicon, so this is where I turn to complete this exploration of lexicalization. The alternation illustrated above is a case of what Pustejovsky calls logical polysemy, ‘where there is no change in lexical category, and the multiple senses of the word have overlapping, dependent, or shared meanings’ (1995: 28). Traditionally, in cases like this, each of the different senses would have been listed as an individual entry in the lexicon, as in (15). (15) Settlement1: act of colonising an area Settlement2: place where settlers live

Pustejovsky calls a lexicon which takes this approach a Sense Enumerative Lexicon (SEL) and identifies several problems with it, the most relevant here being that word definitions are not atomic and distinct, but rather overlap and refer to one another. In (13a) settlement conveys a process; in (13b) it conveys a concrete result. An SEL would require these different senses to be encoded as distinct lexical entries, just like Jackendoff’s entries for -er in (9). This means that the systematic relationship between these two senses cannot be expressed. While one conveys a process and the other a result, both meanings are intrinsically related to the meaning of the verb settle and to list them as distinct senses is to miss this relationship. Pustejovsky’s solution to this problem as well as to several others concerning SELs is to propose an entirely different system, where each lexical entry has four levels of representation. These are as follows: • Event Structure: definition of the event type of a lexical item (STATE, PROCESS, TRANSITION). • Argument Structure: specification of the number and type of logical arguments and how they are realised syntactically. • Qualia Structure: modes of explanation, composed of FORMAL, CONSTITUTIVE, TELIC and AGENTIVE roles. • Lexical Inheritance Structure: identification of how a lexical s­ tructure is related to other structures. The first three of these can be used to build up a semantic representation of the lexical item. Figure 3.2 shows the semantic representation of settlement. Each of the levels in Figure 3.2 plays an integral part in the meaning of the word. The Qualia Structure defines the central meaning, which is then constrained by the Event Structure and Argument Structure. The representation in Figure 3.2 gives us the following information. The

lexicalization  57 settlement EVENTSTR =

E1 = process E2 = result RESTR = prefixed verbal base (telic) > suffixed noun (atelic).

Generally speaking, we could claim that the function of the preverbs in DNs is quite different from the function they have in verbs. Indeed derivation rules modify the relationship between preverb and verbal base. Furthermore another fact should be considered even more important: when the preverbed verbal stem is selected for the formation of the DN, what is selected is the whole lexical entry in which the semantic value of the preverb is more or less incorporated into the semantics of the verb (see Pompei 2010 for such an idea of incorporation of the preverb). Therefore it cannot be an aspectual matter, but should rather be analysed as a merely lexical one, i.e. in ἀνάβασις [aná-­basis] ‘going up’ the preverb does not have an aspectual value but merely plays a role in the meaning of the lexical item which, in turn, the word is built on. However the problem should be more thoroughly investigated. Let us now have a look at (5).

206  germana olga civilleri ῥοχ-­ μός roch-­ mós slide def.proc.m:nom.sg. ‘landslide’ (5)



The suffix -­μό(ς) [-­mó(s)] has a process meaning too, but in the sense of Simone (2003) probably encodes a more definite processuality than -­si(s), i.e. an event concluded in time (see Benveniste [1948] 1975). This means that -­mós nominals are not only [+ durative], but also [+ telic]. In fact, Simone (2003) – borrowing terminology from the Arabic grammarians – distinguishes between indefinite process nouns illustrated in (6a), definite process nouns (6b) and nouns of once (6c). (6) a. distruzione ‘destruction’ b. nuotata (Italian) ‘swim’ c. sorso ‘sip’

il nuotare5 (Italian) ‘(the) swimming’

bracciata (Italian) ‘stroke’

This distinction depends on the grade of definiteness of the described event. The type of noun illustrated in (6a) denotes an event unless there is reference to its conclusion, the type in (6b) refers to an event represented as definite in time, and in (6c) the event is not only definite in time but also denotes a single (reiterable) act. This sequence also reflects what Sasse (2001) and others call a verbiness/nouniness rank. Nouns such as (6a) are indeed more verbal, whereas (6b) and (6c) are increasingly nearer to the prototypical noun side (see also section 5 below). Hence, in line with the description of the feature of the suffixes -­sis and -­mós above, we will consider -­sis nominals as indefinite process nouns and -­mós nominals as definite process nouns or, in some cases – e.g. ὑλαγμός [hylagmós] ‘barking’ in (14) below – even nouns of once. In other cases, represented on the right-­hand side of the continuum in Figure 11.1, the suffix is not able to provide the lexeme with a clear semantic value, since it only marks the category transposition V > N. A noun of this type could be (7). δύνᾰ-­ μις dýna-­ mis to be able f.:nom.sg. ‘power’. (7)



lexicalization in ancient greek deverbal nouns  207 I do not mean that such suffixes as those in (7) do not have any semantic value at all, but synchronically their semantics is no longer productive. Furthermore, the lower level of productivity of these suffixes (both in the quantitative sense of frequency and in the qualitative sense of regular use) prevents us from referring to them as grammaticalized suffixes, because normally the trigger of a grammaticalization process is just the frequency of the element, which undergoes a semantic bleaching and is generalized to new contexts in a regular way, becoming grammatical. As far as apophony is concerned, it represents the other productive strategy which builds nouns from verbal bases. It is the alternation of the stem vowel involving normal, zero and o-­grades. For example, the DN in (8) is formed without any specific suffix, only by displaying the stem λεγ-­ [leg-­] at the o-­grade. λόγ-­ oς lóg-­ os say m:nom.sg. ‘word, speech’ (8)

Indeed, the suffix -­os is an inflectional marker, not a derivational suffix. On the basis of the iconicity principle, we should expect apophony to have limited semantic potential. However, some elements lead us to suppose that apophonic alternations (at least the o-­ grade) have some semantic function too. Due to the specific thematic constraints of this chapter this matter cannot be dealt with in more detail here.6 In fact, since the aim of the present chapter is to show how the compositional meaning of the DNs can be made opaque through lexicalization processes, it is more useful to focus on those examples in which the semantic value of the derivation rules is more evident. Therefore only nouns which show ­semantically full suffixes will be taken into account here. 2  COMPOSITIONAL MEANING AND LEXICALIZATION

When other limiting factors do not occur, the meaning of the derived noun normally results from the meaning of the base plus the derivational rule7 (Kuryłowicz 1956) in a compositional way. For example, the nouns ἀνάβασις [anábasis] and ῥοχμός [rochmós] have an entirely compositional meaning, as shown in (3) and (5). However, there are many cases in which the core rule normally associated with the suffix is not productive and the word’s compositional meaning is lost. First of all, the semantics can change depending on the phrasal context,8 as in the English example in (9) taken

208  germana olga civilleri from Aronoff and Fudeman (2005: 130), where two alternative readings (as a place or as people) are possible. (9)

a. The president and his family live in the White House. b. The White House announced yesterday that the peace talks will continue.

Secondly, there are cases of polysemy. Indeed, through metaphoric and metonymic shifts (see Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Lakoff 1987; Taylor 1995; Lehrer 2002, 2003), lexemes – and single suffixes too (see Lehrer 2002, 2003) – can develop a new meaning which is connected to the o­ riginal one. Finally, many words are lexicalized, i.e. come into the lexicon, as whole units. The focus of this chapter will be on the so-­called lexicalized words, since I will be analysing their relationship with polysemy. The term lexicalization has at least two senses in which it should be understood. Firstly, lexical is opposed to grammatical, i.e. what is lexical is optional, irregular and holistic, whereas what is grammatical is obligatory, regular and analytical (see Jakobson 1959; Lehmann 2002, 2004;9 Thomas, this volume). Alternatively, lexicalization means admission into the lexicon (see lexémisation in Fruyt 2000: 28). In general, nominalizations have a marginal role within the lexicon, because they do not need to be stored and can be produced and decoded on the basis of other lexical elements which are already in the lexicon and certain rules stored in the lexicon as well (Schwarze 2001). However, the DNs which undergo a lexicalization process are no longer analysable in such a way and must be stored as whole units. So this second meaning of lexicalization includes the most common uses of the term in the linguistic literature according to Himmelmann (2004), namely univerbation (see Lehmann 2004: 14, ‘loss of internal structure, thus of compositional motivation’), idiomatization (as diachronic lexicalization, in other words, according to Naumann and Vogel 2000, the reverse of grammaticalization) and fossilization/ceasing of productivity (see Naumann and Vogel 2000: 930 – ‘word formations lose their transparency, regularity and compositionality up until the point where they have become partly or fully demotivated’; see also Aronoff and Fudeman 2005: 105). Relying on both senses, I will explain the lexicalized lexemes as cases of polysemy, in which metaphoric and metonymic shifts from the original compositional meaning play a role (see Taylor 1995 for such a use of polysemy). According to the traditional cognitive perspective, the foundation of which is the famous work by Lakoff and Johnson (1980),10 (conceptual) metaphor is a cognitive process stimulated by resemblance between concepts belonging to different conceptual domains while, on the other hand, metonymy is a cognitive process which relates contiguous concepts within the same conceptual domain.

lexicalization in ancient greek deverbal nouns  209 It seems to me that lexicalization works according to the same processes as those governing polysemy and, since its semantic result is the creation of a new meaning as well, lexicalization can easily be described as a special case of the larger phenomenon called polysemy. In fact, as in polysemy, the new meaning arises by metaphoric and metonymic shifts starting from the core meaning, which in the case of derived words is compositional. By analysing the data elicited from the Homeric Greek corpus (Iliad and Odyssey) I will show how the lexicalized nouns have been lexicalized to different degrees. In order to point out these facts more clearly, I will use those words that show semantically full suffixes, since they seem to be more productive and have a more evident core/original meaning from which the lexicalization process moves. Furthermore, before analysing the data, it seems relevant to me to underline that from the point of view of the verb– noun continuum it is going to be evident that the analysed lexicalized forms are also less verbal than non-­lexicalized ones. That is to say, they share a minor range of inherited verbal features such as event structure and argument structure, whereas they share some of the prototypical noun features such as lack of argument structure and pluralizability (see the difference between features of Result-­Nominals and Complex Event-­Nominals in Alexiadou and Grimshaw (2008: 3)). In other words, in the DNs lexicalization also corresponds with loss of verbal features. This fact can easily be interpreted as loss of transparency and compositionality too. 3 DATA

In this section, we will see a number of words, some of which have transparent, compositional semantics (section 3.1) while others undergo more or less complete lexicalization processes (section 3.2). 3.1  Non-­lexicalized DNs I will start with the forms in which the relationship between the semantics of the suffix and the semantics of the resulting DN is regular, i.e. compositional. In addition to (3) and (5) above, an entirely compositional meaning is shown in (10). (10) ἀμφί-­ βα-­ amphí-­ ba-­ around go ‘surrounding’

σις sis proc.f:nom.sg.

210  germana olga civilleri The meaning of the word is perfectly derivable from the meaning of the verbal base plus the meaning of the suffix, so the features of the verbal base itself are more likely to be preserved. Indeed, ἀμφίβασις [amphíbasis] preserves the event structure of the verbal base and exhibits argument structure encoding,11 e.g. a subjective genitive in (11). (11) ἀμφίβασιν . . . Τρώων (Il. 5.623) amphíbasin . . . Trōṓn surrounding:acc.sg Troian:gen.pl. ‘the surrounding by the Trojans’12

Another good example of an entirely compositional DN is (12). (12) λύ-­ σις lý-­ sis dissolve proc.f:nom.sg. ‘deliverance (from)’

The possibility of having an argument structure shows the high degree of verbiness of this noun. In (13), the argument is an objective genitive. (13) θανάτου λύσιν (Od. 9.421) thanátou lysin death:gen.sg. dissolution:acc.sg. ‘deliverance from the death’

However, the so-­called ablative value of the genitive is also likely, as Murray’s translation underlines. After all, the Greek genitive is the morphological case which covers most of the functions of the Indo-­European ablative (see, among others, Luraghi 1987). Therefore, the fact that the nouns in (10) and (12) have an argument structure is further evidence of their verbal nature and of their semantic compositionality. The presence of an objective (or ablative) genitive in (13) is even stronger evidence for this than the subjective genitive in (11). While a subjective genitive can often easily be read as a merely relational genitive (i.e. not an argument of the predicative noun, but a genitive which also pure nouns may exhibit), this ambiguity does not arise for the objective genitive.13 Let us now have a look at some examples of compositional nouns ending in suffixes other than -sis. (14) ὑλαγ-­ μός hylag-­ mós bark def.proc.m:nom.sg. ‘barking’14

lexicalization in ancient greek deverbal nouns  211 In (14) we find again the suffix -­mós which bundles the action of barking and makes it definite in time (in the sense above, see (5) in section 1). In particular this noun encodes a so-­called noun of once (Simone 2003; see section 1), because it denotes a single event which can be repeated. (15) ὀρχησ-­ τύς orches-­ týs dance abstr.proc.f.:nom.sg. ‘art of dancing’

In (15) the suffix -­τύς [-­týs], carrying a more abstract meaning than -­sis, according to Benveniste ([1948] 1975: 74) encodes ‘la disposition et l’aptitude, l’exercice de la notion comme vocation et capacité de celui qui l’accomplit, en un mot la « destination » subjective et en général la « fonction » au sens propre, l’exercice de la notion étant considéré comme la « fonction » de celui qui la pratique.’15 However, the degree of productivity of such forms is lower than that of the forms with -sis and -mós. In the Homeric corpus, I found eighteen -týs types with a total token frequency less than fifty, whereas there are thirty-­eight -­sis types and twenty-­seven (plus seven non-­deverbal) -­mós types, each of which has a total token frequency numbering in the hundreds. Besides, it must be said that the class of -týs action nominals, which is a very early category in AG, is recessive in the later stages of the language (see Meillet and Vendryes 1966: 370; Schwyzer 1953: 506). Furthermore, in the corpus that I analysed in Civilleri (2012)16 this category is totally lacking. Another typical example of this class of DNs is (16), where the value of the suffix is still clear. (16) τᾰνυσ-­ τύς tanys-­ týs draw abstr.proc.f.:nom.sg. ‘drawing (the bow)’

The fact that the -­týs and -­mós nominals I found in Homer do not have arguments also underlines their lower degree of verbiness compared to the -­sis nominals, since I consider argument structure to be a prototypical verbal feature depending on the event structure of the predicate, which implies participants.

212  germana olga civilleri 3.2  Lexicalized DNs: an internal gradation The cases presented in section 3.1 are prototypical examples of the most productive DNs, in which the semantic relationship between suffix and verbal base is transparent. Showing this is important in order to clarify the various possible stages of lexicalization that this kind of DN can display starting from the core meaning of the derivation rule. A first stage on the path towards lexicalization is represented in (17). (17) δεσ-­ μός des-­ mós bind def.proc.m:nom.sg. ‘imprisonment, bond, chain’

In fact, sometimes such a noun has the compositional sense of ‘imprisonment’ shown by (18) and (19). The translation ‘bonds’, as a collective, in both cases is equivalent to ‘imprisonment’ in its meaning (see Liddell and Scott [1843] 1992). (18) ἀλλά σφωε δόλος καὶ allá sphōe dólos kaì but pron:3pl.acc. snare:nom.sg.

δεσμὸς desmòs and imprisonment:nom.sg.

ἐρύξει (Od. 8.317) erýxei hold.fut:3sg. ‘but the snare and the bonds shall hold them . . .’ (19) χαλεπὸς chalepòs grievous:nom.sg.

δέ ἑ δεσμὸς dé he desmòs ptcl. pron:3sg.acc. imprisonment:nom.sg.

ἐδάμνα (Il. 5.391) edámna force.impf:3sg. ‘his grievous bonds were overpowering him’

On the other hand the noun is widely used in the lexicalized sense of ‘bond’ as shown by the sentences in (20) and (21). (20) περὶ χερσὶ δὲ δεσμὸν ἴηλα χρύσεον perì chersì dè desmòn iēla chrýseon about hand:dat.pl. ptcl. bond:acc.sg. cast.aor:3sg. golden:acc.sg.

lexicalization in ancient greek deverbal nouns  213 ἄρρηκτον (Il. 15.19) árrēkton unbroken.Vadj. ‘and about thy wrists cast a band of gold that might not be broken’. (21) ἀμφὶ δὲ δεσμοὶ τεχνήεντες ἔχυντο amphì dè desmoì technḗentes échunto about ptcl. bond:nom.pl. cunning.part.pres:nom.pl. cling.aor:3sg. πολύφρονος Ἡφαίστοιο (Od. 8.296) polýphronos Hephaístoio wise:gen.sg. Hephaestus:gen.sg. ‘and about them clung the cunning bonds of the wise Hephaestus’

The lexicalized meaning of the noun in the latter two examples is clearly underlined in (20) by the apposition χρύσεον [chrýseon] ‘golden’ specifying its concrete, physical sense, and in (21) by its being plural. Therefore in (20) and (21) the noun has a merely referential value, i.e. its semantic-­ pragmatic property is reference (Croft ([1990] 2003: 184ff.). The relationship between the compositional meaning and the lexicalized concrete one is intuitively clear: it is a metaphorical relationship, because the bond can be interpreted as a metaphor of the imprisonment by a shift from the abstract17 domain to the concrete domain. But it can also be interpreted as a metonymic relationship. Within the domain imprisonment, the bond represents a contiguous concept to the process of imprisoning since it is an imprisoning instrument. This case shows that sometimes it is not easy to identify whether we are dealing with a metaphor or with metonymy, but arguably, making this distinction clear is not central to our discussion. What is more important in the example above is that the shift from one sense to the other is very easy and motivated. More generally, we can also describe such a shift, as well as the other semantic shifts we will analyse, by using the idea of a lexical cycle, well described by Simone (2000). Namely, as far as δεσμός [desmós] is concerned, the lexical cycle is ‘process > object’. The notion of a cycle evokes the possibility for the process to go back to the original function (for further details see Simone 2000). Furthermore in most of the occurrences of the noun δεσμός [desmós] the sense of the lexeme is the second (concrete) one. This means that the concrete sense of the word, which is not compositional, is lexicalized as a new unit at least partially independent from the abstract one. Hence the same word has two different meanings which are related to each other, i.e. it is a polysemous word. This new lexeme is nearer to prototypical nouns, i.e. nouns with a purely referential function (I call them fully referential nouns).18

214  germana olga civilleri The degree of lexicalization is higher when the existing occurrences never show the compositional meaning, as with (22). (22) χύ-­ σις chý-­ sis pour proc.f:nom.sg. ‘pile’

In fact, the meaning expected on the basis of the core rule ‘V+ -­sis = process of V’, i.e. ‘process of pouring’, does not exist in the Homeric corpus (nor in later stages of the language). The meaning ‘pile’ can be interpreted as coming from a metonymic shift from the ‘process itself of pouring’ to ‘what is poured’ (or, in other words, the result of the process itself). But this is not the last stage of the lexicalization scale, because χύσις [chýsis] often has an argument structure which, in Homer, is mostly represented by the genitive plural φύλλων [phýllōn] ‘of leaves’ as in (23). (23) φύλλων γὰρ phýllōn gàr leaf:gen.pl. indeed

ἔην χύσις éēn chýsis be.impf:3sg. pile:nom.sg.

ἤλιθα ḗlitha very much

πολλή (Od. 5.483) pollḗ much ‘for fallen leaves (litt. ‘pile of leaves’) were there in plenty’ (24) χύσιν δ’ ἐπεχεύατο φύλλων (Od. 5.487) chýsin d’ epecheýato phýllōn pile:acc.sg. ptcl. heap up.impf:3sg.med. leaf:gen.pl. ‘(he) heaped over him the fallen leaves’

According to Benveniste ([1948] 1975), in the Homeric examples above φύλλων [phýllōn] is an objective genitive, but Bruno (2000) argues that this interpretation is impossible since the notion of object is not compatible with the process type which is described by the DN. On the contrary, such a genitive should have a value comparable with the subject of a medial predicate, with which it shares some features, e.g. lack of control of the event, affectedness and inagentivity. Actually, if the word χύσις [chýsis], on which the genitive φύλλων [phýllōn] syntactically depends, is lexicalized (hence nearer to fully referential nouns), speaking about real arguments in reference to φύλλων [phýllōn] makes no sense. Prototypical nouns, in fact, having no event structure, cannot take arguments because arguments are participants in the event described by predicative elements

lexicalization in ancient greek deverbal nouns  215 (verbs, event nominals, etc. . . .). So without an event, arguments stricto sensu cannot exist. However, χύσις [chýsis] is not a pure, non-­constructed noun (a mot non construit in Corbin’s 1987 terms). It derives from a synchronically attested verbal base and probably preserves at least part of its predicative force. So interpreting the genitives in (23) and (24) as purely relational is plausible, but we cannot exclude a real argument reading (be it objective or subjective-­medial) inherited from the verbal base with which a relationship (though not completely clear from a semantic point of view) still exists. So this kind of noun is less verbal than (17), but more verbal than (25), which – as we are going to see – is nearer to a pure noun. (25) θυ-­ μός thy-­ mós toss def.proc.m:nom.sg. ‘soul, heart’

In (25), in fact, the relationship with the verbal stem θυ-­[thu-­] ‘toss, be restless’ is even more opaque, since θυμός [thumós] denotes what metaphorically tosses within the heart, so something that gives the human being their energy (there are many co-­occurrences with the word ψῡχή [psychḗ] ‘life, breath’), the soul, the spirit as the principle of life, feeling and thought, the mind, the temper, courage, sometimes anger, but also – in a concrete sense – the heart (note the occurrences with κραδίη [kradíē] ‘heart – in a physical sense’). If we move from the compositional (not attested) sense of ‘(definite) process of tossing’ (see section 1), i.e. something like ‘perturbed movement’, the abstract senses ‘soul, life, spirit, etc.’ come up through a sequence of metaphoric shifts from one conceptual domain to another. Firstly, breath can be interpreted as a sort of internal agitation implying a physical movement (from the domain natural phenomena to interior). Secondly, it is well-­known that the ancient Greek culture identifies life with breath, that is breath tosses within human beings giving them life. Thus we explain the chain ‘perturbed movement > breath > principle of life’. Moreover, life is a complex concept which comprises not only mere existence but also interior life including feeling and thoughts. Finally a metonymic shift from the ‘activity’ to the ‘location of the activity’ creates the concrete meaning of ‘heart’, which is where the activities just described take place. We can represent such relations by means of a structure where a core meaning exists and a series of related meanings arise from it, as in Figure  11.2. The star in front of ‘perturbed movement’ underlines that this sense is not attested. The circle including ‘life’ and ‘soul, spirit, etc.’ within the scheme underlines the fact that the meaning ‘heart’ comes from

216  germana olga civilleri

*perturbed movement

breath

life

courage soul, spirit mind temper anger

heart

Figure 11.2  Semantic chain of θυμός [thumós]

the whole of these meanings, the heart being the site of all those activities according to ancient Greek culture. As we can see, the relationship between the meaning ‘heart’ and the original one is not immediate, but it exists. The lexeme is completely lexicalized. At the last stage of lexicalization there are also lexemes like (26). (26) βω-­ bō-­ go ‘altar’

μός mós def.proc.m:nom.sg.

Here the lexicalized meaning comes up through a metonymic shift from the ‘(definite) process of going’ to a ‘place to which one goes’, an ‘altar’ (process > location). No trace of the compositional semantics exists at a synchronic level. Furthermore, whereas for every lexeme seen above it is clear from which stem it derives, in some words even the formal relation is quite hard to recognize both synchronically and diachronically. Let us have a look, for example, at the words in (27) and (28). (27) ποτα-­ pota-­ ‘river’

μός mós

(28) ὀφθαλ-­ ophthal-­ ‘eye’

μός mós



According to Chantraine ([1968–70] 1999), (27) is likely to be related to the stem πετ-­[pet-­] ‘fall’ (at the o-­grade), (28) to the form ὀφθῆναι [ophthḗnai] (aorist passive infinitive from the stem ὁπ-­[hop–] ‘see’). However, in both words there are also further formal elements which make the connection less transparent (-­a-­and -­al-­respectively). The link

lexicalization in ancient greek deverbal nouns  217 between (27) and (28) and their respective verbal bases is not only formally but also semantically unclear. If Chantraine’s etymology were right, we could reconstruct it by considering ‘river’ as ‘something which flows’ or ‘place where something flows’ (by metonymic shift from the process of flowing – akin to the concept of falling), and ‘eye’ as ‘something by which one sees’ (by metonymic shift from the process of seeing to the sight instrument). In these cases the likely more definite nature of the kind of process encoded by the suffix -­mós (section 1) may be the reason why these nouns are more easily lexicalized, often referring to places and instruments, i.e. inanimate participants in the event. Finally, Homer gives us only two examples of lexicalization of lexemes carrying the suffix -­týs, i.e. (29) and (30). (29) ἐδη-­



‘meat, food’

(30) κλει-­ klei-­ incline ‘slope’

τύς

edē-­ týs eat abstr.proc.f:nom.sg. τύς týs abstr.proc.f:nom.sg.

Both cases can be explained as metonymic shifts from the process to the object affected by the process taking place, which in the latter case is also the result of the process itself. In fact, the lexicalization status of the noun ἐδητύς [edētýs] is a little more complex, since the process of lexicalization is not complete; the coordination of this word with the noun πόσις [pósis] ‘drink, drinking’, which also undergoes a process of lexicalization, in the formulaic verse (31) in both poems may be taken as evidence for that. (31) αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ πόσιος autàr epeì pósios but when drink:gen.sg.

καὶ ἐδητύος kaì edētýos and food:gen.sg.

ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο (Il. 1.469; Od. 17.99, etc.) ex éron hénto out (of) desire:acc.sg. sendaor.med.:3pl. ‘But when they had put from them the desire for food and drink’

Murray’s translation in this case opts for the lexicalized meaning of both words, but apart from this translation it is still possible to maintain their

218  germana olga civilleri compositional meaning.19 On the other hand there are also occurrences in which the lexicalized meaning ‘meat, food’ is clearer, as in (36). (32) πλησάμενος δ’ ἄρα θυμὸν plēsámenos d’ ára thymòn fillpart.aor.:nom.sg. ptcl. then heart:acc.sg.

ἐδητύος edētýos meat:gen.sg.

ἠδὲ ποτῆτος (Od. 17.603) ēdè potḗtos. and drink:gen.sg. ‘But when he had satisfied his heart with meat and drink’

This dual disposition of the lexeme also characterizes the later stages of the language, although the lexicalized sense seems to be preferred. The gloss for the lemma ἐδητύς [edētýs] by the ancient grammarian Aelius Herodianus (Perì klíseōs onomátōn 3,2.762.35 σημαίνει δὲ τὴν βρῶσιν [sēmaínei dè tḕn brṓsin] ‘means tḕn brṓsin’) is not decisive. Neither is the gloss by the later grammarian Aesychius (Lexicon 465.1 τροφή, βρῶσις [trofé, brṓsis]).20 The grammarians in fact explain the word by using a synonym, βρῶσις [brṓsis], which is itself a semi-­lexicalized word, and τροφή [trofé], a word which means both ‘food’ and ‘nurture, education’. This means perhaps that ancient grammarians did not perceive the ­difference to be so considerable. The position of (30), only once attested in Homer in (33), is clearer. (33) ἐς es to

κλειτὺν ἀναβὰς Od. 5.470 kleitỳn anabàs slope:acc.sg. go uppart.aor:nom.sg. ‘(if I) climb up the slope’

Non-­Homeric occurrences, found by querying the digital corpus TLG, show that the lexicalized meaning gradually replaces the compositional one. Furthermore, the frequent plural forms of the noun seem to be strong evidence of this.21 Further evidence is provided again by Aelius Herodianus (Perì klíseōs onomátōn 3,2.535.20) who writes that κλειτύς, σημαίνει δὲ τὰ ἐξέχοντα μέρη τῶν ὀρῶν [kleitýs sēmaínei dè tà exéchonta mérē tōn orṓn] ‘kleitýs means the projecting parts of the mountains’. This case shows that sometimes the perspective of the ancient grammarians may be a helpful tool for understanding to which extent AG words were perceived by native speakers. Nevertheless, the analysis of the phrasal context is an important tool too, whose potential should not be underestimated. Although our analysis cannot be verified on the basis of native speakers’ intuitions, the phrasal context gives us a surprisingly rich source of information.

lexicalization in ancient greek deverbal nouns  219 4  LEXICALIZATION AND FREQUENCY

It seems to me that there is a link between lexicalization phenomena and frequency. The statistically more frequent deverbal Homeric nouns tend to show a less clear semantic relation with their verbal base, more easily losing their compositional semantics. Actually, the more common a lexeme is the more it undergoes semantic shifts determined by its use in a larger variety of contexts, so the high frequency of the lexeme is not just the result of the process of conventionalization, but it is also ‘a primary contributor to the process’ (Bybee 2003: 1; see also Schwarze 2001). I use the term conventionalization in a sense which includes – together with lexicalization – the concept of grammaticalization (see Himmelmann 2004: 38). In agreement with Lehmann (2002, 2004) and Himmelmann (2004), in fact, I do not consider grammaticalization and lexicalization as mirror processes in opposition to each other (see, among others, Lehmann 1989; Heine et al. 1991). On the contrary they have much more in common than meets the eye. The correlation between lexicalization and frequency is clear, for instance, in the case of (25), which is the most frequent among the suffixed DNs in Homer – being what moves the warrior to act and makes him think and have emotions and feelings. What is more, many studies on linguistic change confirm that irregularity (hence loss of compositional meaning as well) often concerns the most frequent items (see Bybee 1985, 2003). This behaviour is only one of the features that lexicalization shares with grammaticalization, both of them being processes of conventionalization (Himmelmann 2004). Thus both of them are processes arranging certain values: in the case of lexicalization the value is fixed in the lexicon, whereas in the case of grammaticalization the value is in the grammar. 5  CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Transparent forms

thymós

chýsis

kleitýs

desmós

edētýs

amphibias

In conclusion, we can represent the results set out in section 3 by means of the continuum in Figure 11.3 whose poles are the forms that show a

Lexicalized forms

Figure 11.3  Continuum between transparent and lexicalized forms

220  germana olga civilleri transparent relation between verbal semantics and derivation rule and the lexicalized forms for which this relation becomes opaque. We represent this opposition by means of a continuum because, as already seen, the various nouns may be more or less transparent and more or less lexicalized. Thus it seems that the nouns which more easily undergo lexicalization processes, among the nouns we analysed, are the -­mós nominals and perhaps the explanation for such a condition lies precisely in the more definite processuality encoded by the suffix -­mós (section 1). In fact, it is intuitively clear that finite, telic processes are more likely to be connected with the nouniness sphere. According to Cognitive Grammar a verb is conceptualized as an abstract region having a temporal profile, i.e. it consists of various stages in which a Trajector is profiled with respect to a Landmark. In contrast, the corresponding nominalization makes the predicate bounded, which is holistically perceived as a whole preserving within itself the inherited conceptual structure. In such a way, nominalizations lose their internal sequential scanning, so they are atemporal – the various facets of a situation being examined in a cumulative fashion (Langacker 1987b; see also Gaeta 2002: 104). This also corresponds to what Givón (1979, 2001) claims about nouns. According to him the most prominent feature of prototypical nouns is the so-­called time stability: The most time-­stable percepts, the ones that change slowly over time, the ones that are likely to be identical to themselves (in terms of properties), are lexicalized as nouns. The least time-­stable percepts, events and actions, which involve rapid changes in the universe, are lexicalized as verbs [. . .] (Givón 1979: 321–2) As for the reasons why some words get lexicalized, the tendency towards the lexicalization of DNs might be explained as a sort of attempt by language users to normalize such marked nominal forms by gradually removing the inherited prototypical verbal features and attributing prototypical nominal features. Indeed, these forms, though derived from verbal bases, in terms of syntactic categorization are first of all nouns. However, this is just a tendency by which the syntactic and semantic behaviour of those nouns is partially governed. Many other factors (frequency, syntagmatic relations, paradigmatic relations with related words, etc.) can stimulate or prevent lexicalization, making every case history different. Furthermore, to claim that lexicalized lexemes totally lose their compositional semantics on the basis of the Homeric corpus is an oversimplification. To some extent we should consider the possibility that a word which

lexicalization in ancient greek deverbal nouns  221 in a certain stage of the language is lexicalized as a whole unit can recover its compositional semantics in later stages. The notion of lexical cycle introduced in section 3.2 clearly implies such a possibility. In order to analyse such a topic in more depth, it would be important to enlarge the corpus with diachronically different data. Analysing the development of lexicalization throughout the history of a noun could provide us with a more exact view of the question. For each of the DNs placed on the lexicalization continuum it would be interesting to see how many occurrences are lexicalized and how many occurrences are compositional (if any) and above all to what extent such occurrences are spread diachronically. Even a rapid comparison with later AG data, analysed in Civilleri (2012), clearly shows noteworthy changes in the semantic values of the suffixes mentioned above and in their reciprocal relationships. For instance, the process value of the -­sis nominals is well fixed during the classic stage of AG thanks to the use of this suffix in the philosophers’ prose in opposition to the suffix -­ma (see Chantraine [1933] 1979: 284–5). On the other hand the suffix -týs is recessive. The productivity degree of the suffix -­mós seems to be reduced as well. Therefore, as far as this topic is concerned, a diachronic analysis seems to be the most compelling task for future research. ABBREVIATIONS

abstr.proc abstract process acc accusative aor aorist dat dative def.proc definite process f feminine gen genitive impf imperfect m masculine nom nominative part. pres present participle pl plural proc process ptcl particle sg singular Vadj verbal adjective 3 third person

222  germana olga civilleri NOTES

1. Strictly speaking, the term verbal has to be read as predicative. While acknowledging that the predicative function is not an exclusive property of the verb (sometimes other word classes can be predicative as well), in this chapter I will refer to predicative entities as verbal entities. (As far as the function of predication is concerned see Croft 1991 and Gross 1994.) 2. For further analysis of the specific semantic value of each of the suffixes in Figure 11.1 see Civilleri (2012). 3. Bracketed graphemes represent inflectional (as opposed to derivational) morphemes, with a purely grammatical function. They are not interesting for our purpose, so in the discussion of the data in section 3 I will use the derivational suffix including the inflectional suffix, i.e. -­sis, -­mós, etc. 4. In Civilleri (2012) I show that whatever the verbal base to which the suffix -­sis is added (continuative, resultative, transformative and – under certain conditions – stative as well), the resulting noun is normally a process noun, i.e. [+ durative], which does not encode telicity (at least as far as the nouns preserving compositional semantics are concerned). 5. This is a nominal infinitive, namely an infinitive nominalized by means of the definite article il. 6. On the basis of a relatively small group of words – set up with the most common and productive stems (see Civilleri 2009) – I hypothesize that in DNs the normal/zero grades keep the semantic value of the stem while the o-­grade modifies the semantic value of the stem. At the same time, the o-­grade – representing perfective/resultative actionality – may be a feature that points out proximity to the prototypical nouniness. For example, two different nouns derive from the durative stem λεγ-­[leg-­] ‘to say’: λέξις [léxis] (< leg-­sis) ‘discourse’ and λόγος [lóg-­ os] ‘word, discourse’. The former denotes the ‘discourse’ as a durative process, whereas the latter encodes a more definite processuality. In fact, λόγος [lógos] is the term used to refer to written discourses, for example the famous dialogues by Plato. 7. Talking about derivational rules instead of simply suffixation allows us to include a wider range of (morphological) phenomena, encompassing both affixation and apophony. 8. See Civilleri (2010, 2012) for examples taken from an AG (post-­ Homeric) corpus. 9. ‘Given an object of cognition of some complexity, the human mind has two ways of accessing it. The analytic approach consists in consider-

lexicalization in ancient greek deverbal nouns  223 ing each part of the object and the contribution that it makes to the assemblage by its nature and function, and thus to arrive at a mental representation of the whole by applying rules of composition to its parts. The holistic approach is to directly grasp the whole without consideration of the parts’ (Lehmann 2002: 2). 10. Before Lakoff and Johnson (1980) metaphor was considered a mere communicative tool of languages. In contrast, according to Lakoff and Johnson metaphor does not work only at a linguistic level but takes place at the conceptual level because it is a way of representing the world (see Evola 2008). 11. According to Grimshaw (1990) only nouns which have an event structure can also have argument structure. 12. All translations for the Iliad are from Murray (1924) and for the Odyssey from Murray (1919). 13. Examples of such ambiguity may easily be found not only in AG (e.g. Plato Symp. 218b2 τῆς φιλοσόφου μανίας [tēs filosófou manías] ‘philosopher’s interior agitation’, Epictetus Ench. 13 τὴν προαίρεσιν τὴν σεαυτοῦ [tēn proaíresin tēn seautoù] ‘your moral choice’) but also in other languages which encode arguments of DNs by genitive(-­like) expressions, because it is the notion of subjective genitive itself that has a more uncertain status (since it is harder to be distinguished from a merely relational genitive than objective genitive). 14. In ὑλαγμός [hylagmós], formed on the basis of ὑλα-­ [hyla-­], -­g-­ is a linking morpheme, like -­s-­in (15), (16) and (17) below. The verb derived from the same base is indeed [hyláō] ὑλάω. Considering these elements as linking morphemes allows us to keep the uniformity of the suffix. 15. ‘Disposition and aptitude, practice of the notion as vocation and ability of the person accomplishing it, in short the subjective destination and in general the function in the proper sense – the practice of the notion being considered as the function of the person’ (my translation, COG). 16. This corpus consists of three philosophical texts: the Symposium by Plato, the De prisca medicina by Hippocrates and the Encheiridion by Epictetus. 17. The conceptual domains will be emphasized by small capitals. 18. As far as the prototypical referential function of nouns (vs. predicative function of verbs) is concerned, see among others Croft ([1990] 2003: 184ff.). 19. For example, the Italian translation by Privitera (1989) ‘quando poi si furono tolta la voglia di bere e di mangiare’ (‘after they satisfied the desire of drinking and eating’) chooses to underline the compositional sense of the DNs.

224  germana olga civilleri 20. Sometimes it is very useful to compare semantic descriptions of words by ancient grammarians because they may provide helpful information about how the AG speakers did perceive the meaning of words. 21. One of the features of the event nominals is that in general they are not pluralizable (see Table 1 in Alexiadou and Grimshaw 2008: 3).

chapter 12

How many factors influence the meaning of denominal and deadjectival verbs? The case of Modern Greek verbs in -­(ι)άζω

The meaning of denominal and deadjectival verbs

Angeliki Efthymiou

T

he aim of this chapter is to examine the factors involved in Modern Greek verb forming processes. My evidence comes from the Modern Greek causative suffix -(ι)άζω [(i)ázo], which usually carries an evaluative connotation. After a presentation of the suffix in section 1, section 2 discusses various issues concerning the allomorphic variation of the suffix. Section 3 describes the principal meanings of -(ι)άζω verbs. Section 4 deals with the role of the meaning of the base in the creation of the meaning. Section 5 discusses the relation between the phonetic shape of the suffix and its evaluative meaning. In section 6, I discuss how the role of the word formation process and the rivalry with other suffixes influences the meaning and the productivity of -(ι)άζω. The last section briefly ­summarizes the main findings of the article.

1 INTRODUCTION

The suffix -(ι)άζω usually attaches to nominal and adjectival [−learned] bases and derives [−learned] verbs which express a whole range of concepts:1 causative/resultative ‘cause to become x’ (e.g. κομματιάζω [komatjázo], ‘to break/tear into pieces’), ornative ‘provide with x’ (e.g. ντροπιάζω [dropjázo], ‘to disgrace’), locative ‘put into x’ (e.g. τσουβαλιάζω [tsuvaljázo], ‘to bundle into a sack’), instrumental ‘use x’ (e.g. νυχιάζω [nixjázo], ‘to scratch with one’s nails’), inchoative ‘be provided with many and usually unwanted x’ (e.g. ρυτιδιάζω [ritidjázo], ‘to wrinkle, become wizened’) (see Efthymiou 2011a). Given that the most robust semantic pattern of -(ι)άζω derivatives is the

226  angeliki efthymiou inchoative meaning ‘be provided with many and usually unwanted endogenous entities’ (see Efthymiou 2011a), I address the following four questions: 1. What is the role of the meaning of the base? Is the evaluative (or cumulative) meaning assigned by the base of the derivative or by the suffix? For example, in the case of ρυτιδιάζω [ritidjázo] (‘to wrinkle, become wizened’) the negative meaning is already expressed in the base noun ρυτίδα [ritída] (‘wrinkle’). 2. What is the role of the word formation process in which -(ι)άζω participates in the creation of the meaning? How can we distinguish the meaning of these verbs from the meaning of other Modern Greek verb forming suffixes (see λασπώνω [laspóno], ‘to cover with mud’ vs. λασπιάζω [laspjázo], ‘to become mash’, both from λάσπη [láspi], ‘mud’)? How can we distinguish the evaluative connotation of -(ι)άζω verbs from their underlying causative/resultative semantic structure? 3. Is the phonetic shape of the suffix related to its evaluative and cumulative meaning? Is it a coincidence that the sequence [glide (j) +á] is found also in other Modern Greek suffixes like -ιά [iá] and -ιάρης [iáris], which form [−learned] derivatives that express pejorative or collective meanings (e.g. κοκαλιάρης [kokaljáris], ‘skinny person’, ζητιανιά [zitjanjá], ‘beggarhood, typical behaviour of a beggar’) (see Anastassiadis-­ Symeonidis 1997; Efthymiou 1999)? 4. Does the evaluative/expressive meaning of the suffix and the [−learned] register of its derivatives affect its productivity? Does the rivalry with other suffixes influence the meaning or the productivity of -(ι)άζω (see, for example, ρυτιδιάζω [ritidjázo], ‘to wrinkle’ (intransitive) [−learned] vs. ρυτιδώνω [ritidóno] ‘to wrinkle’ (transitive and intransitive) [+/− learned])? How does this correlate with the fact that -(ι)άζω seems to be the prevailing default verb forming suffix in Modern Greek for the interpretation ‘become provided with many unwanted x’ in Modern Greek (see Efthymiou 2011a)? Elaborating on these questions I show that the computation of the meaning of a word formation process is rather complex, since it is influenced by various factors. In order to give answers to the questions raised above, I take as a starting point the analysis of 313 verbs in Efthymiou (2011a). My data were extracted from Anastassiadis-­Symeonidis (2002) Reverse Dictionary of Modern Greek (RDMG). From the resulting list of 2,260 verbs the following forms were removed: (a) those that did not feature the suffix -(ι)άζω and (b) those that were derived by prefixation, composition or parasynthesis. For the analysis of the data, I used the theory of lexical con-

the meaning of denominal and deadjectival verbs  227 ceptual semantics developed by Jackendoff (1983, 1990) and the semantic ­categories established by Plag (1999). 2 -­( ι)άζω: ONE OR TWO SUFFIXES? ETYMOLOGY AND ALLOMORPHY

Before analysing the semantic behaviour of the -(ι)άζω verbs, let me first present the etymology and form of the suffix. In Modern Greek grammars and dictionaries the relationship of -άζω to -ιάζω has traditionally been regarded as unclear. In Triandafyllidis’s Grammar (1941) and Dictionary (INS 1998), -­ιάζω and -άζω appear in allomorphic variation. According to INS (1998), the Modern Greek suffix -(ι)άζω developed from the Ancient Greek suffixes -άζω/-ιάζω and -ιϖ. In most cases -ιάζω derived from reanalysis, i.e. from the attachment of the suffix -άζω to stems ending in -ι. Moreover, INS has two different homonymous lemmas, one for the form [ázo/jázo], and another for the learned variant [ázo/iázo] (see also section 2.2 for a discussion of the term learned). In the first lemma, the suffix follows the so-­called glide formation (or synizesis) rule2 (i.e. [ia] is pronounced as one syllable, and the consonant of the base or [i] is palatalized: e.g. ρυτιδιάζω [ritidjázo], from ρυτίδα [ritída], τεμπελιάζω [tebeljázo] ‘to laze’, from τεμπέλης [tebélis] ‘lazy’), whereas in the second lemma [ia] is pronounced as two syllables (e.g. διπλασιάζω [diplasiázo], ‘to double’). Before I accept any of these positions, I will examine some data about the phonological ­properties of -άζω and -ιάζω verbs and their distribution in my corpus. 2.1  Phonological remarks on -άζω and -ιάζω forms The form -άζω usually appears with certain inflection classes as illustrated in (1). (1) a. γιορτάζω [jortázo] ‘to celebrate’ b. ονομάζω [onomázo] ‘to denominate’ c. ωριμάζω [orimázo] ‘to mature’

γιορτ(ή) [jortí] ‘celebration, saint’s day’ όνομ(α) [ónoma] ‘name’ ώριμ(ος) [órimos] ‘mature’

In (1) and further examples, nominal or adjectival inflection is presented in parentheses. (1a) represents a feminine nominal base taking the ­inflectional suffix -­ή, (1b) a nominal base with the inflectional suffix -α and (1c) an adjectival base taking (in its masculine form) the inflectional suffix -­ος.

228  angeliki efthymiou Furthermore, -άζω attaches primarily to consonant-­final bases but avoids bases ending in consonant clusters that do not contain liquids (i.e. l or r), as in (1a). On the other hand, -ιάζω attaches primarily to consonant-­final bases, to nominal feminine bases taking the inflectional suffix -α, as in (2a), to neutral bases in /á + consonant + i/, as in (2b), to feminine nouns in /iá/, as in (2c), and to imparisyllabic masculine nouns, as in (2d). (2) a. ρυτιδιάζω [ritidjázo] ρυτίδ(α) [ritída] ‘to wrinkle’ ‘wrinkle’ b. κομματιάζω [komatjázo] κομμάτ(ι) [komati] ‘to brake/tear into pieces’ ‘piece’ c. αγκαλιάζω [angaljázo] αγκαλι(ά) [angaljá] ‘to embrace’ ‘arms’ d. νταλκαδιάζω [dalkadjázo] νταλκ(άς) [dalkás] /νταλκάδεςNOM.PL ‘to desire, crave’ ‘desire, heartache’

When the base is imparisyllabic (and exhibits stem allomorphy), -ιάζω always selects the extended (i.e. the plural) stem, as in (2d). Secondly, when the vowel of the preceding syllable is /a/ then the suffix always has the form -ιάζω. On the basis of these observations, one could propose that, since -άζω seems to be prohibited when the vowel of the preceding syllable is /a/, then -ιάζω and -άζω can be analysed as variants of the same suffix. Before accepting this position, I will examine in the next section how -(ι)άζω verbs are distributed in my corpus according to their register status. 2.2 The distribution of -­άζω and -­ιάζω in my corpus and in Printed School Modern Greek In this section I will investigate the distribution of -­ιάζω and -άζω forms in my corpus and in Printed School Modern Greek, i.e. a small corpus based on Efthymiou et al. (2010). The material of Printed School Modern Greek was collected from the corpus of 3rd grade primary school textbooks and contains 7,773 tokens and 1,705 types of Modern Greek suffixed words3 (see also section 6.1. for more details).4 Before addressing the distribution of -(ι)άζω verbs, I will provide a brief explanation of the terms (or features) [+learned], [+/–learned] and [–learned], which will be used in this section. Following Anastassiadis-­ Symeonidis and Fliatouras (2003), I use the feature [+learned] in order to characterize words that (a) come from Ancient Greek, (b) constitute artificial formations of ‘katharevousa’ (i.e. an artificial, ancient-­looking form of Greek

the meaning of denominal and deadjectival verbs  229 42

271

Figure 12.1  The distribution of -­άζω and -­ιάζω verbs in RDMG

105 -learned +/-learned 208

Figure 12.2  The distribution of [+/–learned] and [–learned] -­(ι)άζω verbs in RDMG

developed by a group of literary people in the nineteenth century) or (c) are used only in refined or written speech. On the other hand, words characterized as [–learned] are words that either do not originate from Ancient Greek or are used in informal or spoken (or colloquial or vulgar) speech. Finally, the feature [+/–learned] serves to characterize all words that are unmarked in use or origin (i.e. they are neither learned nor non-­learned). In Figure 12.1, -(ι)άζω verbs are presented according to their allomorphic variation (i.e. -άζω or -ιάζω), whereas in Figure 12.2 -(ι)άζω verbs are presented according to their register variation. As indicated in Figures 12.1 and 12.2, the proportion of -­άζω forms is very small and most -(ι)άζω forms are [–learned]. All -άζω forms can be characterized as [+learned] or [+/−learned]. I also note that in sixty-­three of the [+/– learned] forms, [i] is actually part of the base, e.g. διπλασιάζω [diplasiázo] ‘to double’ (διπλάσιος [diplásios] ‘double’). Most of these verbs are derived from numerals. Finally, if we compare these findings to those in Table 12.1, analysed in Efthymiou et al. (2010), we arrive at the following remarks (see also section 6.2). If we focus on what the figures in Table 12.1 can reveal about suffixes, it can be suggested that the form -άζω is neither productive nor very frequent Table 12.1  Verb-­forming suffixes: token frequency in printed school Modern Greek -­ίζω

-­(ι)άζω

-­εύω

-­ώνω

-­άζω

-­ιάζω

9.5%

6.3%

5.6%

5.6%

3.9%

2.5%

230  angeliki efthymiou in Modern Greek. On the other hand, Table 12.1 supports the hypothesis as to the [–learned] character of -ιάζω forms: -ιάζω hardly appears in the written register. This lack of preference is also supported by the findings of linguistic experiments (see Rytting 2005), which suggest that Greek speakers have an awareness of the connection between glide ­formation (i.e. palatalization) and informality. Thus, based only on morphophonological criteria, one could get the impression that -ιάζω and -άζω appear in (almost) allomorphic variation, i.e. that they can be analysed as variants of the same suffix. On the other hand, taking into account stylistic and pragmatic criteria as well, one would opt for an analysis that views Modern Greek as having two different homonymous suffixes, one available in informal speech, namely the [−learned] form [jázo], the other frequent in written Greek, namely the [+/−learned] form [ázo/iázo]. Therefore I accept the INS analysis, but I also believe that the learned suffix should be lemmatized as -άζω, and that further research is needed in order to explain the distribution of these forms. In the rest of the chapter I will focus on the [−learned] forms. 3  PRINCIPAL MEANINGS OF THE – ιάζω VERBS

In this section, I will examine the meanings expressed by -ιάζω verbs. As already noted in Efthymiou (2011a), these verbs show a wide range of polysemy. Often, verbs formed with -ιάζω mean ‘cause to become x’ (causative/resultative). Such examples are given in (3). (3) a. κομματιάζω κομμάτι komatjázo komáti ‘to break/tear into pieces’ ‘piece’ b. κουρελιάζω κουρέλι kureljázo kuréli ‘to cut into shreds’ ‘rag’

Interestingly, the vast majority of the -ιάζω verbs refer to events of modification of the state of an entity, whereas the base noun identifies the final state of the process which affects the entity projected to the direct object or subject position (see also (4) and (6) below). In most cases, -ιάζω verbs mean ‘be saturated by x/ be covered by many unwanted x’ (inchoative-­ornative).5 Some examples are given in (4). (4) a. σκουριάζω skurjázo ‘to rust’

σκουριά skurjá ‘rust’

the meaning of denominal and deadjectival verbs  231 b. ρυτιδιάζω ritiδjázo ‘to wrinkle’

ρυτίδα ritíδa ‘wrinkle’

As the glosses of the examples in (4) indicate, verbs tend to denote internally caused states, i.e. the cause of the change of state event is linked to properties inherent to the argument undergoing change (for the meaning of this term, see also Alexiadou et al. 2006). In all these cases, like in (3), the verbs appear to denote the modification of the state of an entity. Moreover, the majority of these verbs are intransitive, and the most representative meaning of -ιάζω derivatives is ‘be provided with usually unwanted endogenous x’, i.e. they also display negative/evaluative and cumulative meanings. In other cases, -ιάζω verbs mean ‘provide with x’ (ornative). An example of this meaning is given in (5). (5) λεκιάζω lecjázo ‘to stain’

λεκές lecés ‘stain’

Furthermore, -ιάζω derivatives can also express the meaning ‘put into x’ (locative). Some examples are given in (6). (6) a. τσουβαλιάζω tsuvaljázo ‘to bundle into a sack’ b. μπουντρουμιάζω budrumjázo ‘to put into a dungeon’

τσουβάλι tsuváli ‘sack’ μπουντρούμι budrúmi ‘dungeon’

As illustrated in (3–6), the vast majority of the -ιάζω verbs refer to events of modification of the state of an entity. The base noun identifies the final state of the process which affects the entity projected to the direct object or subject position. In most cases, -ιάζω verbs denote internally caused states and display negative semantics or pejorative and cumulative meanings. Moreover, the majority of these verbs are intransitive, and the most representative meaning of -ιάζω derivatives is ‘be provided with usually unwanted endogenous x or become x’. In these cases the base nouns denote the end states or the final positions in the causative act6 (as regards the pejorative meaning of -­ιάζω derivatives see also Efthymiou 2011a and Charitonidis 2011). It is worth pointing out, however, that in my data I found only a small number of verbs expressing other meanings, such as instrumental, ­performative and similative. Some examples are given in (7–9).

232  angeliki efthymiou (7) νυχιάζω νύχι nixjázo níxi ‘to scratch with one’s nails’ ‘nail’ (8) κουβεντιάζω κουβέντα kuvendjázo kuvénda ‘to chat, discuss’ ‘chat’ (9) γεροντοκοριάζω γεροντοκόρη jerontokorjázo jerontokóri ‘to do things in a way ‘spinster, old-maid’ that is typical of a spinster/become a spinster’

As most of the derivatives of the types illustrated in (7–9) also allow causative readings and convey a pejorative meaning, I would like to propose that -ιάζω verbs expressing instrumental, performative or similative meanings are marginal cases, and cannot be considered central for determining the role of the suffix within the system. Finally, based on all these findings and in line with Gottfurcht (2008), I would like to suggest that -ιάζω has developed a semantic category prototype related to the frequency of the meanings expressed by the derivatives. (See also Tribout 2010, who suggests that, for each morphological process, some semantic types appear to be licensed, privileged or prohibited.) Therefore, the basic meanings of -ιάζω verbs can be ranked as follows: 1. inchoative-­ornative (= more than two-­thirds in the total number of types); 2. ornative or causative (= less than two-­thirds in the total number of types); 3. instrumental, locative, performative or similative (= less than one-­third in the total number of types). In addition, as mentioned above, all these verbs display negative semantics or pejorative meanings. Thus this ranking means that the semantics of -ιάζω is such that a typical representative of -ιάζω verbs should express both inchoative and pejorative meanings (‘inchoative-­ornative’) (see (4)). Ornative and resultative meanings are expressed by less prototypical verbs and, finally, instrumental, locative performative and similative meanings, which are the least frequent of the corpus, are conveyed by non-­prototypical -ιάζω verbs. 4  THE MEANING OF THE BASE

At the beginning of this chapter, I mentioned that the suffix -ιάζω combines with adjectival and nominal bases, but that the majority of the derivatives are derived from nouns. Going through the list of bases, one gets the

the meaning of denominal and deadjectival verbs  233 impression that -ιάζω is quite selective about the semantic categories of its base. It usually attaches to [−learned] bases denoting something negative or unpleasant. For example, many bases refer to an illness (10) or external imperfections on the body (11). (10) ψωριάζω ψώρα psorjázo psóra ‘to become infected ‘scabies’ with scabies’ (11) σπυριάζω σπυρί spirjázo spirí ‘to be covered with pimples’ ‘spot, pimple’

Furthermore, many bases denote unpleasant or dangerous things or ­substances, as in (12). (12) a. σκουληκιάζω σκουλήκι skulicázo skulíci ‘to be wormy/wormeaten’ ‘worm’ b. μουχλιάζω μούχλα muxljázo múxla ‘to be tainted ‘mildew, mould’ or to taint with mildew’

As illustrated in (10–12), nominal bases tend to denote either substances or small entities usually encountered in quantities and seen as an amorphous and homogeneous mass. In some cases, the bases denote negative qualities or states, as in (13). (13) a. τεμπελιάζω τεμπέλης tembeljázo tembélis ‘to laze’ ‘lazy’ b. καραφλιάζω καραφλός/καράφλα karafljázo karaflós /karáfla ‘to become bald’ ‘bald’/ ‘baldness’

There are, however, some cases, in which the base does not express anything negative. For example, in some cases the base denotes containers where things are tied together so that they can be carried or stored, as in (14).

234  angeliki efthymiou (14) a. κασελιάζω κασέλα kaseljázo kaséla ‘to put into a trunk/chest’ ‘trunk, chest’ b. τσουβαλιάζω τσουβάλι tsuvaljázo tsuváli ‘to bundle into a sack’ ‘sack’

It is worth noting, however, that in these cases, the entities stored are seen as a mass, i.e. they become spatially limited ‘stuffs’ composed of particles which are not seen as significant enough for anybody to want to count them or to focus on them as individual entities. It is also worth pointing out that many [−learned] or [+/−learned] bases are of Turkish or of Italian and Venetian origin.7 I suggest that, although not all native speakers have etymological knowledge, in some of these cases, one could argue that the choice of these bases is not only influenced by register factors but also by phonological properties related to the etymology of the base. For example, native speakers can recognize that the phonological properties of μπουντρούμι ‘dungeon’ in (6a), which is of Turkish origin, are different from those of φυλακή [filací] ‘jail’, which originates from Ancient Greek and derives the unmarked quasi-­synonymous -ίζω verb φυλακ-­ίζ(ω) [filacízo] ‘to jail’. Interestingly, a closer look at the bases shows that most of them are related to something (entity, substance, state or behaviour) perceived by the senses, i.e. [+concrete]. In line with Efthymiou (1999), I suggest that this could be partially attributed to the [−learned] character of the suffix. As suggested by Efthymiou (1999), the fact that some [−learned] suffixes tend to prefer concrete meanings (and bases) can be easily explained if we think that these suffixes reflect common people’s everyday use and that most people focus on things that are easily perceived by human senses and relevant to human interests (see also Wierzbicka 1985: 155). As seen in (10–14), although bases with negative connotations seem to be the default for -ιάζω verbs, there are also some cases in which the base does not express anything negative or unpleasant, as in (15a, c). (15b) is an example where the base is ambiguous between a neutral and a negatively connotated meaning. (15) a. κομματιάζω κομμάτι komatjázo komáti ‘to shred, break to pieces’ ‘piece’ b. παραμυθιάζω παραμύθι paramithjázo paramíthi ‘to tell fairytales, cheat’ ‘fairytale, lie’

the meaning of denominal and deadjectival verbs  235 c. θρονιάζω θρόνος thronjázo thrónos ‘to enthrone’ (ironically) ‘throne’

As the glosses in (15) indicate, the meanings of the base and the suffix match. The suffix selects the meaning of the base that best matches the meaning of the derivation, i.e. a negative side of the meaning of the base, and the base is sensitive to the meaning of the suffix.8 Since almost all [−learned] derivatives refer to something unpleasant, I propose that the pejorative meaning of the -ιάζω verbs is both selected and assigned by the suffix. The suffix seems to add a connotation to the meaning of the derivative that creates a negative or ironic effect. A typical example that shows the ironic connotation of these derivatives is (15c), which is mostly used in the passive form with the meaning ‘be enthroned, sit, stay longer than expected or wanted’, as in (16). Note that the ironic meaning is absent from the unmarked [learned] rival parasynthetic verb εν-­θρον-­ίζω [enthronízo] ‘enthrone’. (16) Ο Γιάννης ήρθε για δυο μέρες στο σπίτι μας αλλά θρονιάστηκε και δε θέλει να φύγει. Giánnis írthe giá dío méres sto spíti mas allá throniástike ke de thélei na fígei ‘Giannis came to our house for two days, but he is_as_if_he_was_enthroned (=stayed) and does nοt want to go.’

Finally, it is worth mentioning that some derivatives express both pejorative and cumulative meanings (i.e. ‘become saturated by many unwanted entities’), as in (11) and (12a). I assume that in these cases the cumulative reading is motivated by pragmatic factors, but it also reveals the interplay between the meaning of the base, the suffix and the intention of the speaker. When the nominal bases denote small unwanted entities which naturally appear in homogeneous groups (i.e. they tend to co-­occur, like for example pimples on a face), the derivative always has the meaning ‘become covered by (a large number of) x’. Moreover, as mentioned in Efthymiou (1999) and Ricca (2005), since the notion of collectivity implies low identifiability of the individual, collective and pejorative meanings cannot always be treated as independent. Note, however, that the exact meaning assigned to the derivative is also related to the actual intentions or the emotive attitude of the individual speaker. For example, whereas individual entities like wrinkles and pimples are in most cases too insignificant for anyone to talk about if they do not appear in great quantities, I think that one could still use σπυριάζω ‘be covered with pimples’ in order to refer to a situation where someone has one or two pimples on their face. In this case, the suffix

236  angeliki efthymiou seems to intensify pragmatic effects already expressed by the base or the derivational process. 5  THE PHONETIC SHAPE OF THE SUFFIX

Interestingly, the [−learned] phonetic shape and the negative connotation of the suffix -ιάζω is found also in other Modern Greek [−learned] suffixes such as -ιά [iá] and -ιάρης [iáris] (see also Efthymiou forthcoming). The negative/pejorative meanings of these suffixes, which prefer (also) attaching to bases denoting something negative, unpleasant or undesirable, are illustrated in (17) (for the suffix -ιάρης, see Anastassiadis-­Symeonidis 1997; for the suffix -ιά, see Efthymiou 1999). (17) a. κοκαλιάρης κόκαλο kokaljáris kókalo ‘skinny person’ ‘bone’ b. ζητιανιά ζητιάνος zitjanjá zitjános ‘beggarhood’ ‘beggar’ ‘typical behaviour of a beggar’ c. γαϊδουριά γαϊδούρι γajδurjá γajδúri ‘typical action of a donkey’ ‘donkey’

Given the [−learned] phonetic shape and the negative connotation of -ιάζω, -ιά and -ιάρης, as well as the fact that the speakers are aware of their special stylistic status (see also section 2.2), it can be suggested that the distribution of the [j + a] sequence is not accidental, and that the negative connotation of the suffixes is related to their [−learned] ­phonetic shape (for a more detailed discussion, see Efthymiou 2013). Moreover, it seems that the ‘sound iconicity’ of the -ιάζω verbs is part of a rich paradigm which includes expressive suffixes of many languages and involves palatalisation (see Dressler and Barbaresi 1994). Native speakers are sensitive to the fact that the phonetic make-­up of this suffix differs from the phonetic shape of [+learned] or [+/−learned] suffixes and use it in order to denote expressive or negative meanings. It is also worth noticing that the [−learned] negative connotation of the suffix not only appears in the verbs of my corpus but also in Modern Greek parasynthetic verbs of removal (see Efthymiou 2001, 2002, 2011b),9 as in (18).

the meaning of denominal and deadjectival verbs  237 (18) ξεδοντιάζω[−learned] [kseδondjázo] ‘to take one’s teeth out’10 (ξε-­[kse] ‘privative prefix’ + δόντι [dóndi] ‘tooth’ + -­ιάζω)11

As the example in (18) shows, Modern Greek parasynthetic verbs in -ιάζω appear to provide additional evidence for the claim that native speakers are sensitive to the [−learned] and pejoratively connoted phonetic make-­up of -ιάζω. Interestingly, in these verbs, the suffix -ιάζω combines only with the [−learned] negative-­privative prefix ξε-­. 6  THE ROLE OF THE WORD FORMATION PROCESS

In this section, I will discuss the role of the word formation process in which -ιάζω participates in the creation of the meaning. I will suggest that although Modern Greek verb-­forming suffixes seem to share the same underlying conceptual structure, each suffix seems to develop its own semantic category prototype. I will also show that the [−learned] feature of the suffix -ιάζω affects its frequency and its productivity. 6.1 The meanings of -ίζω, -ώνω, -εύω, -αίνω, -άρω derivatives and -ποιώ formations Apart from the suffix -(ι)άζω, Modern Greek has six verb-­forming suffixes and one main semi-­suffix, namely the element -ποιώ [pió]. These are listed and illustrated in (19). (19) a. -ίζω [ízo]: βουρτσίζω [vurtsízo] ‘to brush’ b. -ώνω [óno]: βουτυρώνω [vutiróno] ‘to butter’ c. -εύω [évo]: προεδρεύω [proedrévo] ‘to chair, preside’ d. -αίνω [éno]: χοντραίνω [xondréno] ‘to get/grow fat, thicken’ e. -άρω [áro]: στρεσάρω [stresáro] ‘to stress’ f. -ποιώ [pió]: γραμματικοποιώ [gramatikopió] ‘to grammaticalize’.

As shown by Efthymiou (2011a), these derivatives show a wide variety of meanings, such as causative, resultative, inchoative, ornative, locative, instrumental, performative, similative, etc. In Efthymiou (2011a), following Plag (1999), Lieber (2004) and Gottfurcht (2008), I use the theory of lexical conceptual semantics developed by Jackendoff (1983, 1990) in order to suggest that all Modern Greek verb forming processes share the same underlying semantic structure, given in (20). (20) CAUSE [x BE y LOC z]12

238  angeliki efthymiou I also suggest (see Efthymiou 2011a) that the semantic interpretation of a given verb depends upon two factors, first the extent to which the Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS) is fully expressed and second which argument is filled by the noun base. Thus, for a resultative interpretation, the y argument in (20) is filled by the noun base. An example is given in (21). (21) απλοποιώ [aplopió] ‘to simplify’ (cause to become απλός [aplós] ‘simple’)

Inchoative and similative/stative-­essive interpretations are achieved when the noun base is the y argument in (20) and the CAUSE x portion is not realized. Examples for inchoative and similative-­stative interpretations are given in (22). (22) a. χοντραίνω [xondréno] ‘to get/grow fat, thicken’ (become χοντρός [xondrós] ‘fat’) b. προεδρεύω [proedrévo] ‘to preside’ (be/behave like πρόεδρος [próedros] ‘president’ for a certain period) c. αριστοτελίζω [aristotelízo] ‘to imitate Aristotle’ (be/behave like Aristotle)

For a performative interpretation, the noun base is the only internal argument and the BE portion in (20) is not realized. Note that for the formalization of this semantic interpretation, I have followed Gottfurcht’s (2008) proposal. For Gottfurcht, performative is the mirror image of similative. This is illustrated in (23). (23) ταξιδεύω [taksidévo] ‘to travel’ (make a ταξίδι [taksídi] ‘trip’)

Ornative interpretations result from the full expression of the structure. In this case, the base noun is the x argument co-­indexed with the y argument in (20). An example is given in (24). (24) λαδώνω [ladóno] ‘to oil, bribe’ (provide with λάδι [ládi] ‘oil’)

For a locative interpretation, the base noun is the z argument in (20). An example is given in (25). (25) φυλακίζω [filacízo] ‘to jail’ (to put in φυλακή [filací] ‘jail’)

Finally, for the instrumental interpretation I follow Gottfurcht’s (2008) proposal of an additional WITH predicate. This predicate follows [LOC z] in (20) and has the noun base as its argument. An example is given in (26).

the meaning of denominal and deadjectival verbs  239 (26) καρφώνω [karfóno] ‘to nail’ (use καρφί [karfí] nail)

It is worth mentioning, however, that the hypothesis that all denominal verb formation processes share the same underlying structure is not accepted by all morphologists (see, for example, Tribout 2010). Furthermore, I suggest that the LCS proposed in (20) needs to be further improved in order to account more satisfactorily for some problematic issues, like for example the difference between similative, essive or stative meanings. In what follows, I will present the principal meanings related to each Modern Greek word formation process. It will be shown that although these derivatives show a wide variety of meanings, they all express at least a causative meaning. It will also become clear that for each morphological process, some semantic types appear to be privileged or prohibited. In particular, the principal meanings of -ίζω derivatives can be described as ‘(cause) to become x’, ‘imitate x’, ‘put in (to) x’, ‘perform/do/make x’, ‘provide with x’ and ‘use x’. Note, however, that the most frequent meanings in these derivatives seem to be the similative, instrumental, performative and resultative meanings (see Efthymiou 2011a). Examples for -­ίζω derivatives are given in (27).13 (27) a. μαυρίζω [mavrízo] ‘to blacken’ b. πιθηκίζω [pithicízo] ‘to imitate ape’s behaviour’ c. φυλακίζω [filacízo] ‘to jail’ d. σφουγγαρίζω [sfugarízo] ‘to sponge/ to mop’

μαύρος [mávros] ‘black’ πίθηκος [píthikos] ‘ape’ φυλακή [filací] ‘jail’ σφουγγάρι [sfugári] ‘sponge’

The meanings of -ώνω derivatives can be described as ‘provide with x’, ‘(cause to) become x’, ‘use x’ and ‘put into x’. As shown by Efthymiou (2011a), the ornative meaning seems to be one of the most frequent meanings for these derivatives. Note also that no similative or performative meanings are attested for these verbs. Examples of -ώνω derivatives are given in (28). (28) a. λαδώνω [ladóno] ‘to oil, bribe’ b. μαλακώνω [malakóno] ‘to soften’ c. καρφώνω [karfóno] ‘to nail’

λάδι [ládi] ‘oil’ μαλακός [malakós] ‘soft’ καρφί [karfí] ‘nail’

Derivatives in -εύω mean ‘carry out the official activities of x’, ‘become x’, ‘do x’, provide with x’, ‘put into x’ and ‘use x’. However, it is worth pointing out that the stative-­essive ‘carry out the official activities of x’ and

240  angeliki efthymiou the inchoative meanings seem to be the most frequent meanings for these derivatives. Examples of these meanings are given in (29). (29) a. προεδρεύω [proedrévo] ‘to chair, preside’ πρόεδρος [próedros] ‘president’ b. αγριεύω [agriévo] ‘to make/become fierce/ άγριος [ágrios] ‘fierce, wild’ roughen’ c. ταξιδεύω [taksidévo] ‘to travel’ ταξίδι [taksídi] ‘trip, journey’ d. παγιδεύω [pajidévo] ‘to trap’ παγίδα [pajída] ‘trap’

The meaning of the suffix -αίνω is quite restricted. Derivatives in -αίνω mean ‘cause to become x’ and ‘provide with x’, as illustrated in (30). (30) a. χοντραίνω [xondréno] ‘to get/grow fat thicken’ b. λιπαίνω [lipéno] ‘to lubricate, fertilize’

χοντρός [xondrós] ‘fat, thick’ λίπος [lípos] ‘fat, oil’

On the other hand, the meanings of -άρω derivatives can be described as ‘provide with x’, ‘do x’, ‘put into x’, ‘use x’ and ‘act as/be x’. Such examples are given in (31). (31) a. πουδράρω [pudráro] ‘to powder’ πούδρα [púdra] ‘powder’ b. ζουμάρω [zumáro] ‘to zoom’ ζουμ [zum] ‘zoom, a zooming camera shot’ c. πακετάρω [pacetáro] ‘to put into πακέτο [pacéto] ‘packet’ packet, pack’ d. φρενάρω [frenáro] ‘to brake’ φρένο [fréno] ‘brake’

Finally, -ποιώ verbs mean ‘cause to become x’, ‘put into x’ and ‘provide with x’. Examples of these meanings are given in (32). As observed by Efthymiou (2011a), no similative or performative meanings are attested for -ποιώ formations. Furthermore, Mela-­Athanasopoulou (2007) observes that inchoative meanings are only possible with the passive voice of –ποιώ verbs. (32) a. απλοποιώ [aplopió] ‘to simplify’ απλός [aplós] ‘simple’ b. περιθωριοποιώ [perithoriopió] ‘to marginalize’ περιθώριο [perithório] ‘margin’ c. μορφοποιώ [morfopió] ‘to form’ μορφή [morfí] ‘form’

Elaborating on Efthymiou (2011a), I propose that the meanings of these Modern Greek verb-­forming processes can be summarized in Table 12.2. In Table 12.2, ‘passive’ means that this meaning appears only in the

the meaning of denominal and deadjectival verbs  241 Table 12.2 The meanings of -­ίζω, -­(ι)άζω, -­ώνω, -­εύω, -­αίνω, -­άρω derivatives and -­ποιώ formations cause to become x become x/be provided with x be provided with many unwanted x make x go to/in/on something make something go to/in/on x do x do /act like x use x carry out the official activities of x

-­ίζω

-­(ι)άζω

-­ώνω

-­εύω -­αίνω

-­άρω -­ποιώ

¸ ¸

¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸

¸ ¸

¸ ¸

¸ ¸

¸ ¸

¸ ¸passive

¸ ¸

¸ ¸ ¸

¸

¸ ¸ ¸

¸ ¸

¸

¸ ¸

¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸

¸

passive voice. As far as the types of base selected by these verbs are concerned, it seems that Modern Greek suffixes do not behave in the same way. For example, -ίζω is the only suffix among the suffixes of my corpus that attaches to onomatopoetic words. Moreover, -εύω is the only suffix that attaches to stage-­level nouns denoting offices of persons,14 that is nouns that denote temporary characteristics of their referents, in order to derive verbs with the meaning ‘carry out the official activities of x for a certain period’ (see also Efthymiou 2011a). To sum up, based on all these findings, I suggest in line with Gottfurcht (2008) that, although Modern Greek verb-­forming suffixes seem to share the same underlying structure (20), each suffix seems to develop a semantic category prototype related to the frequency of the meanings expressed by the derivatives. Therefore the realization of the underlying structure depends on the preferences, the restrictions and the diachrony of each suffix. 6.2  Frequency, productivity and suffixal rivalry In spite of the relevance of frequency and productivity to assess the status of word formation patterns (see Baayen 2008; Bauer 2001; Plag 1999), there are no systematic investigations into the frequency and productivity of Modern Greek suffixes. Because of the absence of reliable data for Modern Greek, two kinds of empirical data have been investigated for this study, namely on the one hand the existing -­ίζω, -­(ι)άζω, -ώνω, -­εύω, -­αίνω, -­άρω and -­ποιώ verbs listed in RDMG (see Efthymiou 2011a), and on the other -­ίζω, -­(ι)άζω, -­ώνω, -­εύω, -­αίνω and -­άρω verbs which are present in Printed School Modern Greek (as investigated in Efthymiou et al. 2010). It is not hard to think of reasons why the choice of the Reverse Dictionary of Modern Greek and Printed School Modern Greek as text sources is not fully

242  angeliki efthymiou Table 12.3  Verb forming processes Verbs in

Raw data

Scrutinized data

-­ίζω -­(ι)άζω -­ώνω -­εύω -­άρω -­ποιώ -­αίνω

3,507 2,260 2,106 1,207 547 252 687

650 313 508 325 150 200 113

Source: Data extracted from RDMG.

justified from a methodological point of view. First, dictionaries are not accurate ways of estimating productivity. Second, Printed School Modern Greek contains material from textbooks and is therefore not balanced for text types or speech registers (see Plag 1999; Gaeta and Ricca 2003; Lieber 2010). However, although my data cannot give a comprehensive picture of Modern Greek verb derivation from a quantitative point of view, they seem to yield some interesting preliminary results. We can see the number of -­ίζω, -­(ι)άζω, -­ώνω, -­εύω, -­αίνω, -­άρω and -­ποιώ verbs as attested in the RDMG in Table 12.3. In the scrutinized data as counted in Table 12.3, I removed the following forms: (a) those that did not feature the suffix -­ίζω, -­ώνω, etc. (such as borrowings); (b) those that were derived by prefixation, composition or parasynthesis; (c) all deponent verbs; (d) those that are -­αρίζω formations via the aorist of verbs in -­άρω (see κονσερβάρω /κονσερβαρίζω [konserváro/ konservarízo] ‘to can, tin’). This explains why the proportion of scrutinized data as compared to the raw data is particularly low for -­(ι)άζω. In addition, Table 12.3 shows that -­ίζω is more productive (or frequent) than -­ώνω, -­εύω and -­(ι)άζω. The second corpus is based on Efthymiou et al. (2010). In this study fifty-­ four Modern Greek suffixes were investigated. As mentioned in section 3, the material collected from the corpus of 3rd grade primary school textbooks contains 7,773 tokens and 1,705 types of Modern Greek suffixed words. Note, however, that the semi-­affix -­ποιώ is not included in this study. Moreover, -­άζω and -­ιάζω were analysed as variants of the same suffix. Consequently, the -­ιάζω category also includes [+/−learned] forms, where /i/ is actually part of the base.15 My data from Printed School Modern Greek are presented in Tables 12.4 and 12.5. These tables present the ten most frequent suffixes in Printed School Modern Greek. As already mentioned above, I do not claim that my data provides a faithful picture of the ideal competence of a Modern Greek educated speaker.16 Nevertheless, although the results in Tables 12.4 and

the meaning of denominal and deadjectival verbs  243 Table 12.4  Token frequency in printed school MG -­ικός

-­ση

-­ία

-­ίζω

-­α

-­ώνω

-­εύω

-­μα

-­άζω

-­ιάζω

(adj.) 12%

(n.) 11.1%

(n.) 9.6%

(v.) 9.5%

(adv.) 8%

(v.) 5.6%

(v.) 5.6%

(n.) 4.9%

(v.) 3.9%

(v.) 2.5%

Table 12.5  Type frequency in printed school MG -­ικός

-­α

-­ση

-­ία

-­μα

-­ίζω

-­ώνω

-­εύω

-­άζω

-­ιάζω

(adj.) 13.1%

(adv.) 11.3%

(n.) 10.6%

(n.) 8.4%

(n.) 6.6%

(v.) 5.9%

(v.) 5%

(v.) 3.8%

(v.) 1.3%

(v.) 1.3%

12.5 do not assure us that the frequency data obtained could be generalized to any kind of textual typology, a number of observations can be made here. Firstly, as expected according to the literature on productivity, Modern Greek suffixes seem to differ considerably in their type and token frequency. Secondly, as discussed by Efthymiou et al. (2010), it seems that a handful of derivatives covers a large percentage of the overall token frequency of a given suffix. Thirdly, the differences in token and type frequency confirm the assumption about the [−learned] character of -­ιάζω forms: -­ιάζω hardly appears in the written register. As expected (see, for example, Lieber 2010), the [−learned] (non-­cultivated) pragmatic effect of the -­ιάζω verbs has obvious consequences on their frequency and productivity.17 It seems that Greek native speakers associate the meaning and the form of the suffix -­ιάζω with something negative or [pejorative], and thus they choose -­ιάζω verbs in order to express something unpleasant. Therefore, [−learned] -­ιάζω verbs are absent from, for instance, scientific terminology or highly refined usage of language (see Efthymiou et al. 2012a for similar remarks). 6.3 Doublets I will finally turn to some doublets, which reveal that some verb-­forming suffixes are in competition in some semantic domains. As mentioned in the literature (Plag 1999; Gottfurcht 2008), a doublet occurs when two rival suffixes are semantically and phonologically licensed. This is illustrated in (33–34). (33) a. λασπώνω λάσπη laspóno láspi ‘to cover with mud/ become mash’ ‘mud’ b. λασπιάζω λάσπη laspjázo láspi ‘to become mash’ ‘mud’

244  angeliki efthymiou (34) a. ρυτιδιάζω ρυτίδα ritidjázo ritída ‘to wrinkle’ ‘wrinkle’ b. ρυτιδώνω ρυτίδα ritidóno ritída ‘to wrinkle’ ‘wrinkle’

As the glosses indicate, there is some competition between -­ιάζω and -­ώvω, mostly in the ornative and inchoative domains, but -­ιάζω verbs always select the [−learned], derogatory and intransitive reading. While λασπώνω in (33a) has both causative and ornative meanings, λασπιάζω in (33b) appears to accept only an inchoative reading. Moreover, ρυτιδιάζω in (34a) appears to be [−learned] and intransitive, whereas ρυτιδώνω in (34b) is [+/−learned] and can have both transitive and intransitive readings. The glosses of the doublets reveal the prototypical and most frequent meaning for each suffix, and thus, the suffixes are not similar enough to exhibit true rivalry. 7 CONCLUSION

To sum up, I have shown that the computation of the meaning of -­ιάζω verbs is influenced by various factors, such as the semantic and structural properties of the base, the evaluative connotation of the suffix and its derivatives and the productivity of the word formation process. The results of my study also reveal the major role of pragmatic factors in word formation. In particular, I suggested that Greek native speakers are sensitive to the [−learned] phonological make-­up of the suffix -­ιάζω and associate its meaning and form with something negative or [pejorative]. I also proposed that -­ιάζω has developed a semantic category prototype related to the frequency of the meanings expressed by the derivatives and that a typical representative of -­ιάζω verbs should express both inchoative and pejorative meanings. It was also shown that the meanings of the base and the suffix match and that the suffix seems to intensify pragmatic effects already expressed by the base or the derivational process. The suffix selects the meaning of the base that best matches the meaning of the derivation, i.e. a negative side of the meaning of the base, and the base is sensitive to the meaning of the suffix. Moreover, it was shown that -­ιάζω hardly appears in the written register and that the [−learned] (non-­ cultivated) pragmatic effect of the -­ιάζω verbs has obvious consequences for its frequency and its productivity. Finally, I suggested that, although there is some competition between -ιάζω and its rival suffixes in some

the meaning of denominal and deadjectival verbs  245 semantic domains, -­ιάζω verbs always select the [–learned], derogatory and intransitive reading. Furthermore, it was shown that the glosses of the existing doublets reveal that the rival suffixes are not similar enough to exhibit true rivalry. NOTES

1. For the semantic description of the derived verbs I will use the labels and glosses found in Plag (1999), namely causative/resultative ‘cause to become x/turn into x’, ornative ‘make x go to/in/on something’, locative ‘make something go to/in/on x’, inchoative ‘become x’, performative ‘do x/perform x’, similative ‘act or be like x’, instrumental ‘use x’ and stative ‘be x’ (see also Lieber 2004). In order to account for all Greek denominal verbs Ι need to add the following labels and glosses: stative-­essive ‘carry out the official activities of x’ and inchoative-­ornative ‘be saturated/covered by many unwanted x’. 2. For the glide formation rule see, among others, Kazazis (1968), Setatos (1974), Warburton (1976), Nyman (1981), Rytting (2005). 3. Note that the affixoid -­ποιώ [pió], which appears to be a moderately productive verb-­forming element in Modern Greek (see Efthymiou et al. 2012b), was not included in this study. 4. The subjects of the textbooks included in the study were: language and literature, history, mathematics, religion and environmental education. 5. In this chapter I will not discuss the alternations in which the derived verbs participate. For discussion of Modern Greek data, see Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2004) and Charitonidis (2005). 6. Sometimes, these verbs accept more than one interpretation (e.g. μουχλιάζω [muxljázo], 1. inchoative ‘be tainted with mildew’, ‘mildew, mould’, 2. ornative ‘taint with mildew’ (μούχλα [múxla] ‘mildew)). In such cases the base noun is also interpreted as something transferred by the action (i.e. a theme). Furthermore, in certain cases (e.g. μελανιάζω [melajázo] ‘bruise, become bruised’), it would be arbitrary to decide whether the -ιάζω verb is derived from the nominal (i.e. μελανιά [melaɲá] ‘bruise, bruising’) or from the adjectival base (i.e. μελανός [melanós] ‘inky’). 7. The bases νταλκάς ‘desire’, λεκές ‘stain’, τσουβάλι ‘sack’, μπουντρούμι ‘dungeon’ in (2–6) have a Turkish origin. The base κασέλα ‘trunk, chest’ in (6) is of Italian origin. 8. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the bases are commonly used with negative connotation.

246  angeliki efthymiou 9. Following Corbin’s (1987) model, in Efthymiou (2001, 2002) I characterize the segment -­ιάζω in such cases as a categorical marker serving to indicate verbal category. 10. The verb is not used in formal speech (or in cases where the teeth are decayed and painful). 11. Neither *δοντιάζω nor *ξεδόντι is available as a base word for the prefixation of ξε-­or the suffixation with -­ιάζω. 12. Following Gottfurcht (2008), I assume that in this structure the verb has three arguments (x, y, z) and makes use of the semantic primitives CAUSE, BE, LOC. LOC indicates an underspecified location between two arguments. Note that this formalism differs from the one used by Jackendoff (1983, 1990) although it uses some of the same labels. 13. For the semantics of -ίζω derivatives see also Charitonidis (2005). 14. For the distinction between stage-level and individual-level predicates see Carlson (1977), Aronoff and Cho (2001) and Trips (2009). 15. This implies that on closer inspection, the actual number of [−learned] -ιάζω verbs in this corpus would be even smaller. 16. Interestingly, the suffix -ιάζω has proven to be quite unproductive in Efthymiou et al. (2012a), i.e. a corpus study of 4,143,583 words. 17. The influence of register on productivity has been repeatedly mentioned in the literature. See, for example, Plag et al. (1999).

chapter 13

Analysing en- and its Romance equivalents in Jackendoff’s Conceptual Structure Jessica Forse

T

his chapter examines one of the many interesting aspects of the often overlooked yet highly significant relationship between morphology and semantics. This critical oversight, which has led to a focus on the form of words at the expense of their meaning, is all the more surprising given that, as Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1998) point out, a morpheme is often considered to be a minimal Saussurean sign relating form and meaning: it is an arbitrary phonological form which represents a certain concept. These authors suggest that the lack of research into the relation between lexical semantics and morphology stemmed in part from the absence of a comprehensive theory of lexical semantic representation that could provide a framework within which to study such a relation. Over the last four decades, Ray Jackendoff has devised and refined such a theory, which he has called Conceptual Structure (CS). Jackendoff (2009) discusses the treatment of compounds in the formalism, and in doing so, he offers some suggestions as to how to encode derivational word formation processes, such as the formation of actor nouns from verbs. Here, this line of investigation is pursued further by using CS to analyse the semantic changes brought about by one word formation process in particular: the formation of verbs using the prefix en-­(and its allomorph em-­) in English, and its counterparts in some Romance languages, namely French, Spanish and Portuguese. As a background, section 1 introduces Jackendoff’s theory, highlighting the fact that he uses the term CS to refer to two separate but related concepts. I make the distinction between the mental representation of CS and the formalism of CS, and then focus on the latter, outlining the elements of the formalism that are used to encode the semantic changes brought about by the word formation process of prefixation with en-­. In section 2, I present my analysis of the prefix en-­, classifying the meanings of en-­verbs into semantic types, and then analysing these types within

248  jessica forse the formalism of CS. In doing so, I demonstrate that en-­has a core meaning which can be represented by a single basic CS. This is a stable semantic representation that can vary in several well circumscribed ways to give rise to the specific variations in meaning in the vast repertoire of en-­ verbs. In section 3, we turn to the analysis of two prefixes in French, Spanish and Portuguese which bring about similar changes in meaning to English en-­, namely Romance en-­ and a-­. I investigate whether they follow the same semantic typology as the English prefix. Finally, in section 4, I summarise my findings which demonstrate that the six semantic types in my classification of English en-­verbs all conform to one basic CS, and that the different types can be grouped into three clusters, demonstrating the marginal variation between them. As will be seen, Romance en-­verbs also have correlates for these types. There is some semantic overlap between the Romance prefixes en-­ and a-­, and, as such, a-­verbs correlate with some of the same semantic types as en-­verbs. A systematic semantic difference between some en-­ and a-­verbs is characterised by the distinction between the INCH and GO functions in Jackendoff’s formalism. 1  JACKENDOFF’S THEORY OF CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE

Jackendoff’s theory of lexical semantics, Conceptual Structure, has evolved over many years, as documented in several of his foundational publications, most notably Jackendoff (1983, 1990, 2002). Jackendoff (2002) sets out a system for the study of language based on a parallel architecture in which phonological, syntactic and conceptual structures exist side by side and are linked by rules that constitute the entries of the mental lexicon. Jackendoff’s Parallel Architecture (PA), shown in Figure 13.1, represents a speaker/hearer’s mental grammar. Each of the three autonomous, but interrelated, structures has its own primitives and principles of combination. As Jackendoff (1990: 17) explains, each structure is described by a set of formation rules that generates the well-­formed structures of the level, while interface rules link the different structures to one another. There are also interfaces between the linguistic and non-­linguistic domains. For instance, in order for us to be able to describe things that we see, there must be a level which is compatible with both linguistic and non-­linguistic domains. This level is conceptual structure. Indeed, as Jackendoff (1983: 17) states, conceptual structure is ‘a single level of mental representation [. . .] at which linguistic, sensory, and motor information are compatible.’ Where does the lexicon fit into this system? Jackendoff (2002: 131)

Analysing en- and its Romance equivalents  249

Interfaces to hearing and vocalisation

Phonological Formation Rules

Syntactic Formation Rules

Conceptual Formation Rules

Phonological Structure

Syntactic Structure

Conceptual Structure

Interface Rules

Interfaces to perception and action

Interface Rules Interface Rules

Figure 13.1  The Tripartite Parallel Architecture (adapted from Jackendoff 2002: 125, by permission of Oxford University Press)

argues that ‘the function of lexical items is to serve as interface rules, and the lexicon as a whole is to be regarded as part of the interface components.’ This is quite obvious for words, but Jackendoff extends this to other expressions stored in the lexicon. For a more detailed explanation of the position of the lexicon in relation to Figure 13.1, see ten Hacken (this volume). The formalism of conceptual structure is an algebraic notation used to encode and/or analyse the meaning of concepts that are contained within the mental representation of conceptual structure. This ambiguity in the usage of terminology is reminiscent of and parallel to the acknowledged ambiguity of the term grammar in Chomskyan linguistics, as highlighted by ten Hacken (2007: 67). As Chomsky and Halle (1968: 3) state, ‘We use the term “grammar” with a systematic ambiguity. On the one hand, the term refers to the explicit theory constructed by the linguist and proposed as a description of the speaker’s competence. On the other hand, we use the term to refer to this competence itself.’ Chomsky (1986) introduces the term I-language, which replaces the second sense of grammar and avoids the confusion caused by such ambiguity in terminology usage. In the case of conceptual structure, I take it that this ambiguity is not problematic and will continue to use it in both senses. The formalism of CS is made up of conceptual constituents, each of which belongs to one of a small set of ontological categories, such as Thing, Place and State. Each of these categories has a different function-­argument structure, which represents how a conceptual constituent belonging to a particular category can be decomposed in terms of its functions and arguments. Functions vary in the number of arguments they have and in the ontological category of the argument(s). I will begin by presenting some examples of ontological categories with the lowest number of arguments, i.e. zero.

250  jessica forse The ontological category Thing can be decomposed into a function and zero arguments, as in (1). (1) [THING] ‡ [Thing BOY]

The constituent itself, in this case BOY, serves as the function.1 The category Property has the same structure in that it is decomposed into a function with zero arguments, with the constituent serving as the function. In (2), this is illustrated for HAPPY. (2) [PROPERTY] ‡ [Property HAPPY]

The category Place has a function, such as IN, and one argument, which belongs to the category of Thing, as in (3). (3) [PLACE] ‡ [Place IN ([Thing HOUSE])]

The CS in (3) encodes the meaning of the phrase in the house. The category State has a function, such as BE, and two arguments, the first of which is a Thing and the second is a Place, as in (4). (4) [STATE] ‡ [State BE ([THING], [PLACE])]

The Place argument in (4) decomposes further as we have already seen in (3). This is also illustrated in the example in (5), which is the CS for the sentence The boy is in the house. (5) [State BE ([Thing BOY], [Place IN ([Thing HOUSE])])]

Jackendoff (1990: 43) states that the category Event can be elaborated using three Event-­functions, GO, STAY and CAUSE. The examples in (6) are adapted from Jackendoff (1990: 44). (6) a. EVENT ‡ [Event GO ([THING], [PATH])] b. EVENT ‡ [Event STAY ([THING], [PLACE])] c. [EVENT] ‡

[

Event

CAUSE

([{

THING EVENT

}]

, [EVENT]

)]

The elaboration I am most concerned with is (6c), since this is the one I will be using to encode the semantic changes brought about by the word formation process of prefixation with en-­.2

Analysing en- and its Romance equivalents  251 Analysis in conceptual structure can have different degrees of granularity. The function CAUSE, as in (6c), can be further analysed into the CS function on the thematic tier,3 and the AFF (‘affect’) function on the macrorole tier, as proposed by Jackendoff (1990, 2007).4 I will not need this further analysis of causation in the present study, and will encode the semantics of en-­verbs using the more coarse-­grained CAUSE function. In some cases, it is not immediately apparent which function should be used to most accurately encode the meaning of certain expressions in the formalism of conceptual structure. When encoding the semantic changes that en-­brings about, it is important to be clear about the difference between two functions in particular, GO and INCH. For Jackendoff, the function GO encodes continuous transition: ‘whatever the particulars of a path, GO expresses the traversal of every point of it’ (1983: 174). He argues against a treatment of GO which reduces it to a succession of two states. Although in this earlier work Jackendoff does not name this ‘succession of two states’, this description marries up nicely to the INCH function he introduces in his subsequent work (Jackendoff 1990: 92). The difference between the two functions can be observed in (7). (7)

a. The metal cooled. b. The metal cooled for hours.

(7a) can be interpreted as there being two discrete points on a metaphorical scale: initially, when the metal was ‘warmer than cool’ (for argument’s sake I will call this ‘hot’, although this could be any temperature higher than its end-­state) and afterwards, when the metal was cool. Such a succession of two states would be encoded in CS using the INCH function. In contrast, when (7a) is modified by a durative expression such as for hours, as in (7b), the sentence can only express a continuous process of the metal becoming gradually cooler, which would be encoded in CS using the GO function. The distinction between (7a) and (7b) is best represented pictorially as in (8a) and (8b) respectively. hot hot (8) a. b. hot hot

D

•

cool cool cool cool

Having presented the relevant theoretical background to Jackendoff’s framework and formalism, I now turn to the central focus of this chapter: the analysis of en-­. The elements of the formalism that have been introduced here will be used in the following sections to encode and analyse

252  jessica forse the semantic changes that the word formation process of prefixation with en-­brings about. 2 ANALYSING en-­

The English prefix en-­has attracted special attention in generative morphology since it behaves differently to most other prefixes in terms of both form and meaning. As an example of the discussion it has generated, Trommelen and Zonneveld (1986) compare three theories on headedness put forward by Williams (1981), Lieber (1980) and Selkirk (1982) on the basis of Dutch morphology. Each of these theories offers a different treatment of en-­. In form-­oriented approaches, headedness is generally thought of as a matter of syntactic category, with the head of a derived form determining the category it belongs to. English is considered to be predominantly right-­headed. However, the prefix en-­is one of a small group of English category-­changing prefixes which violate the Right-­hand Head Rule (RHR) as proposed by Williams (1981). Whereas prefixes such as counter-­ and un-­adhere to the RHR, as in counterattack and unhappy, the exceptional prefix en-­determines the syntactic category of the derived form, creating verbs such as entomb, enslave and enrich. In Trommelen and Zonneveld’s (1986) and Williams’ (1981) approach, en-­is marked ­exceptionally as a left-­hand head. The distinction between prefixes such as counter-­ and un-­and those such as en-­can be expressed in semantic as well as syntactic terms. Indeed, the greater syntactic contribution that en-­exhibits through changing the category of derived forms correlates with the prefix having a greater semantic content. This can be represented in the conceptual structures in (9), where un-­only contributes the meaning NOT to the derived form unhappy. (9)

Word formation process: prefixation with un-­ a. Input: happy ‡ [Property HAPPY] b. Output: unhappy ‡ [Property NOT [HAPPY]]

I assume here that word formation processes take a base as their input and change the meaning of that base in some way. The output of the word formation process in (9), unhappy, belongs to the same ontological category as the input, happy. This means that the input constitutes the main concept of the derived form. The prefix en-­affects the concept of the input much more strongly, modifying its ontological category, as represented in (10).

Analysing en- and its Romance equivalents  253 (10) Word formation process: prefixation with en-­ a. Input: tomb ‡ [Thing TOMB] b. Output: entomb (X entombs Y) ‡ [Event CAUSE ([Thing X], [Event INCH   ([State BE ([Thing Y], [Place IN ([Thing TOMB])])])])]

The CSs in (10) show that the input, tomb, is a Thing, while the output, entomb, is an Event. Therefore, in contrast to (9), it is the prefix, en-­, which contributes more strongly to the derived form and not the base it attaches to. The stronger semantic contribution of en-­can be attributed to the fact that it determines the highest function of the conceptual structure, CAUSE, as in (10b). The semantic contribution of the input tomb is more deeply embedded. The second Event-­function in the CS in (10b) is INCH. As (8) represents, INCH encodes a succession of two states, whereas GO expresses continuous transition. In the semantic analysis of en-­, it is the change of state that the prefix brings about that is important, not the actual transition. Therefore INCH is used to encode the meaning of en-­verbs in the formalism. The objective of this study, then, is to demonstrate that the word formation process of prefixation with en-­brings about systematic semantic shifts, and that these shifts in meaning can be encoded in terms of Jackendoff’s formalism of conceptual structure. In the same way as Lieber and Baayen (1993) argue that unitary LCSs can be ascribed to the Dutch verbal prefixes ver-­, be-­ and ont-­, it is my aim to show that en-­has a core meaning which can be represented by a single basic CS. I base my analysis of the English prefix en-­on data from the online Oxford English Dictionary (OED).5 All entries beginning with em-­ and en-­were selected and entered into a spreadsheet of nearly 2,500 entries. In my preliminary analysis, I searched for data that would illustrate and contribute to the word formation rule that is in a current speaker’s competence. I therefore put aside any irregular cases that did not match this criterion, such as non-­verbs, obsolete verbs and verbs that were derived before borrowing, such as enter. Following this initial selection, I was left with 264 current en-­verbs where both the prefix and the base belong to the mental lexicon of a present-­day speaker of English. In the more in-­depth, semantic analysis, I classified these verbs into semantic types and analysed them using the formalism of CS. En-­verbs in English have two types of etymology. Firstly, they originated in Middle English loans from French (Marchand 1960: 113) from the end of the fourteenth century onwards (OED). For example, endeavour was adapted into English from the French en+devoir, meaning ‘to make it

254  jessica forse one’s duty to do something’.6 In other words, *deavour does not exist in the mental lexicon of a current English speaker, nor did its previous forms exist in the lexicons of past English speakers; the verb endeavour was adapted and borrowed as a whole, not formed by a productive word formation process in the English language. Towards the end of the sixteenth century, English speakers began to use this word formation process productively, using the prefix en-­to form new words in English, in strict accordance with the Latin analogies. An example of this second type of en-­verb is endear, which first appears in English language literature in 1580 (OED). Both parts of the verb, en-­ and dear, belong to the lexicon of the speaker. Furthermore, endear does not exist in French, providing unambiguous proof that it was formed by the word formation process in English. It is this second type of en-­verb that I have analysed in order to ascertain the current word formation rule. Marchand (1960: 114) classifies the semantics of en-­verbs into the types given in (11). (11) a. Type encage ‘put in . . .’ b. Type enslave ‘make into . . .’, type enfeeble ‘make . . .’ c. Type enwrap ‘wrap in, wrap up’

One of the shortcomings of Marchand’s classification is that verbs which do not share the same semantic schema are grouped together. For example, Marchand includes verbs of the type ‘put a . . . on a person or thing’, such as encrown, within his first type, (11a), although it does not conform to the same ‘put in . . .’ structure as encage. Furthermore, there are en-­ verbs that do not fit easily into any of these three categories, such as enwall. Therefore, I reclassified en-­verbs into the six semantic types listed in (12).7 (12)

a. Type 1 – Put (something/someone) in/on X (n), e.g. entomb, enthrone b. Type 2 – Put X (n) in/on (something/someone), e.g. engem, empoison c. Type 3 – Surround (something/someone) with X (n), e.g. enwall d. Type 4 – Make (something/someone) into X (n), e.g. enslave e. Type 5 – Make (something/someone) (more) X (a), e.g. embitter f. Type 6 – X (v) (something/someone) in, e.g. enwrap

Marchand’s classification in (11) does not make the distinction between Types 1 and 2 in (12). Both are subsumed under his first semantic type in (11a). However, there is a clear difference between the two types of verbs in that the base and the Experiencer swap positions. Therefore it is necessary to distinguish between these two types of verbs and classify them separately.

Analysing en- and its Romance equivalents  255 Type 3 verbs, such as enwall, do not easily fit into any of Marchand’s classes in (11). There are fifteen examples of Type 3 verbs in current use, including encincture, encloud and enhalo. Therefore it is necessary to create a new category to incorporate verbs of this type. Types 4 and 5 in (12d–e) together correspond to Marchand’s second type in (11b). I have separated it into two types since they differ both syntactically and semantically. Type 4 verbs mean ‘to make into X’, where X is a noun, whereas Type 5 verbs are derived from adjectives. The syntactic distinction coincides with a semantic distinction. Type 4 verbs encode a discrete change of state, whereas, being derived from adjectives, Type 5 verbs rather encode a change on a scale. This distinction is lost in Marchand’s classification but is expressed in my revised typology. Finally, Type 6 verbs mean ‘to X in’, where X is a verb, as in (12f). This corresponds to Marchand’s third type in (11c). Let us now consider how each of the six semantic types can be analysed in terms of the formalism of CS. The examples in (13) show how some verbs belonging to Type 1 can be expressed in CS. (13) a. The high priest entombed Tutankhamun. [Event CAUSE ([Thing HIGH PRIEST], [Event INCH   ([State BE ([Thing TUTANKHAMUN], [Place IN ([Thing TOMB])])])])] b. The Messiah enthroned the King. [Event CAUSE ([Thing MESSIAH], [Event INCH   ([State BE ([Thing KING], [Place ON ([Thing THRONE])])])])]

(13a) can be paraphrased as ‘The high priest causes the Event which ends with Tutankhamun being in the tomb’, and (13b) can be paraphrased as ‘The Messiah causes the Event which ends with the King being on the throne.’ A noteworthy difference between the CSs in (13) is that (13a) has the Place-­function IN while (13b) has the Place-­function ON. However, the distinction between IN and ON is rather English-­specific, and not a cross-­linguistic generality.8 Therefore it should not be the basis for separating verbs into different semantic types. For this reason, verbs such as entomb and enthrone, which share the same conceptual patterning bar the Place-­function, are classified within the same semantic type, Type 1. The question of IN versus ON and other language-­specific phenomena will have to be considered systematically within a broader context. The examples in (13) illustrate why INCH is the most appropriate function to use to encode the semantics of en-­verbs. If GO were used in these CSs, it would encode the actual physical process, or in Jackendovian terms, the Path, of entombing Tutankhamun or enthroning the King. It is

256  jessica forse only the end result that these en-­verbs bring about that is highlighted, and therefore INCH encodes the semantics of these verbs well. The CSs in (13) both conform to the same basic CS shown in (14), with only a minor adjustment of the Place-­function. (14) [Event CAUSE ([Thing X], [Event INCH ([State BE ([Thing Y], [Place IN/ON ([Thing Z])])])])]

Whereas (14) and the lexical entries with the base specified at Y or Z are part of the speaker’s competence, (13) exemplifies the use of them in particular sentences, i.e. the performance. What (14) does not specify is the position of the base. The positions which are not occupied by the base constitute the arguments. It is important to distinguish between the position of the base and that of the arguments in (14), since the word formation process operates on the lexicon, retrieving the base and prefix to form the en-­verb, while the lexical entries which constitute the arguments simply occupy syntactic positions and are not part of the word formation process. In (13), a particular distribution is adopted. This shows that Type 1 verbs have their base at Z, with the arguments occupying the X and Y positions. At this point, it is interesting to consider to what extent the other semantic types also conform to the basic CS in (14). Type 2 en-­verbs have the meaning ‘to put X in or on something’, as in (15). (15) a. The jeweller engemmed the ring. [Event CAUSE ([Thing JEWELLER], [Event INCH ([State BE ([Thing GEM], [Place ON ([Thing RING])])])])] b. The regime empoisoned the minds of the young. [Event CAUSE ([Thing REGIME], [Event INCH ([State BE ([Thing POISON], [Place IN ([Thing MINDS OF THE YOUNG])])])])]

The CSs in (15) conform to the basic CS for en-­verbs given in (14). However, the base and arguments occupy different positions to Type 1 verbs. For Type 2 verbs, the base occupies the Y position and the arguments are positioned at X and Z. As with Type 1, the Place-­function varies between ON in (15a) and IN in (15b). The ‘minds of the young’ in (15b) are considered as a Thing. Although the poison in (15b) is not a physical poison, it is a metaphor. For these reasons, (15b) is encoded in the Spatial field. Type 3 en-­verbs mean ‘to surround with X’, for example, enwall, as in (16).

Analysing en- and its Romance equivalents  257 (16) The Trojans enwalled the city of Troy. [Event CAUSE ([Thing TROJANS], [Event INCH (State BE ([Thing WALL], [Place AROUND ([Thing CITY OF TROY])])])])]

The CS in (16) also follows the pattern of the core CS for en-­verbs, with a change of the Place-­function, in this case, to AROUND. As with Type 2, the base of Type 3 verbs occupies the Y position and the arguments are positioned at X and Z. Type 4 verbs mean ‘to make into X’. Two examples are given in (17). (17) a. The master enslaved the boy. [Event CAUSE ([Thing MASTER], [Event INCH  ([State BEIdent ([Thing BOY], [Place ATIdent ([Property SLAVE])])])])] b. The spy enraged the king. [Event CAUSE ([Thing SPY], [Event INCH   ([State BEIdent ([Thing KING], [Place ATIdent ([Property RAGE])])])])]

Until this point, all of the examples have been encoded in the Spatial field, meaning that they represent the end result of a spatial movement of Things. The notable difference is that the examples in (17), and indeed all Type 4 verbs, are encoded in a different conceptual field, the Identificational field. The Identificational field is used to encode the attribution of Properties as opposed to spatial movements. Following Gruber (1965), Jackendoff (1983: 188) proposes to use the Spatial field as a model for the other domains. Indeed, the Identificational field has parallel lexical patterning to the Spatial field, but where a Thing is located at a Place in the Spatial field, in the Identificational field, a Thing is attributed a Property (Jackendoff 1990: 25–6). In CS, functions belonging to the Identificational field are marked with a subscript Ident, as shown in (17), and all of the functions apply in the same way as in the Spatial field. There is also a change of ontological category to express the fact that RAGE is a Property, and the Place-­function changes to AT. The category of the base is Property, since the object does not change into something else; it simply takes on another property. For example, the boy does not cease to be a boy because he is now a slave; he merely takes on the property of being a slave.9 As with Type 1 verbs in (13), Type 4 verbs also have their base at Z, with the arguments occupying the X and Y positions. Type 5 verbs mean ‘to make (more) X’, for example, embitter, as in (18). (18) The divorce embittered Michael. [Event CAUSE ([Thing DIVORCE], [Event INCH (State BEIdent ([Thing MICHAEL], [Place ATIdent ([Property BITTER])])])])]

258  jessica forse The CS in (18) shows that Type 5 verbs also conform to the basic CS for en-­ verbs, notwithstanding some systematic variations. As was the case in (17), the Place-­function is changed to AT and the ontological category is changed to Property. Again, this example is encoded in the Identificational field, meaning that the relevant functions are marked with the subscript Ident. Type 5 verbs follow the same pattern as Types 1 and 4, insofar as they have their base at Z, with the arguments occupying the X and Y positions. It seemed likely that the change in meaning brought about by Type 5 verbs could be represented by a cline and therefore encoded using the GO function, given that they are derived from adjectives. However, upon closer examination, this is not the case. As with the other types, the change of state brought about by Type 5 verbs is best represented by a succession of two states, and therefore the INCH function. It is the end-­result, of being embittered for example, that is important, and not the transition, or Path, leading to this embitterment. In other words, the ‘more’ in (12e) is not a significant part of the meaning of this type. The examples in (19) illustrate this point further. (19) a. *Michael was embittered, but he was not bitter given his cheerful disposition. b. The metal cooled slightly, but it was still too hot to touch.

(19a) does not make sense, while (19b) is a perfectly valid statement. This is because the meaning of embitter cannot be represented by a cline, whereas the meaning of the verb cool can. In other words, the end-­result of embitter is always that the Experiencer is bitter whereas the end-­result of cool is not always cool; in some cases, as in (19b), it is merely cooler than it was before.10 Therefore INCH should be used to encode en-­verbs, including Type 5, where the end-­result of the process is the relevant part of the verb’s meaning. Type 6 verbs mean ‘to X in’, for example, enwrap means ‘to wrap in’ and is used predominantly in a figurative sense and in the passive, as in (20).11 (20) The girl was enwrapped by the fascinating tale. [Event CAUSE ([Thing FASCINATING_TALE], [Event INCH (State BE ([Thing GIRL], [Place IN ([Thing WRAP])])])])]

As with Types 1, 4 and 5, Type 6 verbs have their base at Z with the arguments occupying the X and Y positions. Having analysed examples from all six of the semantic types in terms of the formalism, I conclude that all semantic types for en-­conform to one basic CS, given in (21).

Analysing en- and its Romance equivalents  259 Table 13.1  Variables by semantic type Type

Y

Z

α

β

Semantic field

1 6 4 5 2 3

Experiencer Experiencer Experiencer Experiencer Base Base

Base Base Base Base Experiencer Experiencer

IN/ON IN ATIdent ATIdent IN/ON AROUND

Thing Thing Property Property Thing Thing

Spatial Spatial Identificational Identificational Spatial Spatial

(21) [Event CAUSE ([Thing X], [Event INCH ([State BE ([Thing Y], [Place α ([β Z])])])])]

The variation between the different types of verbs can be reduced to the following variables: • • • •

whether the base is positioned at Y or Z; the Place-­Function, α;12 the ontological category of Z, β; the semantic field of the predicate.

Each type has a combination of these four variables (the first argument, or Agent, always occupies the X position), as summarised in Table 13.1. The types in Table 13.1 have been purposely rearranged so as to facilitate comparison between certain types and highlight the similarities between them. We can now distinguish three clusters: • Although the semantic schemas of Types 1 and 6, as in (12), are quite different, a closer examination of the CSs in (13) and (20), and the variables presented in Table 13.1, shows striking similarities between them. Indeed, it could be argued that Type 6 is a subset of Type 1, since α is always IN for Type 6 verbs; that is, it is one of the two options for α for Type 1 verbs. Given this semantic similarity, the difference between this pair of types is rather expressed at a syntactic level, since Type 1 verbs are derived from nouns (entomb) and Type 6 from verbs (enwrap). • Types 4 and 5 form a second cluster of semantic types. In the analysis of the semantics of Type 5 verbs we saw that, although they are derived from adjectives, they do not encode a cline. It is the end-­result of the Event that is important, and not the transition leading to it. Therefore Types 4 and 5 are conceptually identical. As with Types 1 and 6, the difference between 4 and 5 is expressed at a syntactic rather than a semantic level. The nuances of meaning follow from these syntactic properties.13

260  jessica forse • Together, Types 2 and 3 form the third cluster. The only difference between these types is the Place-­function α. They are noticeably different from the other types in syntactic terms, since the base and Experiencer swap positions. In conclusion, this classification comprises six semantic types for en-­ verbs, as presented in Table 13.1.14 By encoding these different types in CS, the relationship between them can be expressed precisely. By examining the variables in Table 13.1, it is also possible to group the types into three clusters: (1) Types 1 and 6; (2) Types 4 and 5; and (3) Types 2 and 3.15 This shows that the variation between the different types, while expressible in CS, is only marginal. 3  ROMANCE EQUIVALENTS

The prefix en-­came into English from Latin via French, as described by Marchand (1960: 113), and therefore there is a historic link between the English prefix and Romance en-­. In the Romance languages, however, there is a semantic overlap between the prefixes en-­ and a-­, which has not been taken over into English. It is interesting to consider whether verbal derivatives with these prefixes in French, Spanish and Portuguese conform to the same semantic types as English en-­ verbs. For French, I used the online Trésor de la Langue Française (TLF) and the fourth edition of the Oxford Hachette French Dictionary (2007) as my data sources. For Spanish, I used the online dictionary of the Real Academia Española and the third edition of the Oxford Spanish Dictionary (2003). For my Portuguese data, I used the third edition of the Collins Portuguese Dictionary (2007). For my analysis of Romance en-­, I took the semantic types for English en-­verbs as a basis and investigated whether French, Spanish and Portuguese have correlates for these types. (22) shows examples of French en-­verbs that correspond to each semantic type. (22)

a. Type 1 b. Type 2 c. Type 3 d. Type 4 e. Type 5 f. Type 6

embouteiller ‘put in bottle’ empoisonner ‘put poison in’ encadrer ‘surround with frame’ embouler ‘make into a ball’ embrunir ‘make (more) brown’ enfermer ‘shut in’

bouteille ‘bottle’ poison ‘poison’ cadre ‘frame’ boule ‘ball’ brun ‘brown’ fermer ‘shut’

Spanish en-­verbs also correlate with the same semantic types, as in (23).

Analysing en- and its Romance equivalents  261 (23)

a. Type 1 b. Type 2 c. Type 3 d. Type 4 e. Type 5 f. Type 6

embotellar ‘put in bottle’ empapelar ‘put paper on’ enmarcar ‘surround with frame’ enviudar ‘make into a widow(er)’ enrojecer ‘make red, redden’ encerrar ‘shut in’

botella ‘bottle’ papel ‘paper’ marco ‘frame’ viudo/a ‘widow(er)’ rojo ‘red’ cerrar ‘shut’

(24) shows examples of Portuguese correlates. (24)

a. Type 1 b. Type 2 c. Type 3 d. Type 4 e. Type 5 f. Type 6

engarrafar ‘put in bottle’ envenenar ‘put poison in’ emoldurar ‘surround with frame’ enviuvar ‘make into a widow(er)’ emagrecer ‘make thin’ encerrar ‘shut in’

garrafa ‘bottle’ veneno ‘poison’ moldura ‘frame’ viuvo/a ‘widow(er)’ magro ‘thin’ cerrar ‘shut’

As (22–24) illustrate, en-­verbs in all three languages have correlates for the same six semantic types set up originally for English. Because of their semantic similarity, arguably all of these correlates conform to the same basic CS for English en-­verbs, given in (21). This is illustrated for Type 1 verbs in the parallel examples in (25), all meaning ‘The wine producer puts the wine in bottles’. (25) a. Le viticulteur embouteille le vin. [Event CAUSE ([Thing VITICULTEUR], [Event INCH ([State BE ([Thing VIN], [Place IN ([Thing BOUTEILLE])])])])] b. El vinicultor embotella el vino. [Event CAUSE ([Thing VINICULTOR], [Event INCH ([State BE ([Thing VINO], [Place IN ([Thing BOTELLA])])])])] c. O vinicultor engarrafa o vinho. [Event CAUSE ([Thing VINICULTOR], [Event INCH ([State BE ([Thing VINHO], [Place IN ([Thing GARRAFA])])])])]

This generalisation across the languages is due to the etymological relationship between the different en-­prefixes, as described in section 2. By looking at French translations of English en-­verbs, I found that the Romance prefix a-­can also bring about some of the same semantic changes as the English prefix en-­. I investigated this correspondence in a systematic way, using the same data sources that I used for my analysis of Romance en-. A-­verbs are much less frequent than en-­verbs, and the absence of

262  jessica forse certain types in the data seems to be at least in part accidental. (26) gives examples of the two types found in French. (26) a. Type 1 alunir ‘put on moon’ b. Type 5 assouplir ‘make softer, soften’

lune ‘moon’ souple ‘soft’

Spanish a-­verbs also correlate with some of the same semantic types for en-­verbs, as in (27). (27) a. Type 2 acuchillar ‘put knife in, stab’ b. Type 3 acordonar ‘surround with cord, cordon off’ c. Type 5 ablandar ‘make softer, soften’

cuchillo ‘knife’ cordón ‘cord’ blando ‘soft’

(28) shows some Portuguese a-­verbs which correlate with some of the semantic types for en-­ verbs. (28) a. Type 4 abagunçar ‘make into mess’ b. Type 5 amolecer ‘make softer, soften’

bagunça ‘mess’ mole ‘soft’

The examples in (29) demonstrate how Type 5 a-­verbs are encoded in CS. (29) a. Obama assouplit la politique américaine envers Cuba. ‘Obama softens the American policy on Cuba’. [Event CAUSE ([Thing OBAMA], [Event GOIdent ([Thing POLITIQUE_AMERICAINE_ENVERS_CUBA], [Path TOWARDSIdent ([Property SOUPLE])])])])] b. El Ayuntamiento ablanda las restricciones de tráfico. ‘The Council softens traffic restrictions’. [Event CAUSE ([Thing AYUNTAMIENTO], [Event GOIdent ([Thing RESTRICCIONES_DE_TRAFICO], [Path TOWARDSIdent ([Property BLANDO])])])])] c. A idade amolece o ditador. ‘Age softens the dictator’. [Event CAUSE ([Thing IDADE], [Event GOIdent ([Thing DITADOR], [Path TOWARDSIdent ([Property MOLE])])])])]

It is interesting to note that, in contrast to Type 5 en-­verbs, the examples in (29) are best encoded using the GO function. It is clear that the sense of the verb is ‘make more X’ rather than ‘make X’, as with embitter. Obama’s policy on Cuba is not soft; rather, he has relaxed it somewhat, but it is still

Analysing en- and its Romance equivalents  263 tough. In Jackendovian terms, the Experiencer is moving towards the end-­ result, but there is no implication that this end-­result has been reached. At least for Type 5 verbs, there is a systematic semantic difference between en-­ and a-­verbs in this respect. There is no direct correlation between Romance a-­and English en-­ since they are not etymologically related. However, there is some semantic overlap, especially between Romance en-­ and a-­. As (22) and (26) show, both French prefixes have verbs belonging to Types 1 and 5, meaning that they compete for some of the same meanings. However, verbs formed using a-­ and en-­also have semantic idiosyncrasies. For example, the prefix a-­forms derivatives belonging to other semantic types, such as ‘get on X’, for example agenouiller means ‘to get on (one’s) knee(s)’, i.e. ‘to kneel’. The exhaustive list of semantic types for a-­verbs would be another interesting topic to explore further. Furthermore, French en-­verbs can have moral connotations, which can be observed when you compare ennoblir, meaning ‘to make noble’ in a moral sense, with anoblir ‘to make noble’ in the proper sense (TLF). Similarly, French a-­verbs can have a relative sense, which can be observed when you compare baisser ‘to lower’ in an absolute sense, with abaisser ‘to lower’ in a relative sense. There are two hypotheses for how these differences in meaning came to be. Firstly, the semantic contrast between the verbs could be attributed to the word formation processes having developed specialisations of meaning. That is, it could be argued that prefixation with en-­carries with it moral connotations, and prefixation with a-­attributes a relative sense to its derivatives. An alternative – and perhaps more plausible – explanation is that this is simply an effect of name-­giving. In such an onomasiological perspective, there is a need to name a concept, and therefore a naming process is required. If the most natural choice of process has already been used to name another concept, an alternative process has to be used. In the absence of further evidence of this type, the second hypothesis seems the most likely. 4 CONCLUSION

In light of the preceding analyses, the following conclusions can be drawn: • The six semantic types for English en-­verbs given in Table 13.1 all conform to one basic CS, given in (21). • The variation between the types can be reduced to the four variables in Table 13.1. By analysing the types in this way, the relationship between the different types could be expressed in precise terms. On this basis,

264  jessica forse it was found that the types can be grouped into three clusters. This demonstrates that the variation between the different types is not only systematic, but also marginal. • Romance en-­verbs have correlates for the same six semantic types as English en-­verbs. Given this semantic correlation, it can be argued that they have the same core CS. This is not surprising in view of the etymological relationship between the prefixes. • The Romance prefix a-­can bring about some of the same semantic changes as the English prefix en-­. However, there is no direct correlation since they are not etymologically related. • The change in meaning brought about by en-­verbs is represented by a succession of two discrete states and is therefore most accurately encoded using the INCH function. In contrast, it seems that the semantic change caused by a-­verbs can be represented by a cline and is consequently best encoded using the GO function. This chapter has shown how Jackendoff’s theory of Conceptual Structure can be used as a framework within which to investigate the relationship between lexical semantics and morphology. In particular, we have seen that the formalism is a useful tool for encoding and analysing the semantic changes brought about by derivational word formation processes. It is hoped that this study will serve as a useful point of departure for continued exploration into the conceptual semantics of word formation. NOTES

1. In this framework, human beings are not distinguished from other Things since they are also physical objects. 2. The curly brackets in (6c) denote that the first argument of CAUSE is either a Thing or an Event. 3. The CS function is not to be confused with the abbreviation for Conceptual Structure, CS. 4. This finer-­ grained analysis of causation was first introduced in Jackendoff (1990: 126–50). In this earlier version, the macrorole tier was called the action tier. Jackendoff (2007: 204–6) expands the action tier to some of the perception verbs and replaces the name with macrorole tier. 5. The OED data was collected in April 2010. Some data may have changed since this time due to the continual revision of the OED. 6. The first documented appearance of endeavour in the English language was c.1400 (OED).

Analysing en- and its Romance equivalents  265 7. In describing my classification, I use X to refer to the base followed by the syntactic category in brackets and ‘something/someone’ to refer to the object of the resulting verb. 8. This is illustrated by comparing the English phrase on the bus with the equivalent phrase in French, dans le bus, which literally translates as ‘in the bus’. 9. Jackendoff (1983: 194) treats properties indicated by nouns, as in (17a), as Thing Type rather than Property. This distinction could be maintained here with a slight complication of the ensuing generalization. 10. For a verb such as enlarge, the contrast is perhaps less obvious, since it is not an exact science how big an object has to be in order to be considered large. However, a minimum size is implied; an enlarged object would be bigger than normal. An enlarged photograph, for instance, would be bigger than the standard size. Therefore it is still the end-­ result of being large that needs to be encoded and not the transition of becoming large. 11. If something is expressed in the passive voice, it is possible that one of the arguments (the agent) may remain underspecified, but the overall conceptualisation of a phrase is not affected by voice. If the example in (20) were rephrased in the active voice (albeit marked in this case) as ‘The fascinating tale enwrapped the girl’, the conceptualization is the same, and therefore the CS would also be the same. 12. For Types 1 and 2, α is either IN or ON. As argued with reference to (13), the distinction between IN and ON is specific to English and is not a cross-­linguistic generality. For this reason, verbs which share the same conceptual patterning, bar this distinction in Place-­function, are classified within the same semantic type. 13. This approach to the distribution of tasks between syntax and semantics is in line with Culicover and Jackendoff’s (2005) general assumption that it should depend on empirical considerations rather than theoretical preconceptions which aspects should be covered by which component. 14. Despite the reordering of the types in Table 13.1, the original numbering will be maintained for ease of comparison throughout the chapter. 15. It is interesting to note that the three clusters do not correspond exactly to Marchand’s three semantic types in (11).

chapter 14

Semantics of diminutivization: evidence from Russian Renáta Panocová

P

revious cross-­linguistic research into diminutivization and augmentativization, also commonly referred to as evaluative morphology, has pointed to the nearly universal nature of nominal diminutives and augmentatives (Bauer 1997; Dressler and Barbaresi 1994). It has also been observed that diminutives and augmentatives express not only their basic meaning of diminution and augmentation but also that of intensification, politeness or rudeness strategies, etc. (Dressler and Barbaresi 1994: 27). Grandi (2011: 7) classifies languages into four types (A, B, C and D) based on the presence or absence of diminutives and augmentatives in a language. Type A includes languages with diminutives only, type B with both diminutives and augmentatives, type C without diminutives and augmentatives. Type D, a language with augmentatives only, is not attested. Slavic languages belong to type B, which implies they have morphological devices at their disposal to derive diminutives and augmentatives. It may be stated that there is a direct link between the typological characteristics of a language and the presence of morphologically formed diminutives and augmentatives. As indicated by Grandi (2011: 8), inflectional languages, e.g. Romance, Slavonic and Baltic languages, tend to belong to type B whereas analytic languages, e.g. Germanic languages, belong either to type A (presence of diminutives only) or type C (no evaluative morphology). Russian is an East-­Slavic and inflectional language especially rich in its inventory of diminutives. The word classes that can be morphologically diminutivized in Russian include nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs. Denominal diminutivization is a highly productive process in Russian. Kempe et al. (2003: 473) claims with respect to Russian that ‘almost any concrete noun can be diminutivized’. As the data in section 2 reveal, certain abstract nouns in Russian can also have diminutive forms. The aim of the present chapter is to investigate how diminutive nouns

semantics of diminutivization  267 in Russian get their meaning from the perspective of the onomasiological approach. Section 1 briefly outlines Horecký’s multi-­level model of word formation as it represents the theoretical point of departure of this chapter. Section 2 applies the model to Russian diminutive nouns and focuses on the description of the semantic level. The main aim of this section is to describe a complete semantic definition of diminutive nouns in Russian, including semantic features, relations between them and their hierarchy. Section 3 then summarizes the conclusions. The data exemplifying strings of semantic features are presented in Tables 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3 in the appendix. 1  THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

In this section I will first present Horecký’s (1983) onomasiological model of word formation. Section 1.2 will clarify what is meant by a complete semantic definition of diminutive nouns. 1.1  Horecký’s model of word formation Horecký’s (1983) multi-­level model of word formation represents one of several models that can be set within the onomasiological framework, in which the study of word formation departs from meaning rather than form. Horecký’s model involves a particular object of extra-­linguistic reality, and includes conceptual, semantic, onomasiological, onomatological and phonological levels. The conceptual level is also referred to as the pre-­ semantic component (Horecký 1994: 12) and describes an object of extra-­ linguistic reality by means of logical predicates. Based on the Saussurean concept of the linguistic sign, the semantic level constitutes the signifié, while the onomasiological, onomatological and phonological levels combine to form the signifiant. First, the formal levels will be briefly outlined. The onomasiological structure is expressed by the onomasiological base and the onomasiological mark. The former also includes a set of categories, e.g. word class and related categories. Both the onomasiological base and mark are expressed by morphemes (formants) at the onomatological level. The phonological level specifies the phonological features of a particular naming unit and applies the appropriate phonological rules. Let us now turn to a more detailed description of the semantic level, which plays the most prominent role in Horecký’s multi-­level model of word formation. In addition, Horecký’s elaborate approach to the semantic level represents the theoretical starting point for the analysis of Russian

268  renáta panocová diminutive nouns in section 2. Horecký (1994) differentiates between four types of meaning: categorial, invariant, specific and lexical. As pointed out by Štekauer (2005b: 211), ‘the first three meanings as a whole are labelled as the “structural” meaning (given by the interrelation between onomasiological base and mark), and underlie the lexical meaning’. Horecký (1980: 84) provides the example of the Slovak word hovädzina (‘beef’) to illustrate the four meanings. The categorial meaning of hovädzina (‘beef’) is denominal noun, the invariant meaning is defined by a string of semantic features, –HUM +CONCR +RES –INS +MAT –FIN +ORIG (the meaning of the individual features will be explained in section 1.2). The specific meaning is ‘meat from a certain animal’ and its lexical meaning is ‘meat from beef cattle’. The specific meaning specifies that it is a particular kind of meat and it represents a model denoting the whole class of different kinds of meat. Only the lexical meaning adds up the information that the meat comes from beef cattle. Horecký (1994) sets out a list of semantic distinctive features, explains their relations and finally provides their hierarchical arrangement. He points to the fact that a set of semantic distinctive features constitutes the semantic level of the language and describes a particular word formation field. It is the word class of the word formation base and the resulting naming unit (deadjectival adjectives, deverbal nouns, denominal verbs, etc.) that define a corresponding word formation field. Horecký (1994: 20) uses the term complete semantic definition for the string of semantic distinctive features describing a particular word formation field, specified relations between the features and their hierarchical arrangement in the form of a tree-­diagram. He emphasizes that the meaning of derived words may not be deduced from the meaning of the base or the formant, but only from the derived word itself (Horecký, 1980: 85). That the meaning of a derivation is not entirely compositional is expected. This is illustrated by the example in Figure 14.1. Horecký (1994: 34) considers the semantic distinctive feature of stativity (STA) to be the most abstract and hierarchically highest semantic feature of deadjectival verbs in Slovak. Verbs like veseliť sa (‘enjoy oneself’) +

veselit’ sa (‘enjoy oneself’)

STA

+ –

bielit’ (‘whiten/bleach’)

FAC

+ –

MAT –

rohovatiet’ (‘keratinize’) beliet’ (‘pale’)

Figure 14.1  Complete semantic definition of deadjectival verbs in Slovak by Horecký (1994: 34)

semantics of diminutivization  269 derived from veselý (‘merry’) are assigned the semantic feature +STA. Verbs with –STA fall into factives +FAC and non-­factitives –FAC. The former are exemplified by bieliť (‘whiten’). The latter are subdivided based on whether or not they denote a change of state of material (MAT). Verbs like rohovatieť (‘keratinize’) are assigned the semantic feature +MAT as the base or what is called the motivating word refers to a substance, but verbs like belieť (‘to pale’) are assigned –MAT. Deverbal nouns, denominal nouns, deadjectival nouns, deverbal adjectives, denominal adjectives, deadjectival verbs, denominal verbs and deverbal verbs in contemporary literary Slovak were described in a similar way by Horecký, but he does not analyse them in detail. Kačmárová (2010) analyses Slovak diminutives, but she uses a different framework. Therefore examining Russian diminutives is interesting because it gives a new phenomenon and a new language. I will examine Russian diminutives from the perspective of Horecký’s approach to the description of the semantic level. 1.2  The semantics of diminutive nouns in Russian Diminutive nouns in Russian represent a subset of denominal nouns, deverbal nouns and deadjectival nouns. It is assumed that the derivation of diminutives modifies the meaning of the base words by adding a modifying feature of diminution. Dokulil (1962: 47) distinguishes three onomasiological categories: mutational (relational), transpositional and modificational. The mutational category is the most basic type. The concepts of one category constituting the onomasiological base are specified by the concepts of either the same or a different category representing the onomasiological mark. For instance, the category of SUBSTANCE is determined by its relation to the concept of the category of SUBSTANCE (toothpaste) or ACTION (teacher).The meaning of a derived word substantially differs from the meaning of the base. In the transpositional category a phenomenon understood as a mark dependent on a SUBSTANCE is generalized (abstracted) and becomes independent of the SUBSTANCE. An example is the objectification of QUALITY (playful – playfulness). It is only the word class that changes, not the lexical meaning of the base. The modificational category differs from the other two in the fact that a modifying feature (mark) is added to a concept of a particular category. The modification can be of several types including not only diminutives but also augmentatives, names of the young, collective nouns and changes of gender. The category of the names of the young refers to animate beings that are not adult, e.g. kitten, child.

270  renáta panocová To my knowledge, diminutives in Russian have not been examined before within the above framework. Typical treatments of diminutives are exemplified by the Academic Russian Grammar edited by Švedova (1982) and the books on Russian word formation by Bratus (1969), Townsend (1975) and Vinogradov (1986). They provide lists of masculine, feminine and neuter diminutive suffixes and their corresponding allomorphs and specify the conditions that must be met for their use. The fundamental issue to be addressed when describing the semantics of derived words within the onomasiological approach is the systematic description in terms of semantic distinctive features. In this framework it is assumed that the meaning of derived words is given by an entire string of semantic features, i.e. the invariant meaning of a resulting word. Horecký (1994: 39) emphasizes that such an analysis points to ‘a reciprocal relation between bases (motivating words) and formants at least in the sense that certain bases combine only with certain formants or vice versa’. This also means that particular strings of semantic features may be assigned, for instance, to denominal nouns derived by certain specific formants (suffixes) and not by certain other suffixes to denominal nouns. The starting point for derivation would not be assigning a suffix to a noun but a noun to a suffix. As mentioned in section 1.1, Horecký’s model of word formation involves a particular object of extra-­linguistic reality, and includes conceptual, semantic, onomasiological, onomatological and phonological levels. I will now briefly outline the relation of semantic level to the formal levels. The so-­called onomasiological structure comprising onomasiological base and mark is specified at the onomasiological level. It is based on the string of semantic features defined at the semantic level. The onomasiological structure is fleshed out by formants at the onomatological level. It may be stated that the approach from meaning to form reveals the relation between semantic and onomatological structure. Horecký (1994: 52) points out that different formants can be found in the same string of semantic features and conversely, the same formant can be found in several different strings of semantic features, e.g. the morpheme -­stvo realizes two strings of semantic features: –HUM –CONCR +QUAL illustrated by priateľstvo (‘friendship’) and –HUM –CONCR –QUAL exemplified by učiteľstvo (‘teachership’). The contrast in meaning is that učiteľstvo (‘teachership’) is a profession or a group of people whereas priateľstvo (‘friendship’) is a relationship. Horecký’s (1974: 129) systematic description of semantic features is based on two types of criteria, traditional and systematic. Traditional criteria stem from derivational definitions whereas systematic criteria rely on the selection of specific semantic distinctive features leading to a hierarchically arranged system of these features. Horecký (1974: 131) points out several principles governing the whole selection process. Firstly, it is

semantics of diminutivization  271 necessary to select the semantic features applicable to all possible members of a particular word formation field, for instance denominal nouns based on the method of binary division into positive and negative features. Secondly, it seems appropriate to proceed from general semantic distinctive features to more specific ones. Last but not least, their hierarchical ordering must be determined in order to describe a system of semantic features. Horecký (1994: 36–7) lists thirty-­nine semantic features and subsequently applies them in describing semantics of deverbal nouns, denominal nouns, deadjectival nouns, deverbal adjectives, denominal adjectives, deadjectival verbs, denominal verbs and deverbal verbs in contemporary Slovak. Horecký’s (1994) inventory of semantic distinctive features is also used here to describe a complete semantic definition of Russian diminutive nouns. Diminutive nouns in Russian can be found in deverbal nouns, denominal nouns and deadjectival nouns, and the list of semantic features applied in their complete semantic definition did not include all thirty-­nine of Horecký’s features, but twenty of them, namely ADH, AFF, AGN, CONCR, CONT, EFF, ERG, HAB, HUM, ‘HUM’, INS, LOC, MAT, MOD, OFF, ORIG, POS, RES, REZ, STAT. All the semantic distinctive features are explained and exemplified in sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3. The names of all the features are derived from words of Latin origin. 2  RUSSIAN DIMINUTIVE NOUNS

For the purpose of the analysis it was necessary to collect a wide range of diminutivized Russian nouns. The data were collected from the above-­ mentioned sources. Some diminutive forms were verified in Dal’ (2005) and by searching in the Russian national corpus (http://ruscorpora.ru/ search-­main.html#). The sources with complete bibliographical data are included in the references. The diminutive nouns taken from the above sources served as a basis for a more detailed analysis. The next step was to classify the collected diminutive forms of Russian nouns with respect to their categorial meaning, i.e. denominal, deverbal and deadjectival nouns. These classes were divided into sets including names of persons, names of places, names of instruments, names of quality, etc. Then each of the sets was described based on common semantic features. In other words, each diminutive noun was assigned the appropriate strings of semantic distinctive features. A full overview of the strings of semantic features with examples of Russian diminutives is given in Tables 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3 in the appendix to the chapter. The final step was to present the results of the analysis in tree diagrams, which will serve as our basis for the discussion in the sections

272  renáta panocová below. Throughout the discussion I will follow Horecký’s tree diagrams. Where the Russian data require me to expand it, this will be discussed in more detail. 2.1  Denominal diminutive nouns As mentioned above, Dokulil (1962) characterizes the category of diminutives as a type of a modificational onomasiological category. It is modificational in the sense that it adds a modifying feature to the content of a particular concept and it points to the complex character of the modifying feature of diminution. This is illustrated in (1). (1) a.  бутылка: бутылочка: butylka: butylochka: (‘bottle’: ‘small bottle’) b. писатель: писателишка: pisateľ: pisatelishka: (‘writer’ pejorative) c.  внук: внучонок: vnuk: vnuchonok: (‘grandson’: small grandson and/or dear grandson)

It may refer to quantity, i.e. size of a concept, smaller than usual (1a), quality, i.e. emotional evaluation, appreciative or depreciative (1b), and quantity and quality (1c). If a modifying feature is emotional or expressive, it may vary in its intensity. Various degrees of intensity may often be expressed by repeated application of the diminutivization process, commonly referred to as diminution of the first and second degree and illustrated in (2). (2) цвет → цветок → цветочек cvet → cvetok → cvetochek ‘flower → flowerDIM → flowerDIM-­DIM’

Diminutives of the second degree tend to denote either smaller size than diminutives of the first degree, or they intensify the emotional or expressive value of the first degree diminutives. The notion of modificational category is essential for the description of semantic definition and therefore indicated at the top of the hierarchy in all three tree diagrams as MOD (see Figures 14.2–14.4) and the linear representations in the appendix to this chapter. As the modifying feature of diminution is only one of the possible modifications covered by the modificational category, it is also necessary to include it in the tree diagrams and linear representations as DIM. It should be emphasized that DIM is understood and used in this chapter as a modifying feature denoting ­quantity, quality and a combination of both. Figure 14.2 presents the hierarchy of the complete semantic definition of

–HAB druzhok friend DIM

–ADH

+INS nozhichek : knife DIM

+HAB brjuchanchik: man with a big belly DIM

–AFF

–LOC vnuchonok: grandson DIM

+ADH

+AFF ogorodnichek : gardener DIM

+LOC nemchishka: German DIM

–CONCR muzykantik : musician DIM

–EFF

–APPEL Nadja : Nadeňka

Figure 14.2  Denominal diminutive nouns in Russian

+CONCR stoljarik : joiner DIM

+EFF

+APPEL

+HUM

–ORIG bumahka : paper DIM

+MAT

+ORIG govjadinka : beef DIM

+RES

MOD +DIM

–INS

+LOC shkolka: school DIM

–CONT golovka : head DIM

+‘HUM’ kotenok : kitten DIM

–POS

+CONT butylochka : bottle DIM

–RES

–LOC rubashechka: shirt DIM

–MAT

+POS dolinka : valley DIM

+CONCR

–HUM

+TEMP godik : year DIM

–TEMP jumorok : humour DIM

–CONCR

274  renáta panocová denominal diminutive nouns in Russian. More examples illustrating a particular string of semantic features are given in Table 14.1 in the Appendix.1 Traditional semantic classifications of Russian nouns divide them into two classes: animate and inanimate. This classification is based on the basic division into names of persons (animate) and names of things/objects (inanimate). Due to the fact that names of animals are considered inanimate, it seems reasonable to top a hierarchy with the semantic distinctive feature ±HUM (from Latin humanus) differentiating between names of persons and things. Russian nouns with semantic feature +HUM that can be diminutivized may be further divided according to the feature appellative (±APPEL, from Latin appellativus). The term appellative is used to denote common nouns (Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics 2005). Horecký (1994) does not use this feature, but it was necessary to introduce it to encode the difference between proper and common diminutive nouns in Russian. The process of diminution applies to a large number of Russian common nouns of different types and therefore a more detailed specification in terms of semantic distinctive features is required. On the other hand, proper names in Russian are also frequently diminutivized, e.g. Ванюшка: Vanjushka, Марфушка: Marfushka, Васенька Vaseňka, Наденька: Nadeňka. Although some linguistic authorities (Dressler and Barbaresi 1994: 84; Volek 1987) exclude hypocoristics from the category of diminutives, they are included in a complete semantic definition of Russian denominal diminutives in this chapter because diminutivized proper names represent a large subset of Russian nominal diminutives. In addition, proper names are part of the lexicon and as such they should be accounted for. Common diminutive nouns marked as +HUM may be broadly divided into two groups based on the feature effector ±EFF (from Latin efficio). The main difference is illustrated by the examples +EFF столяр: столярик: stoljar: stoljarik (‘joiner’), сапожник: сапожничек: sapozhnik: sapozhnichek (‘shoemaker’) who literally produces furniture or shoes, and somebody like –EFF рыбак: рыбачок: rybak: rybachok (‘fisherman’) who does not literally produce fish. The semantic distinctive features ±CONCR +EFF put emphasis on the concrete or abstract nature of the object of the action performed by the person. The diminutive nouns –EFF can be assigned the semantic feature affector ±AFF (from Latin afficio). This feature points to the fact of whether a person takes care of something or not. An example of +AFF is огородник: огородничек: ogorodnik: ogorodnichek (‘gardener’). –AFF diminutive nouns are further divided by the feature ADH (adherence). Diminutive nouns +ADH denote location +LOC, e.g. немец: немчишка: nemec: nemchishka (‘German’) or adherence to a particular

semantics of diminutivization  275 group or organization (family), e.g. сестра: сестрица: sestra: sestrica (‘sister’). Bearers of a certain quality with –ADH have a semantic feature +HAB (from Latin habeo) which points to the presence of an obvious physical characteristic feature, e.g. брюхo (‘big belly’), лоб (‘high forehead’), e.g. лобан: лобанчик: loban: lobanchik (‘man with a high forehead’), брюхан: брюханчик: brjuchan: brjuchanchik (‘man with a big belly’) as opposed to those with –HAB, e.g. господин: господинчик: gospodin: gospodinchik (‘gentleman’), друг: дружок: drug: druzhok (‘friend’). Russian common diminutive nouns with the semantic feature –HUM are assigned the hierarchically topmost semantic distinctive feature ±CONC (concrete). In many languages, e.g. German, abstract nouns cannot be diminutivized. In Russian, however, many examples of diminutivized abstract nouns can be found, e.g. теория: теорийка: teorija: teorijka (‘theory’). A large group of abstract diminutives can be described by a semantic feature of time TEMP, e.g. утро: утречко: utro: utrechko (‘morning’). The semantic feature TEMP is not used by Horecký, but I introduced it because of the nature of a relatively large set of Russian diminutives. A relatively large class of –HUM +CONCR diminutives is represented by the names of young animals, e.g. котенок: котеночек: kotenok: kotenochek (‘kitten’). Typically, these can be assigned a distinctive semantic feature –‘HUM’. Horecký (1974, 1994) emphasizes the difference between HUM and ‘HUM’. The former indicates the contrast between names of persons and things while the latter describes changes of gender that belong to a modificational category. For Horecký (1994: 53), in Slovak +‘HUM’ marks changes of gender, e.g. chirurg: chirurgička (‘surgeon’) (‘woman surgeon’), člen: členka (‘member’) (‘woman member’) as opposed to –‘HUM’ which refers to the names of the young e.g. holub: holubica (‘pigeon’) (‘dove’), tiger: tigríča (‘tiger’) (‘tiger cub’). The changes of gender +‘HUM’ are not included as a separate path in the present semantic definition of Russian diminutive nouns due to the fact that not all changes of gender are diminutivized. For instance, американка: amerikanka (‘American woman’) has a diminutive form американочка: amerikanochka whereas докторша: doktorsha (‘female doctor’) is not diminutivized. The former is described by more relevant semantic features which can be found under a different path of the tree diagram. The feature –‘HUM’ points to the fact that young animals are smaller, perhaps less strong and not human beings. Interestingly, diminutivized names of young animals seem to combine two modifying features within Dokulil’s modificational category, namely the feature young and the feature small. Denominal diminutive nouns +CONCR may be further subdivided

276  renáta panocová based on the feature materiality RES (from Latin res ‘thing, matter’). The diminutive nouns marked +RES usually denote names of things and instruments. The semantic feature +INS then may be assigned to words like нож: ножичек: nozh: nozhichek (‘knife’). Within –INS diminutives there is a special subgroup denoting materials (MAT), e.g. золото: золотишко: zoloto: zolotishko (‘gold’), meaning a valuable yellow metal used for making jewellery or things made of gold. A diminutive form emphasizes a positive attitude. A group of diminutives +MAT might be characterized by a feature of origin +ORIG, e.g. говядина: говядинка: govjadina: govjadinka (‘beef’), телятина: телятинка: teljatina: teljatinka (‘veal’). In contrast, diminutives –ORIG do not specify their origin in terms of direct information present in the base, e.g. серебро: серебришко: serebro: serebrishko (‘silver’), сукнo: суконце: sukno: sukonce (‘cloth’). –MAT Diminutives are typically associated with a particular place +LOC, e.g. школа: школка: shkola: shkolka (‘school’). Those with the feature –LOC include e.g. рубашка: рубашечка: rubashka: rubashechka (‘shirt’). Russian –RES diminutives fall into another two subgroups, one with the nouns referring to a position within a particular space POS, e.g. долина: долинка: dolina: dolinka (‘valley’). The group marked –POS splits into two based on the semantic feature content (CONT). +CONT indicates places that store things, tools, materials or substances, e.g. солонка: солоничка: solonka: solonichka (‘salt box’). The feature –CONT characterizes the following diminutive nouns, e.g. голова: головка: головушка: golova: golovka: golovushka (‘head’), which may only point to storing something metaphorically. 2.2  Deverbal diminutive nouns As opposed to the complete semantic definition of denominal diminutives, that of deverbal diminutive nouns in Russian seems less complex. A tree diagram of deverbal diminutive nouns is given in Figure 14.3. More examples are provided in Table 14.2 in the appendix to the chapter. The topmost division of deverbal diminutive nouns is represented by the semantic feature of ergativity (ERG). In Horecký’s (1973: 267) understanding, the feature ERG points to an instigator of an action. Deverbal diminutive nouns marked +ERG include names of persons, instruments and materials, while −ERG nouns denote places, actions and results of actions. The next important distinctive feature of +ERG deverbal diminutive nouns is ±HUM. Nouns marked +ERG and +HUM can also be assigned the feature of agentivity (+AGN). Diminutive nouns marked as +AGN and +OFF (from Latin officium, i.e. service, duty) denote persons performing a particular activity as their profession, e.g. купец: купчишка:

semantics of diminutivization  277 MOD +DIM

+ERG

+OFF rabotnik : rabotnichek : worker : worker DIM

–ERG

+HUM

–HUM

+STA

+AGN

+INS meshalka : meshalochka : stirrer : stirrer DIM

+LOC gostinica : gostinichka : hotel : hotel DIM

–STA

+REZ risunok : risunochek : drawing : drawing DIM

–REZ instruktazh : instruktazhik : instructing : instructing DIM

–OFF lgun : lgunishka : liar : liar DIM

Figure 14.3  Deverbal diminutive nouns in Russian

kupec: kupchishka (‘merchant’), работник: работничек: rabotnik: rabotnichek (‘worker’), while those with –OFF refer to persons performing any action, not only their occupation or profession e.g. лгун: лгунишка: lgun: lgunishka (‘liar’), покупатель: покупателик: pokupateľ: pokupatelik (‘buyer’). However, some agentive diminutives may be ambiguous, e.g. водитель: водительчик: voditeľ: voditeľchik (‘driver’) as these can refer to somebody who drives a vehicle or to somebody whose job it is to drive a vehicle. Diminutives with the value –AGN do not seem to occur. None of the examples in the sources indicated falls into this category and formations such as, for example, рыхлитель: *рыхлительничек: rychliteľ: *rychlitelnichek (‘ripper’), which would have this feature sound unnatural. The question arises of whether this is a logical implication of semantic features or a property of diminutives in Russian. Inanimate words characterised by –HUM can be assigned the semantic feature instrument (+INS), e.g. мешалка: мешалочка: meshalka: meshalochka (‘stirrer’). They denote tools and devices used to perform a particular action. Nouns with –INS were not found in the sample.

278  renáta panocová Nouns marked –ERG fall into three groups. In order to characterize them I use the semantic features STA, REZ and LOC. Horecký uses them as privative features, but here they are used as binary ones. Diminutive deverbal nouns –ERG include words denoting places +LOC, e.g. спальня: спальнюшка: spaľnja: spaľnjushka (‘bedroom’), гостиница: гостиничка: gostinica: gostinichka (‘hotel’), and those expressing the feature result of action +REZ,2 e.g. рисунок: рисуночек: risunok: risunochek (‘drawing’), отпечаток: отпечаточек: otpechatok: otpechatochek (‘imprint’). Diminutives describing names of action are assigned the semantic feature –REZ, e.g. инструктаж : инструктажик: instruktazh: instruktazhik (‘instructing’), просьба: просьбочка: prosba: prosbochka (‘plea’). Names of actions tend to emphasize the course of action, whereas names of places where actions occur focus on circumstances and state. Therefore a distinctive feature ±STA (state) is applied to capture the difference. Names of places are marked +STA while names of action and results of action are described as –STA. 2.3  Deadjectival diminutive nouns Figure 14.4 outlines semantic features of deadjectival diminutive nouns in Russian. More examples are presented in Table 14.3 in the appendix to the chapter. The basic distinctive semantic feature of deadjectival diminutive nouns is ±HUM. Diminutive deadjectival nouns tend to denote a particular quality or, more precisely, a bearer of that quality, e.g. толстяк: толстячок: tolstjak: tolstjachok (‘fat person’). The nouns marked –HUM refer to places, MOD +DIM

+HUM

–HUM

+QUAL tolstjak : tolstjachok : fat man : fat man DIM

+LOC svetlica : svetlichka : light room : light room DIM

Figure 14.4  Deadjectival diminutive nouns in Russian

semantics of diminutivization  279 e.g. больница: больничка: boľnica: boľnichka (‘hospital’). The adjective from which the above noun and subsequently diminutive noun are derived is больнoй: boľnoj (‘ill’). 3 CONCLUSION

The aim of the present chapter was to explore the process of how diminutive nouns in Russian get their meaning from the perspective of the onomasiological approach. Horecký’s (1983) multi-­level model of word formation was taken as a point of theoretical departure. The semantic level represented the main concern because it also plays the most prominent role in this model. Horecký (1980: 85) emphasizes that the meaning of derived words may not be deduced from the meaning of the base or the formant, but only from the derived word itself. Horecký (1994: 20) sets out a list of semantic distinctive features characterizing derived words in contemporary literary Slovak, explains their relations and gives their hierarchical arrangement in tree diagrams. Here, I applied Horecký’s model to Russian diminutive nouns. The collected examples of Russian diminutive nouns point to the fact that diminutivization takes place not only in the word formation field of denominal nouns but also in that of deadjectival nouns and deverbal nouns. Thus all three categories were specified in terms of appropriate semantic distinctive features and hierarchical relations among them as graphically represented in Figures 14.2, 14.3 and 14.4. The specific nature of diminution in Russian required the introduction of three additional semantic features DIM, APPEL and TEMP, which were not specified in Horecký’s description of Slovak. The analysis of Russian diminutives also revealed that the semantic description of Russian diminutive nouns differs from that of Russian nouns in general. This may be illustrated by the fact that not all nouns can be diminutivized, e.g. female gender nouns like американка: amerikanka (‘American woman’) and милиционерка: milicionerka (‘police woman’) have a diminutive form американочка: amerikanochka, милиционерочка: milicionerochka (‘police woman’) whereas учительница: uchitelnica (‘female teacher’) or докторша: ­doktorsha (‘female doctor’) are not diminutivized. In line with Horecký’s observations on Slovak, also in Russian diminutives, one diminutive morpheme may refer to several strings of distinctive semantic features. In other words, the mapping between form and meaning is one to many. For instance, the diminutive suffix -­ик: -­ik is related to the string of semantic features MOD +HUM +APPEL +EFF –CONCR: музыкант: музыкантик: muzykant: muzykantik (‘musician’) from the field of denominal nouns and also to MOD +ERG –HUM –ACT +INS:

280  renáta panocová самовар: самоварик: samovar: samovarik (‘device traditionally used to heat and boil water for tea’) from deverbal nouns. From the perspective of further research, it might be interesting to examine the relations between the semantic description of Russian diminutives and their linguistic expression at the onomatological level.

semantics of diminutivization  281 APPENDIX Table 14.1  Denominal diminutive nouns in Russian Russian base

Transliteration of R. base

Transliteration of R. diminutive

Gloss of R. base

Ваня Vanja Ванюшка Марфа Marfa Марфушкa Вася Vasja Васенька Надя Nadja Наденька MOD +DIM +HUM –APPEL столяр stoljar столярик сапожник sapozhnik сапожничек MOD +DIM +HUM +APPEL +EFF +CONCR музыкант muzykant музыкантик помощник pomoshchnik помощничек ремонтник remontnik ремонтничек MOD +DIM +HUM +APPEL +EFF –CONCR рыбак rybak рыбачок моряк morjak морячок милиционер milicioner милиционерчик гусляр gusljar гуслярик MOD +DIM +HUM +APPEL –EFF +AFF китаец kitajec китайчонок американка amerikanka американочка

Vanjushka Marfushka Vaseňka Nadeňka

– – – –

stoljarik sapozhnichek

joiner shoemaker

muzykantik pomoshchnichek remontnichek

musician helper repairer

rybachok morjachok milicionerchik gusljarik

fisherman sailor policeman violinist

kitajchonok amerikanochka

немец француз земляк

nemchishka francuzik zemljachok

Chinese American woman German Frenchman fellow countryman

nemec francuz zemljak

Russian diminutive

немчишка французик землячок

MOD +DIM +HUM +APPEL –EFF –AFF +ADH +LOC мама mama маменька mameňka папа papa папенька papeňka внук vnuk внучонок vnuchonok сестра sestra сестрица sestrica тётя teta тётенька teteňka комсомолка komsomolka комсомолочка komsomolochka MOD +DIM +HUM +APPEL –EFF –AFF +ADH –LOC горбун gorbun горбунчик gorbunchik пузан puzan пузанчик puzanchik губан лобан

guban loban

губанчик лобанчик

gubanchik lobanchik

брюхан

brjuchan

брюханчик

brjuchanchik

MOD +DIM +HUM +APPEL –EFF –AFF –ADH +HAB

mother father grandson sister aunt member of Komsomol (woman) hunchback man with a big belly man with big lips man with high forehead man with a big belly

282  renáta panocová Table 14.1  (continued) Russian base

Transliteration of R. base

друг

drug

Russian diminutive

Transliteration of R. diminutive

дружок druzhok дружочек druzhochek господин gospodin господинчик gospodinchik хозяин xozjain хозяйчик xozjajchik MOD +DIM +HUM +APPEL –EFF –AFF –ADH –HAB юмор jumor юморoк jumorok теория teorija теорийка teorijka смерть smerť смертушка smertushka правда pravda правдочка pravdochka забава zabava забавка zabavka MOD +DIM –HUM –CONCR –TEMP год god годик godik день deň денёк denek вечер vecher вечерок vecherok ночь noch ночка nochka ноченька nocheňka утро utro утречко utrechko понедельник ponedeľnik понедельничек ponedeľnichek зима zima зимушка zimushka MOD +DIM –HUM –CONCR +TEMP змея zmeja змейка zmejka собака sobaka собачка sobachka ёж jezh ёжонок jezhonok заяц zajac зайчик zajchik червяк chervjak червячок chervjachok телёнок telenok телёночек telenochek котенок kotenok котеночек kotenochek жеребёнок zherebenok жеребёночек zherebenochek MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR –‘HUM’ долина dolina долинка dolinka долиночка dolinochka долинушка dolinushka низина nizina низинка nizinka вершина vershina вершинка vershinka середина seredina серединка seredinka MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR –RES +POS нож nozh ножичек nozhichek вилка vilka вилочка vilochka ложка lozhka ложечка lozhechka ключ kljuch ключик kljuchik игла igla иголка igolka дробовик drobovik дробовичок drobovichok MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR +RES +INS

Gloss of R. base friend gentleman master humour theory death truth fun year day evening night morning Monday winter snake dog hedgehog hare worm calf kitten foal valley lowland top centre knife fork spoon key needle rifle

semantics of diminutivization  283 Table 14.1  (continued) Russian base

Transliteration of R. base

Russian diminutive

Transliteration of R. diminutive

телятина teljatina телятинка teljatinka говядина govjadina говядинка govjadinka медвежатина medvezhatina медвежатинка medvezhatinka MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR +RES –INS +MAT +ORIG бумага bumaga бумажка bumazhka золото zoloto золотишко zolotishko серебро serebro серебришко serebrishko сукнo sukno суконце sukonce MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR +RES –INS +MAT –ORIG школа shkola школка shkolka университет universitet университетик universitetik кино kino киношка kinoshka театр teatr театрик teatrik библиотека biblioteka библиотечка bibliotechka аптека apteka аптечка aptechka квартира kvartira квартирка kvartirka город gorod городок gorodok MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR +RES –INS –MAT +LOC кольцо koľco колечко kolechko стол stol столик stolik салфетка salfetka салфеточка salfetochka окнo okno оконце okonce рубашка rubashka рубашечка rubashechka брюки brjuki брючки brujchki MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR +RES –INS –MAT –LOC графин grafin графинчик grafinchik бутылка butylka бутылочка butylochka банка banka баночка banochka ваза vaza вазочка vazochka кружка kruzhka кружечка kruzhechka чашка chashka чашечка chashechka MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR –RES –POS +CONT голова golova головка golovka головушка golovushka жила zhila жилка zhilka жилочка zhilochka рука ruka ручка ruchka ruchonochka ручоночка MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR –RES –POS –CONT

Gloss of R. base veal beef meat bear meat paper gold silver cloth school university cinema theater library chemist’s flat town ring table napkin window shirt trousers carafe bottle tin vase jug cup head vein hand

284  renáta panocová Table 14.2  Deverbal diminutive nouns in Russian Russian base

Transliteration of R. base

Russian diminutive

Transliteration of R. diminutive

Gloss of R. base

купец kupec купчишка писатель pisateľ писателишка Пастух pastux пастушок работник rabotnik работничек MOD +DIM +ERG +HUM +AGN +OFF Лгун lgun лгунишка ассистент assistent ассистентик Бездельник bezdeľnik бездельничек защитник zashchitnik защитничек Крикун Krikun крикунишка

kupchishka pisatelishka Pastushok Rabotnichek

merchant writer shepherd worker

lgunishka assistentik bezdeľnichek zashchitnichek krikunishka

хвастун xvastun хвастунишка эмигрант emigrant эмигрантик MOD +DIM +ERG +HUM +AGN –OFF мешалка meshalka мешалочка пилка pilka пилочка самовар samovar самоварик

xvastunishka emigrantik

liar assistant lazybone defender crybaby or sb who shouts sb who boasts emigrant

зажигалка zazhigalka зажигалочка MOD +DIM –ERG –HUM +INS Спальня spaľnja спальнюшка Гостиница gostinica Гостиничка Колыбель kolybeľ колыбелькa MOD +DIM –ERG +STA +LOC Подарок Podarok Подарочек Рисунок risunok Рисуночек Отпечаток otpechatok отпечаточек Кипяток Kipjatok кипяточек MOD +DIM –ERG –STA +REZ инструктаж instruktazh инструктажик массаж massazh массажик просьба prosba просьбочка MOD +DIM –ERG –STA –REZ

zazhigalochka

stirrer nail file device traditionally used to heat and boil water for tea cigarette lighter

spaľnjushka gostinichka kolybeľka

bedroom hotel cradle

podarochek risunochek otpechatochek kipjatochek

gift drawing imprint boiling/hot water

instruktazhik massazhik prosbochka

instructing massage plea

meshalochka pilochka samovarik

semantics of diminutivization  285 Table 14.3  Deadjectival diminutive nouns in Russian Russian base

Transliteration of R. base

Russian diminutive

толстяк tolstjak толстячок бедняга bednjaga бедняжка милуша milusha милушка простак prostak простачок ленивец lenivec ленивчик дурак durak дурачок старик starik старичок MOD +DIM +HUM +QUAL больница boľnica больничка светлица svetlica светличка темница temnica темничка MOD +DIM –HUM +QUAL +LOC

Transliteration of R. diminutive

Gloss of R. base

tolstjachok bednjazhka milushka prostachok lenivchik durachok starichok

fat person poor person darling simple person lazybones fool old man

boľnichka svetlichka temnichka

hospital light room dungeon

NOTES

1. In order to save space, it was necessary to simplify the examples in Figure 14.2–14.4. Only the transliteration of the diminutive form followed by a gloss is included. The Russian original can be found in the Appendix in the corresponding table. 2. The semantic feature of result is spelled REZ in order to distinguish it from the semantic feature materiality RES.

Semantics of Word Formation and Lexicalization

Notes on contributors

Maria Bloch-­Trojnar is Associate Professor in the Department of Celtic Studies, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin. Her major research interests include morphology and its interfaces with other grammatical components, in particular deverbal nominalizations, the inflection-­ derivation distinction, lexicology, English, Celtic and Slavic languages. She is the author of Polyfunctionality in Morphology – A Study of Verbal Nouns in Modern Irish (Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2006), editor of Perspectives on Celtic Languages (Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2009) and co-­editor with Anna Bloch-­Rozmej of Modules and Interfaces (Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, 2012). She has published among others in Éigse: A Journal of Irish Studies and Journal of Celtic Linguistics. Germana Olga Civilleri received her PhD in Linguistics at Roma Tre University with a dissertation on deverbal nouns in Ancient Greek, published in 2012 as the 38th volume of the series ‘Studies in Indo-­European Linguistics’ (Munich: LINCOM). Her research topics are Classical languages, historical linguistics, case systems, the noun–verb continuum, deverbal nouns, and word formation and the lexicon. Among her major publications, she is contributing to the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics (Leiden: Brill) by writing two entries about abstract nouns and mass/collective nouns. Angeliki Efthymiou is a tenured Assistant Professor of Linguistics at Democritus University of Thrace, Greece. She studied Greek at the University of Thessaloniki, Greece, and specialized in Linguistics (MA and PhD) at the University of Lille III, France. Her research and teaching interests fall within the areas of lexicology, lexical semantics, morphology, lexicography, educational linguistics and language teaching.

notes on contributors  287 She co-­authored with Georgia Fragaki and Angelos Markos the article ‘Productivity of verb forming suffixes in Modern Greek: a corpus-­based study’ in Morphology (2012). She is also the author of Le suffixe -­iá en grec moderne. La manifestation d’un degré maximal d’anthropocentricité (Saarbrücken: Éditions Universitaires Européenes, 2012). Jessica Forse recently completed her PhD in Translation at Swansea University. The focus of her research is to examine to what extent Jackendoff’s theory of lexical semantics, Conceptual Structure, can be applied to the semantics of word formation processes, with an emphasis on Romance languages, particularly French and Spanish. Pius ten Hacken is a Professor at the Institut für Translationswissenschaft of Innsbruck University. Until recently he was at Swansea University. His research interests include morphology, terminology, and the philosophy and history of linguistics. He is the author of Defining Morphology (Hildesheim: Olms, 1994) and of Chomskyan Linguistics and Its Competitors (London: Equinox, 2007), and the editor of Terminology, Computing and Translation (Tübingen: Narr, 2006). He has published in various journals including the International Journal of Lexicography, International Journal for the Semiotics of the Law and Linguistische Berichte. Ewelina Kwiatek is a Research Assistant in the English Department at the Pedagogical University of Krakow, Poland. She completed her PhD studies in Translation at Swansea University in 2012. Her research interests include terminology, specialised translation, corpus linguistics and CAT tools. She is the author of Contrastive Analysis of English and Polish Surveying Terminology (Newcastle: CSP, 2013). Renáta Panocová currently teaches morphological theory, comparative morphology, intercultural communication and speech communication at the Department of British and US Studies, Faculty of Arts, P. J. Šafárik University in Košice, Slovakia. She received her Master’s degree in English language and literature – Russian language and literature from P. J. Šafárik University in Prešov. She continued her studies to earn a PhD degree in linguistics, specializing in Slavistics and Slavic languages, at Prešov University in Slovakia. Her research interests include morphology, terminology and communication. Kaarina Pitkänen-­Heikkilä works as a post-­doctoral researcher in the Department of Finnish, Finno-­Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies at the University of Helsinki, on the Bank of Finnish Terminology in Arts and

288  semantics of word formation and lexicalization Sciences, a project for creating a virtual research infrastructure of Finnish scholarly terms. Her research interests include the morphology, terminology and history of written Finnish. Her doctoral thesis in 2008 dealt with the development of botanical terminology in Finnish. In addition, she has written around ten scientific articles on Finnish vocabulary and terminology, mostly in Finnish. She has also studied non-­fiction translation processes in nineteenth-­century Finnish. Graça Rio-­Torto is full professor at the University of Coimbra. Her PhD in Linguistics (University of Coimbra, 1993) focuses on word formation, semantics and the morphology of evaluatives. Her habilitation analyses the interface between the lexicon and grammar. The main area of her research is the morphology and semantics of Portuguese word ­formation. She is the author of the monographs Morfologia derivacional (Porto Editora, 1998) and Verbos e nomes (Coimbra: Almedina, 2004), as well as several articles (e.g. ‘Portuguese Compounds’, in the Probus 2012 special issue on Romance compounds), and is the editor of the Léxico de la Ciencia: tradición y modernidad (Munich: Lincom, 2012) and the Derivational Grammar of Portuguese Language (Coimbra: Coimbra University Press, in press). Maria Rosenberg received her PhD in French linguistics at Stockholm University, Sweden, in 2008, after which she had research funding for four years. Since 2012 she has been assistant professor in languages and language didactics at Umeå University, Northern Sweden. Her main fields of interest include morphology and lexical semantics, as well as contrastive and corpus linguistics. She has published various articles on word ­formation, adopting synchronic, diachronic and contrastive perspectives. Her ongoing research project deals with nominal compounds and constructions, based on a French-­Swedish parallel corpus. She is also involved in research on L1 acquisition of Swedish. Martin Schäfer received his DPhil from the Universität Leipzig. He currently holds a position in English Linguistics at the Friedrich-­Schiller-­ Universität Jena. A major focus of his work is the syntax and semantics of adjectives and adverbs, be it in adverbial modification or in complex nominal structures. He is currently completing work on a monograph with the title Positions and Interpretations: German Adverbial Adjectives at the Syntax-­Semantics Interface. Barbara Schlücker is a lecturer in linguistics at the department of German and Dutch at the Freie Universität Berlin. She holds a doctoral degree in German linguistics from the Humboldt-­ Universität Berlin

notes on contributors  289 (2006). In 2012, she received her habilitation degree (German and Dutch linguistics) from the Freie Universität Berlin. She works on German with a particular focus on the relationship between German and Dutch. Her specialist areas are lexical semantics, word formation and grammatical theory. She has published in various journals including Lingua, Italian Journal of Linguistics and Linguistische Berichte. Alexandra Soares Rodrigues is Associate Professor at the Escola Superior de Educação of the Instituto Politécnico de Bragança. In her PhD she analyses Portuguese deverbal noun formation. Her main area of research is Portuguese word ­formation. She has published Formação de Substantivos deverbais sufixados em Português (München: Lincom, 2008) and A construção de postverbais em Português (Porto: Granito Editores, 2001) as well as the paper ‘Portuguese converted deverbal nouns: constraints on their bases’, Word Structure, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2009), pp. 69–107. Claire Thomas completed her PhD in Translation at Swansea University. In it, she investigates the contributions made by Jackendoff’s Conceptual Structure, Pustejovsky’s Generative Lexicon and Lieber’s theory of Morphology and Lexical Semantics to the characterization of polysemy in French and English deverbal nouns.

Bibliography

Abney, Steven Paul (1987) The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Adams, Valerie (2001) Complex Words in English. London: Longman. Alexiadou, Artemis (2009) ‘On the role of syntactic locality in morphological processes: the case of (Greek) derived nominals’, in A. Giannakidou and M. Rathert (eds), Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–80. Alexiadou, Artemis and Anagnostopoulou, Elena (2004) ‘Voice morphology in the causative-­ inchoative alternation: evidence for a non-­ unified structural analysis of unaccusatives’, in A.  Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou and M. Everaert (eds), The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 114–36. Alexiadou, Artemis and Grimshaw, Jane (2008) ‘Verbs, nouns and affixation’, in SINSPEC (Working Papers of the SFB 732), 1: 1–16. Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostoloulou, Elena and Schäfer, Florian (2006) ‘The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically’, in Mara Frascarelli (ed.), Phases of Interpretation, Studies in Generative Grammar 91. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 187–211. Allen, Margaret Reece (1978) Morphological Investigations. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut. Amiot, Dany (2005) ‘Between compounding and derivation. Elements of word-­formation corresponding to prepositions’, in W. U. Dressler, D. Kastovsky, O. E. Pfeiffer and F. Rainer (eds), Morphology and Its Demarcations. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 183–95. Anastassiadis-­Symeonidis, Anna (1997) ‘On Modern Greek denominal adjectives’, in G. Booij, A. Ralli and S. Scalise (eds), Proceedings of the 1st Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, University of Patras, pp. 29–40. Anastassiadis-­ Symeonidis, Anna (2002) Αντίστροφο Λεξικό της Νέας Ελληνικής [Reverse Dictionary of Modern Greek]. Thessaloniki: Institouto Neoellinikon Spoudon. Anastassiadis-­Symeonidis, Anna and Fliatouras, Asimakis (2003) Η διάκριση [ΛΟΓΙΟ] και [ΛΑΪΚΟ] στην Ελληνική γλώσσα. Ορισμός και ταξινόμηση [‘The features [learned] and [–learned] in Greek: definition and classification’], in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, University of Crete, http://www.philology.uoc.gr/ conferences/6thICGL/gr.htm. Anderson, Stephen R. (1992) A-­Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

bibliography  291 Arntz, Reiner, Picht, Heribert and Mayer, Felix (2009) Einführung in die Terminologiearbeit, 6th edn. Hildesheim: Olms. Aronoff, Mark (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aronoff, Mark (1980) ‘The relevance of productivity in a synchronic description of word ­formation’, in J. Fisiak (ed.), Historical Morphology. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 71–82. Aronoff, Mark (1984) ‘Word formation and lexical semantics’, Quaderni di Semantica, 5: 45–9. Aronoff, Mark (1992) ‘Stems in Latin verbal morphology’, in M. Aronoff (ed.), Morphology Now. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 5–32. Aronoff, Mark (1994) Morphology by Itself. Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aronoff, Mark and Cho, Sungeun (2001) ‘The semantics of -­ship suffixation’, Linguistic Inquiry, 23: 167–73. Aronoff, Mark and Fudeman, Kirsten (2005) What is Morphology? Oxford: Blackwell. Baayen, Harald (2008) ‘Corpus linguistics in morphology: morphological productivity’, in A.  Lüdeling and M. Kyto (eds), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 899–919. Bannister, Arthur, Raymond, Stanley and Baker, Raymond (1998) Surveying, 7th edn. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Barner, David and Bale, Alan (2002) ‘No nouns, no verbs: psycholinguistic arguments in favor of lexical underspecification’, Lingua, 112: 771–91. Baroni, Marco, Guevara, Emiliano and Pirreli, Vito (2007) ‘NN compounds in Italian: modeling category induction and analogical extension’, Lingue e Linguaggio, VI (2): 263–90. Baroni, Marco, Matiasek, Johannes and Trost, Harald (2002) ‘Predicting the components of German nominal compounds’, in Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI’2002, pp. 470–4. Bauer, Laurie (1983) English Word Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, Laurie (1988) Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bauer, Laurie (1990) ‘Be-­heading the word’, Journal of Linguistics, 26 (1): 1–31. Bauer, Laurie (1997) ‘Evaluative morphology: in search of universals’, Studies in Language, 21: 533–75. Bauer, Laurie (1998) ‘When is a sequence of two nouns a compound in English?’, English Language and Linguistics, 2: 65–86. Bauer, Laurie (2001) Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, Laurie (2003) Introducing linguistic morphology, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bauer, Laurie and Valera, Salvador (eds) (2005) Approaches to Conversion/Zero-­Derivation. Münster: Waxmann Verlag. Beard, Robert (1981) The Indo-­European Lexicon: A Full Synchronic Theory. Amsterdam: North Holland. Beard, Robert (1982) ‘Plural as a lexical derivation’, Glossa, 16: 133–48. Beard, Robert (1984) ‘Generative lexicalism’, Quaderni di Semantica, 5: 50–7. Beard, Robert (1987) ‘Lexical stock expansion’, in E. Gussmann (ed.), Rules and the Lexicon: Studies in Word Formation. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL, pp. 24–41. Beard, Robert (1995) Lexeme Morpheme Base Morphology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Beard, Robert (1998) ‘Derivation’, in A. Spencer and A. M. Zwicky (eds), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 44–65.

292  semantics of word formation and lexicalization Bensaude-­Vincent, Bernadette and Stengers, Isabelle (1995) Histoire de la chimie. Paris: La Découverte. Benveniste, Émile ([1948] 1975) Noms d’agent et noms d’action en Indo-­Européen. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient. Benveniste, Émile (1966) ‘Formes nouvelles de la composition nominale’, Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris, 61: 82–95. Berman, Ruth A. and Clark, Eve V. (1989) ‘Learning to use compounds for contrast: data from Hebrew’, First Language, 9: 247–70. Bielec, Dana (1998) Polish: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge. Bisetto, Antonietta and Scalise, Sergio (2005) ‘The classification of compounds’, Lingue e linguaggio, 2: 319–30. Bloch, Bernard and Trager, George L. (1942) Outline of Linguistic Analysis. Baltimore, MD: Linguistic Society of America. Bloch-­Trojnar, Maria (2006) Polyfunctionality in Morphology: A Study of Verbal Nouns in Modern Irish. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL. Bloch-­Trojnar, Maria (2007) ‘Even more remarks on nominalization’, in P. Stalmaszczyk and I.  Witczak-­Plisiecka (eds), PASE Studies in Linguistics. Łódź: Łódź University Press, pp. 47–56. Bloch-­Trojnar, Maria (2011) ‘A morphologist’s perspective on “event structure theory” of nominalizations’, in M. Pawlak and J. Bielak (eds), New Perspectives in Language, Discourse and Translation Studies. Berlin: Springer, pp. 61–76. Bloch-­ Trojnar, Maria (2012a) ‘The category of nominal number in English and the inflection-derivation distinction’, in E. Cyran, B. Szymanek and H. Kardela (eds), Sound, Structure and Sense: Studies in Memory of Edmund Gussmann. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, pp. 29–53. Bloch-­Trojnar, Maria (2012b) ‘The interaction of aspectuality and valency with countability and morphological marking in the process of verb to noun transposition’, in M. Bloch-­ Trojnar and A. Bloch-­Rozmej (eds), Modules and Interfaces. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL. Bloomfield, Leonard (1933) Language. New York: Henry Holt. Bolinger, Dwight (1967) ‘Adjectives in English: attribution and predication’, Lingua, 18: 1–34. Bolinger, Dwight (1975) Aspects of Language, 2nd edn. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Booij, Geert (2005) The Grammar of Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booij, Geert (2007) The Grammar of Words, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booij, Geert (2009a) ‘Phrasal names: a constructionist analysis’, Word Structure, 2: 219–40. Booij, Geert (2009b) ‘Compounding and construction morphology’, in R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 201–16. Booij, Geert and van Kemenade, Jaap (2003) ‘Preverb: an introduction’, in G. Booij and J. van Kemenade (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 2003. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 1–11. Bosch, Peter (1983) Agreement and Anaphora – A Study of the Roles of Pronouns in Discourse and Syntax, Cognitive Science Series. London and New York: Academic Press. Bratus, B. V. (1969) The Formation and Expressive Use of Diminutives in Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brinton, Laurel J. (1998) ‘Aspectuality and countability: a cross-­categorial analogy’, English Language and Linguistics, 2: 37–63. Brinton, Laurel J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2005) Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Browne, Wayles (1974) ‘On the topology of anaphoric peninsulas’, Linguistic Inquiry, 5 (4): 619–20.

bibliography  293 Bruno, Carla (2000) ‘Fra nome e verbo: osservazioni sulla sintassi dei nomi in -­σις’, Studi e Saggi Linguistici, 38: 129–67. Bücking, Sebastian (2009) ‘How do phrasal and lexical modification differ? Contrasting adjective-­noun combinations in German’, Word Structure, 2: 184–204. Bücking, Sebastian (2010) ‘German nominal compounds as underspecified names for kinds’, in S. Olsen (ed.), New Impulses in Word-­Formation. Hamburg: Buske, pp. 253–81 (= Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft, 17) Bybee, Joan (1985) Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan (2003) ‘Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of frequency’, in B. D. Joseph and R. D. Janda (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 602–23. Cabré, M. Teresa (1999) Terminology: Theory, Methods and Applications, trans. Janet Ann DeCesaris, ed. Juan C. Sager. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cadiot, Pierre (1993) ‘À entre deux noms: vers la composition nominale’, Lexique, 11: 193–240. Carlson, Greg (1977) Reference to Kinds in English. Amherst, MA, PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts. Carstairs-­McCarthy, Andrew D. (1992) Current Morphology. London: Routledge. Cetnarowska, Bożena (1993) The Syntax, Semantics and Derivation of Bare Nominalisations in English. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski. Chantraine, Pierre ([1933] 1979) La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck. Chantraine, Pierre ([1968–70] 1999) Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Paris: Klincksieck. Charitonidis, Chariton (2005) Verb Derivation in Modern Greek. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Charitonidis, Chariton (2011) Making Verbs Happen: Interviews on Greek Verb Endings. Munich: Lincom Europa. Chomsky, Noam (1957) Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam (1964) Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (1970) ‘Remarks on nominalization’, in R. A. Jacobs, and P. S. Rosenbaum (eds), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn, pp. 184–221; repr. in Chomsky (1972: 11–61). Chomsky, Noam (1972) Studies in Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam (1980) Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press. Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Westport, CT: Praeger. Chomsky, Noam (2000) ‘Minimalist inquiries: the framework’, in R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–155. Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris (1968) The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Civilleri, Germana Olga (2009) L’apofonia come strategia di marcatezza nel greco antico: i nomi deverbali. PhD dissertation, Roma Tre University. Civilleri, Germana Olga (2010) ‘Deverbal nouns in Ancient Greek: criteria and methodological remarks for a morpho-­semantic analysis’, in Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Lexique, normalisation, transgression’, Cergy Pontoise (Paris), 7 September. Civilleri, Germana Olga (2012) Continuum nome/verbo e nominalizzazioni morfologiche: i nomi

294  semantics of word formation and lexicalization deverbali in greco antico, LINCOM Studies in Indo-­European Linguistics 38. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Civilleri, Germana Olga (submitted) ‘Nomi di processo in greco antico’, Archivio Glottologico Italiano. Clark, Eve V. and Berman, Ruth A. (1987) ‘Types of linguistic knowledge: interpreting and producing compound nouns’, Journal of Child Language, 14: 547–67. Cobuild (2009) Collins Cobuild Advanced Dictionary of English. Glasgow: HarperCollins. Collins (1986) Collins Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd edn, editor in chief Patrick Hanks. Glasgow: Collins. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (1995) London: HarperCollins. Corbett, Greville G. (1999) ‘Prototypical inflection: implications for typology’. in G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1998. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 1–22. Corbett, Greville G. (2000) Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corbin, Danielle (1987) Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique, 2 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Corbin, Danielle (1992) ‘Hypothèses sur les frontières de la composition nominale’, Cahiers de grammaire, 17: 25–55. Corum, Claudia (1973) ‘Anaphoric peninsulas’, Chicago Linguistic Society, 9: 89–97. Craigie, William A. and Onions, C. T. (1933) ‘Historical introduction’, A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. vii–xx. Croft, William ([1990] 2003) Typology and Universals, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, William (1991) Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Croft, William (2000) ‘Part of speech as language universals and as language-­particular categories’, in P. M. Vogel and B. Comrie (eds), Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 65–102. Cruse, Alan D. (1986) Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, Alan D. (2004) Meaning in Language. An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Culicover, Peter W. and Jackendoff, Ray (2005) Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (1995) ‘A proposito di sub vos placo e della grammaticalizzazione delle adposizioni’, Archivio Glottologico Italiano, 80: 122–43. Cysouw, Michael and Wälchli, Bernhard (2007) ‘Parallel texts. Using translational equivalents in linguistic typology’, STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 60 (2): 95–9. Dahl, Östen (2004) The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Daľ, Vladimir Ivanovič (2005) Tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka: sovremennoje napisanije. Moscow: Astrel’. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria and Williams, Edwin (1987) On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. (1987) ‘Drift and selective mechanisms in morphological changes: the Eastern Nilotic case’, in A. Giacalone-­Ramat, O. Carruba and G. Bernini (eds), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 193–210. Dokulil, Miloš (1962) Tvoření slov v češtine I: Teorie odvozování slov. Praha: Nakladatelství ČSAV. Downing, Pamela (1977) ‘On the creation and use of English compound nouns’, Language, 53 (4): 810–42.

bibliography  295 Dowty, David R. (1989) ‘On the semantic content of the notion “thematic role”’, in B. Partee, G. Chierchia and R. Turner (eds), Properties, Types and Meaning, Vol. II. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 69–139. Dowty, David R. (1991) ‘Thematic proto-­roles and argument selection’, Language, 67 (3): 547–619. Dressler, Wolfgang U. (1985) ‘On the predictiveness of natural morphology’, Journal of Linguistics, 21: 321–37. Dressler, Wolfgang U. (2006) ‘Compound types’, in G. Libben and G. Jarema (eds), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–44. Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Barbaresi, Lavinia Merlini (1994) Morphopragmatics. Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German and Other Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Drodz, L. and Seibicke, W. (1973) Deutsche Fach-­und Wissenschaftssprache: Bestandsaufnahme, Theorie, Geschihte. Wiesbaden: Brandstetter. Εfthymiou, Angeliki (1999) Le suffixe -­iá en grec moderne. La manifestation d’un degré maximal d’anthropocentricité. Lille: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion; 2nd edn (2012) Saarbrücken: Éditions Universitaires Européenes. Efthymiou, Angeliki (2001) ‘Το νεοελληνικό πρόθημα ξε-­: οι έννοιες της απομάκρυνσης και της αλλαγής κατάστασης’ [‘The Modern Greek prefix kse-­. The concepts of move away and change of state’], Studies in Greek Linguistics, 2000, pp. 202–13. Efthymiou, Angeliki (2002) ‘Σημασιολογικές παρατηρήσεις για τα νεοελληνικά προθήματα ξε-­, εκ-­, από-­’ [‘Semantic considerations on the Modern Greek Prefixes kse-­, ek-­, apo-­’], Studies in Greek Linguistics, 2001, pp. 199–209. Efthymiou, Angeliki (2011a) ‘The Semantics of Verb Forming Suffixes in Modern Greek’, Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 3–5 April 2009, School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, pp. 174–84. Efthymiou, Angeliki (2011b) ‘Are there any principles governing the order and combination of affixes in Modern Greek parasynthetic verbs?’, paper read at the 3rd Vienna Workshop on Affix Order, Vienna, 15–16 January. Efthymiou, Angeliki (2013) ‘On the interaction between semantics and phonetic iconicity in evaluative morphology’, SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 10: 152–66. Efthymiou, Angeliki, Fragaki, Georgia and Markos, Angelos (2012a) ‘Productivity of verb forming suffixes in Modern Greek: a corpus-­based study’, Morphology, 22/4: 515–43. Efthymiou, Angeliki, Fragaki, Georgia and Markos, Angelos (2012b) ‘Exploring the productivity of -pió in Modern Greek: a corpus-­based study’, in Z. Gavrilidou, A. Efthymiou, E. Thomadaki and P. Kambaki-­Vougioukli (eds), Selected Papers from the 10th international Conference of Greek Linguistics, Komotini, 1–4 September, Democritus University of Thrace http://www.icgl.gr, pp. 243–54. Efthymiou, Angeliki, Gavanozi, Vaso and Havou, Eleni (2010) ‘The frequency of Modern Greek suffixes in the primary school textbooks’, Ζητήματα διδακτικής της γλώσσας [Issues of Language Teaching], Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, 7–8 May. Eisenberg, Peter (2002) ‘Struktur und Akzent komplexer Komposita’, in D. Restle and D. Zaefferer (eds), Sounds and Systems. Studies in Structure and Change. A Festschrift for Theo Vennemann. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, pp. 349–65. Embick, David and Noyer, Rolf (2007) ‘Distributed morphology and the syntax-­morphology interface’, in G. Ramchand and C. Reiss (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 289–324. Encyclopedia Britannica (1986) The New Encyclopaedia Britannica in 32 volumes, eds P. W. Goetz and M. Sutton. London: Encyclopaedia Britannica.

296  semantics of word formation and lexicalization Engel, Ulrich (1996) Deutsche Grammatik. Heidelberg: Groos. Eriksson, Olof (1997) Språk i kontrast. En jämförande studie av svensk och fransk meningsstruktur. Göteborg: Akademiförlaget. Evola, Vito (2008) ‘La metafora come carrefour cognitivo del pensiero e del linguaggio’, in C. Casadio (ed.), Vie della metafora: linguistica, filosofia, psicologia. Chieti: Editore Prime Vie-­Sulmona. Fahim Elsayed, Mohammed Salah (1977) Untersuchungen zum Modell substantivischer Komposita mit einem Primäradjektiv als erster unmittelbarer Konstituente. Dissertation, Leipzig. Felber, Helmut (1984) Terminology Manual. Paris: UNESCO and Wien: Infoterm. Fillmore, Charles J. (1977a) ‘Scenes-­and-­frames semantics’, in A. Zampolli (ed.), Linguistic Structures – Studies in Linguistics, Computational Linguistics, and Artificial Intelligence. New York: North-­Holland, pp. 55–82. Fillmore, Charles J. (1977b) ‘The case for case reopened’, in P. Cole and J. Sadock (eds), Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–81. Fradin, Bernard (2003) Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Fradin, Bernard (2005) ‘On a semantically grounded difference between derivation and compounding’, in W. U. Dressler, D. Kastovsky and F. Rainer (eds), Morphology and its Demarcations. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins; online at http://www.llf.cnrs. fr/Gens/Fradin/FRA_3-­double.pdf. Fradin, Bernard (2009) ‘IE, Romance: French’, in R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 417–35. Fruyt, Michèle (2000) ‘La création lexicale: généralités appliquées au domaine latin’, in C. Nicolas, and M. Fruyt (eds), La création lexicale en latin, Table ronde sur ‘La création lexicale’ organisée par M. Fruyt au 9ème Coll. intern. de Linguistique latine, Madrid, avril 1997. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-­Sorbonne, pp. 11–48. Gaeta, Livio (2002) Quando i verbi compaiono come nomi. Pavia: Franco Angeli. Gaeta, Livio and Ricca, Davide (2003) ‘Frequency and productivity in Italian derivation: a comparison between corpus-­based and lexicographical data’, Rivista di Linguistica, 15 (1): 63–98. Gaeta, Livio and Ricca, Davide (2009) ‘Composita solvantur: compounds as lexical units or morphological objects?’, in L. Gaeta and M. Grossmann (eds), Compounds Between Syntax and Lexicon, Special Issue of Italian Journal of Linguistics / Rivista di Linguistica, 21: 35–70. Gagné, Christina L. and Shoben, Edward J. (1997) ‘Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-­noun combinations’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23 (1): 71–87. Gagné, Christina L. and Spalding, Thomas L. (2006) ‘Conceptual combination’, in G. Libben and G. Jarema (eds), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 145–68. Giegerich, Heinz J. (2004) ‘Compound or phrase? English noun-­plus-­noun constructions and the stress criterion’, English Language and Linguistics, 8: 1–24. Giegerich, Heinz J. (2005) ‘Associative adjectives and the lexicon-­syntax interface’, Journal of Linguistics, 41: 571–91. Giegerich, Heinz J. (2006) ‘Attribution in English and the distinction between phrases and compounds’, in P. Rösel (ed.), Englisch in Zeit und Raum – English in Time and Space: Forschungsbericht für Klaus Faiss. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, pp. 10–27. Givón, Talmy (1979) On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press. Givón, Talmy (2001) Syntax, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gottfurcht, Carolyn (2008) Denominal Verb Formation in English. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.

bibliography  297 Grandi, Nicola (2011) ‘Renewal and innovation in the emergence of Indo-­European evaluative morphology’. Lexis, 6: 5–25.Online at: http://lexis.univ-­lyon3.fr/IMG/pdf/Lexis_6.pdf. Grimshaw, Jane (1990) Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gross, Gaston (1994) ‘Classes d’objets et description des verbes’, Langages, 115 (28): 15–30. Gruber, Jeffrey S. (1965) Studies in Lexical Relations. PhD dissertation, MIT. Grzega, Joachim (2009) ‘Compounding from an onomasiological perspective’, in R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 217–32. Grzegorczykowa, Renata (1979) Zarys Słowotwórstwa Polskiego. Słowotwórstwo Opisowe. Warszawa: PWN. Grzegorczykowa, Renata and Puzynina, Jadwiga (1979) Słowotwórstwo Współczesnego Języka Polskiego. Rzeczowniki Sufiksalne Rodzime. Warszawa: PWN. Grzegorczykowa, Renata, Laskowski, Roman and Wróbel, Henryk (eds) (1999) Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego: Morfologia. Warszawa: PWN. Guevara, Emiliano and Scalise, Sergio (2009) ‘Searching for universals in compounding’, in S.  Scalise and A. Bisetto (eds), Universals of Language Today. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 101–28. Gunkel, Lutz and Zifonun, Gisela (2009) ‘Classifying modifiers in common names’, Word Structure, 2: 205–18. Gunkel, Lutz and Zifonun, Gisela (2011) ‘Klassifikatorische Modifikation im Deutschen und Französischen’, in E. Lavric, W. Pöckl and F. Schallhart (eds), Comparatio delectat: Akten der VI. Internationalen Arbeitstagung zum romanisch-­deutschen und innerromanischen Sprachvergleich: Innsbruck, 3.–5. September 2008. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, pp. 549–62. Habert, Benoît and Jacquemin, Christian (1993) ‘Noms composés, termes, dénominations complexes: problématiques linguistiques et traitements automatiques’, Traitement Automatique des Langues, 2: 5–41. ten Hacken, Pius (1994) Defining Morphology: A Principled Approach to Determining the Boundaries of Compounding, Derivation, and Inflection. Hildesheim: Olms. ten Hacken, Pius (1999) ‘Motivated tests for compounding’, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 31: 27–58. ten Hacken, Pius (2003a) ‘Phrasal elements as parts of words’, in E. Hajičová, A. Kotěšovcová and J. Mírovský (eds), Proceedings of CIL17, CD-­ROM. Praha: Matfyzpress, MFF UK. ten Hacken, Pius (2003b) ‘Phrases in words’, in C. Tschichold (ed.), English Core Linguistics. Bern: Lang, pp. 185–203. ten Hacken, Pius (2007) Chomskyan Linguistics and Its Competitors. London: Equinox. ten Hacken, Pius (2008) ‘Prototypes and discreteness in terminology’, in E. Bernal and J. DeCesaris (eds), Proceedings of the XIII Euralex International Congress, IULA-­UPF, Barcelona, pp. 979–87. ten Hacken, Pius (2009a) ‘Early generative approaches’, in R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 54–77. ten Hacken, Pius (2009b) ‘What is a dictionary? A view from Chomskyan linguistics’, International Journal of Lexicography, 22: 399–421. ten Hacken, Pius (2010a) ‘The tension between definition and reality in terminology’, in A. Dykstra and T. Schoonheim (eds), Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy/Afuk, pp. 915–27. ten Hacken, Pius (2010b) ‘Synthetic and exocentric compounds in a parallel architecture’, Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft, 17: 233–51. ten Hacken, Pius (2010c) ‘Creating legal terms: a linguistic perspective’, International Journal for the Semiotics of the Law, 23: 407–25.

298  semantics of word formation and lexicalization ten Hacken, Pius and Panocová, Renáta (2011) ‘Individual and social aspects of word formation’, Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny, 58: 283–300. Hajičová, Eva (1995) ‘Prague school syntax and semantics’, in E. F. K. Koerner and R. E. Asher (eds), Concise History of the Language Sciences: From the Sumerians to the Cognitivists. Oxford: Pergamon/Elsevier Science, pp. 253–62. Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec (1993) ‘Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection’, in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–76; repr. in F. Katamba (ed.) (2004), Morphology: Critical Concepts in Linguistics (6 vols). London: Routledge, Vol. 1, pp. 381–440. Hankamer, Jorge and Sag, Ivan (1976) ‘Deep and surface anaphora’, Linguistic Inquiry, 7: 391–428. Harley, Heidi (2009) ‘Compounding in distributed morphology’, in R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 129–44. Harley, Heidi and Noyer, Rolf (2003) ‘Distributed Morphology’, in L. Cheng and R. Sybesma (eds), The Second Glot International State-­of-­the-­Article Book: The Latest in Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 462–96. Harris, Alice C. (2006) ‘Revisiting anaphoric islands’, Language, 82 (1): 114–30. Harris, Zellig S. (1951) Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; repr. (1960) as Structural Linguistics. Haspelmath, Martin (1992) ‘Grammaticization theory and heads in morphology’, in M. Aronoff (ed.), Morphology Now. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 69–82. Haspelmath, Martin (2002) Understanding Morphology. London: Arnold. Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike and Hünnemeyer, Friederike (1991) Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Herbst, Thomas (1988) ‘A valency model for nouns in English’, Journal of Linguistics, 24: 265–301. Heslin, Peter (1999–2007) Diogenes. Computer query system, version 3.1.6. Heyvaert, Liesbet (2009) ‘Compounding in cognitive linguistics’, in R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 233–54. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (2004) ‘Lexicalization and grammaticalization: opposite or orthogonal?’, in W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann and B. Wiemer (eds), What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from Its Fringes and Its Components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21–42. Hockett, Charles F. (1942) ‘A system of descriptive phonology’, Language, 18: 3–21. Hockett, Charles F. (1958) A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. Hoekstra, Teun and van der Putten, Frans (1988) ‘Inheritance phenomena’, in M. Everaert, A. Evers, R. Huybregts and M. Trommelen (eds), Morphology and Modularity. In Honour of Henk Schultink. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 163–86. Homer, Iliad, trans. August Taber Murray. London: Loeb Classical Library, 1924. Homer, Odyssey, trans. August Taber Murray. London: Loeb Classical Library, 1919. Honeybone, Patrick (2005) ‘N. S. Trubetzkoy’, in S. Chapman and C. Routledge (eds), Key Thinkers in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 267–8. Horecký, Ján (1973) ‘Sústava deverbatívnych substantív v spisovnej slovenčine’, Slovenská reč, 38: 264–9. Horecký, Ján (1974) ‘Sústava desubstantívnych substantív v spisovnej slovenčine’, Slovenská reč, 39: 129–36.

bibliography  299 Horecký, Ján (1980) ‘Invariantný význam odvodených slov’, Slovo a slovesnost, 41: 81–5. Horecký, Ján (1983) Vývin a teória jazyka. Bratislava: ŠPN. Horecký, Ján (1994) Semantics of Derived Words. Prešov: Filozofická fakulta v Prešove Univerzity P. J. Šafárika v Košiciach. INS (Institute of Hellenic Studies, Manolis Triandafyllidis Foundation) (1998) Λεξικό της Κοινής Νεοελληνικής [Standard Modern Greek Dictionary]. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Isabelle, Pierre (1984) ‘Another look at nominal compounds’, in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Stanford, CA, pp. 509–16. Jackendoff, Ray (1975) ‘Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon’, Language, 51: 639–71. Jackendoff, Ray (1983) Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray (1990) Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray (1991) ‘Parts and boundaries’, Cognition, 41: 9–45. Jackendoff, Ray (1997) The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray (2002) Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackendoff, Ray (2007) Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray (2008) ‘Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges’, Language, 84: 8–28. Jackendoff, Ray (2009) ‘Compounding in the Parallel Architecture and Conceptual Semantics’, in R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–28. Jackendoff, Ray (2010) Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture 1975–2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jacobs, Joachim (1993) ‘Integration’, in M. Reis (ed.), Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 63–116. Jacobs, Joachim (1999) ‘Informational Autonomy’, in P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt (eds), Focus. Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–81. Jakobson, Roman (1959) ‘Boas’ view of grammatical meaning’, in W. Goldschmidt (ed.), The Anthropology of Franz Boas: Essays on the Centennial of His Birth. Menasha, WI: American Anthropological Association. Jakobson, Roman (1960) ‘Closing statement: linguistics and poetics’, in T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 350–77. Jarema, Gonia (2006) ‘Compound representation and processing’, in G. Libben and G. Jarema (eds), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 45–70. Jespersen, Otto (1922) A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Heidelberg: Winter. Jespersen, Otto (1942) A Modern English Grammar. Part VI, Morphology. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. Johnston, Michael and Busa, Federica (1999) ‘Qualia structure and the compositional interpretation of compounds’, in E. Viegas (ed.), Breadth and Depth of Semantic Lexicons. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 167–89. Josefsson, Gunlög (2005) Ord. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Joseph, John (2002) From Whitney to Chomsky: Essays in the History of American Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

300  semantics of word formation and lexicalization Junczys-­Dowmunt, Marcin (2008) ‘Influence of accurate compound noun splitting on bilingual vocabulary extraction’, in Text Resources and Lexical Knowledge. Text, Translation, Computational Processing (TTCP) 8. Proceedings of Konvens 2008. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 91–105. Kačmárová, Alena (2010) ‘A short survey of diminutives in Slovak and English’, in A. Kačmárová (ed.), English Matters: A Collection of Papers by the Department of English Language and Literature. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita v Prešove, pp. 17–21. Kallas, Krystyna (1999) ‘Przymiotnik’, in R. Grzegorczykowa, R. Laskowski and H. Wróbel (eds), Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego: Morfologia. Warszawa: PWN, pp. 469–523. Kastovsky, Dieter (1982) ‘Word-­formation: a functional view’, Folia Linguistica, 16: 181–98. Kazazis, Kostas (1968) ‘Sunday Greek’, in CLS 4, Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago, pp. 130–40. Kempe, Vera, Brooks, Patricia. J., Mironova, Natalija and Fedorova, Olga (2003) ‘Diminutivization supports gender acquisition in Russian children’, Journal of Child Language, 30: 471–85. Kerleroux, Françoise (1996) La coupure invisible. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion. Koptjevskaja-­Tamm, Maria (1993) Nominalizations. London: Routledge. Koptjevskaja-­Tamm, Maria (2009) ‘Proper-­name compounds in Swedish between syntax and lexicon’, Rivista di Linguistica/Italian Journal of Linguistics, 21: 119–48. Koskenniemi, Kimmo (1983) Two-­Level Morphology: A General Computational Model for Word-­ Form Recognition and Production. University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics Publications No. 11. Krifka, Manfred (1992) ‘Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution’, in I. Sag and A. Szabolcsi (eds), Lexical Matters. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language Information, pp. 29–53. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy (1956) L’apophonie en indo-­européen. Wrocław: Polska Akademia NAUK. Kwiatek, Ewelina (2013) Contrastive Analysis of English and Polish Surveying Terminology. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press. Labov, William (1973) ‘The boundaries of words and their meanings’, in C.-­J. N. Bailey and R. W. Shuy (eds), New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 340–73; repr. in B. Aarts et al. (eds) (2004) Fuzzy Grammar: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 67–89. Lahav, Ran (1989) ‘Against compositionality: the case of adjectives’, Philosophical Studies, 57: 261–79. Lahav, Ran (1993) ‘The combinatorial-­connectionist debate and the pragmatics of adjectives’, Pragmatics and Cognition, 1: 71–88. Lakoff, George (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George and Ross, John (1972) ‘A note on anaphoric islands and causatives’, Linguistic Inquiry, 3: 121–5. Lang, Friedrich (1998) ‘Eugen Wüster – his life and work until 1963’, in E. Oeser and C. Galinski (eds), Eugen Wüster (1898–1977): Leben und Werk – Ein österreichischer Pionier der Informationsgesellschaft. Vienna: TermNet, pp. 13–26. Langacker, Ronald W. (1987a) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1987b) ‘Nouns and Verbs’, Language, 63 (1): 53–94.

bibliography  301 Langacker, Ronald W. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (2000a) Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. (2000b) ‘A dynamic usage-­based model’, in M. Barlow and S. Kemmer, (eds), Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Langacker, Ronald W. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lapata, Maria (2002) ‘The disambiguation of nominalizations’, Computational Linguistics, 28: 357–88. Laskowski, Roman (1981) ‘Derywacja słowotwórcza’, in J. Bartmiński (ed.), Pojęcie Derywacji w Lingwistyce. Lublin: Uniwersytet Marii Curie-­Skłodowskiej, Zakład Języka Polskiego, pp. 107–26. Lees, Robert B. (1960) The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Lehmann, Christian (1989) ‘Grammatikalisierung und Lexikalisierung’, Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 42: 11–19. Lehmann, Christian (2002) ‘New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization’, in I. Wischer and G. Diewald (eds), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–18. Lehmann, Christian (2004) ‘Theory and method in grammaticalization’, Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 32 (2): 152–87. Lehrer, Adrienne (2002) ‘Semantic relations of derivational affixes’, in D. A. Cruse, F. Hundnurscher, M. Job and P. R. Lutzeier (eds), Lexikologie – Lexicology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen – An international handbook on the nature and structure of words and vocabularies. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, pp. 525–32. Lehrer, Adrienne (2003) ‘Polysemy in derivational affixes’, in B. Nerlich, Z. Todd, D. D. Clarke and V. Herman (eds), Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 217–32. Lesselingue, Chrystèle (2003) ‘Les noms composés [NN]n « holonymiques »: illustration de la spécificité sémantique des unités construites morphologiquement’, in B. Fradin, G. Dal, N. Hathout, F. Kerleroux, M. Plénat and M. Roché (eds), Les unités morphologiques, Vol. 3, Silexicales. Villeneuve d’Ascq: SILEX: CNRS and Université Lille 3, pp. 100–7. Levi, Judith N. (1975) The Syntax and Semantics of Non-­Predicating Adjectives in English. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Levi, Judith N. (1977) ‘The constituent structure of complex nominals, or, That’s funny, you don’t look like a noun!’, in W. A. Veach, S. E. Fox and S. Philosoph (eds), Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting: Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 325–38. Levi, Judith N. (1978) The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York: Academic Press. Levin, Beth and Rappaport Hovav, Malka (1998) ‘Morphology and lexical semantics’, in A. Spencer and A. M. Zwicky (eds), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 248–71. Li, Charles (1971) Semantics and the Structure of Compounds in Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation. Libben, Gary (2006) ‘Why study compound processing? An overview of the issues’, in G.  Libben and G. Jarema (eds), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–22.

302  semantics of word formation and lexicalization Libben, Gary, Gibson, Martha, Yoon, Yeo Bom and Sandra, Dominiek (2003) ‘Compound fracture: the role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness’, Brain and Language, 84: 50–64. Liddell, Henry George and Scott, Robert ([1843] 1992) A Greek–English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lieber, Rochelle (1980) On the Organization of the Lexicon. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN, 1981. Lieber, Rochelle (1983) ‘Argument linking and compounds in English’, Linguistic Inquiry, 14: 251–85. Lieber, Rochelle (2004) Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieber, Rochelle (2009) ‘A lexical semantic approach to compounding’, in R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 78–104. Lieber, Rochelle (2010) Introducing Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieber, Rochelle and Baayen, Harald (1993) ‘Verbal Prefixes in Dutch: A Study in Lexical Conceptual Structure’, in G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 51–78. Lieber, Rochelle and Scalise, Sergio (2007) ‘The lexical integrity hypothesis in a new theoretical universe’, in G. Booij, L. Ducceschi, B. Fradin, E. Guevara, A. Ralli and S. Scalise (eds), On-­line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Fréjus, 15–18 September 2005, University of Bologna; online at http://www.morbo.lingue.unibo-­it/. Lieber, Rochelle and Štekauer, Pavol (2009) ‘Introduction: status and definition of compounding’, in R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–18. Lönnrot, Elias (1860) Suomen kasvisto. Flora Fennica. Koelma. SKST 24. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Luraghi, Silvia (1987) ‘Patterns of case syncretism in Indo-­European languages’, in A. Giacalone Ramat, O. Carruba and G. Bernini (eds), Papers from the VIIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 355–71. Lyons, John (1963) Structural Semantics: An Analysis of Part of the Vocabulary of Plato. Oxford: Blackwell. McEnery, Tony, Xiao, Richard and Tono, Yukio (2006) Corpus-­Based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. London and New York: Routledge. McKoon, Gail, Ward, Gregory, Ratcliff, Roger and Sproat, Richard (1990) M ­ or­phosyntactic and Pragmatic Manipulations of Salience in the Interpretation of Anaphora. Evanston, IL and Murray Hill, NJ: Northwestern University and AT&T Bell Laboratories, MS. McKoon, Gail, Ward, Gregory, Ratcliff, Roger and Sproat, Richard (1993) ‘Morphosyntactic and pragmatic factors affecting the accessibility of discourse entities’, Journal of Memory and Language, 32: 56–75. Maienborn, Claudia (2003) ‘Event-­internal modifiers: semantic underspecification and conceptual interpretation’, in E. Lang, C. Maienborn and C. Fabricius-­Hansen (eds), Modifying Adjuncts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 475–509. Mail, Noor, O’Brien, Peter and Pang, Geordi (2007) ‘Lag correction model and ghosting analysis for an indirect-­conversion flat-­panel imager’, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 8: 137–46. Malicka-­Kleparska, Anna (1985) The Conditional Lexicon in Derivational Morphology. A Study of Double Motivation in Polish and English. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL.

bibliography  303 Malicka-­Kleparska, Anna (1988) Rules and Lexicalisations. Selected English Nominals. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL. Malkiel, Yakov (1978) ‘Derivational categories’, in Joseph H. Greenberg et al. (eds), Universals of Human Language: Word Structure, Vol. 3. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 125–49. Marantz, Alec (1997) ‘No escape from syntax: don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon’, UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics, 4: 201–25. Marchand, Hans (1960) The Categories and Types of Present-­Day English Word-­Formation: A Synchronic-­Diachronic Approach. Munich: Beck. Marchand, Hans (1969) The Categories and Types of Present-­Day English Word Formation: A Synchronic-­Diachronic Approach, 2nd edn. Munich: Beck. van Marle, Jaap (1985) On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris. van Marle, Jaap (1986) ‘The domain hypothesis: the study of rival morphological processes’, Linguistics, 24: 601–27. Matthews, Peter H. (1972) Inflectional Morphology. A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthews, Peter H. (1993) Grammatical Theory in the United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matthews, Peter H. (2005) Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meillet, Antoine and Vendryes, Joseph (1966) Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques. Paris: Honoré Champion. Mela-­Athanasopoulou, Elizabeth (2007) ‘The polysemy of -ize derivatives and the Modern Greek counterpart -pio’, in E. Agathopoulou, M. Dimitrakopoulou and D. Papadopoulou (eds), Selected Papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 17th International Symposium. Thessaloniki: Monochromia, pp. 157–67. Millikan, Ruth (1984) Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Motsch, Wolfgang (2004) Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen. Berlin: De Gruyter. Mourelatos, Alexander (1978) ‘Events, processes, and states’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 2: 415–34. Müller, L. P., Suffner, J., Wenda, K., Mohr, W. and Rommens, P. M. (1998) ‘Radiation exposure to the hands and the thyroid of the surgeon during intramedullary nailing’, Injury, 29: 461–8. Namer, Fiammetta (2005) La Morphologie Constructionnelle du Français et les Propriétés Sémantiques du Lexique: Traitement Automatique et Modélisation, UMR 7118 ATILF. Nancy: Université de Nancy 2. Naumann, Bernd and Vogel, Petra M. (2000) ‘Derivation’, in G. Booij, C. Lehmann and J. Mugdan (eds), Morphologie – Morphology: Ein Internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung – An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation (Vol. 1). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 929–43. Newmeyer, Frederick J. (1986) Linguistic Theory in America, 2nd edn. New York: Academic Press. Nicoladis, Elena (2002) ‘When is a preposition a linking element? Bilingual children’s acquisition of French compound nouns’, Folia Linguistica, 36: 45–63. Noailly, Michèle (1990) Le substantif épithète. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Nyman, Martti (1981) ‘Paradigms and transderivational constraints: stress and yod in Modern Greek’, Journal of Linguistics, 17: 231–46.

304  semantics of word formation and lexicalization OED (1989) Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn, 12 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press. OED (2002) Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. OED (2011) Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press; online at http:// www.oed.com/. Omero, Odissea, trans. Aurelio Privitera. Milan: A. Mondadori (Fondazione Lorenzo Valla), 1989. Ortner, Lorelies and Müller-­Bollhagen, Elgin (1991) Deutsche Wortbildung. Typen und Tendenzen in der Gegenwart. Vierter Hauptteil: Substantivkomposita. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter (= Sprache der Gegenwart 79) Palmer, Frank R. (1974) The English Verb. London: Longman. Panagiotidis, Phoevos (2005) ‘Against category-­less roots in syntax and word learning: objections to Barner and Bale (2002)’, Lingua, 115: 1181–94. Partee, Barbara (1997) ‘Lexical semantics and compositionality’, in D. H. Osherson (ed.), Language. An Invitation to Cognitive Science, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 311–60. Paul, Waltraud (2005) ‘Adjectival modification in Mandarin Chinese and related issues’, Linguistics, 43 (4): 757–93. Paul, Waltraud (2008) ‘Adjectives in Mandarin Chinese: The Rehabilitation of a Much Ostracized Category’. Manuscript. Pearson, Jennifer (1998) Terms in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Petropoulou, Evanthia (2009) ‘On the parallel between neoclassical compounds in English and Modern Greek’, Patras Working Papers in Linguistics, 1: 40–58. Picht, Heribert and Draskau, Jennifer (1985) Terminology. An Introduction. Guildford: University of Surrey. Pitkänen, Kaarina (2005) ‘Suomen kielen rikkaus ja ihanin ominaisuus. Elias Lönnrotin ­johto-­oppia’ [‘Elias Lönnrot’s views on word formation by derivation’], Virittäjä, 109: 52–82. Pitkänen, Kaarina (2008) Suomi kasvitieteen kieleksi. Elias Lönnrot termistön kehittäjänä [The Development of Botanical Finnish: Elias Lönnrot as the Creator of New Terminology], Publications of the Finnish Literature Society 1162. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Plag, Ingo (1998) ‘The polysemy of -­ize derivatives: on the role of semantics in word formation’, in G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1997. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 219–42. Plag, Ingo (1999) Morphological Productivity. Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Plag, Ingo (2003) Word-­Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plag, Ingo, Dalton-­Puffer, Christine and Baayen, Harald (1999) ‘Productivity and register’, English Language and Linguistics, 3: 209–28. Pompei, Anna (2010) ‘Space coding in verb-­particle constructions and prefixed verbs’, in G. Marotta (ed.) Atti del convegno ‘Space in Language’. Pisa, 8–10 October 2009. Postal, Paul M. (1969) ‘Anaphoric islands’, in R. I. Binnick, A. Davison, G. M. Green and J. L. Morgan (eds), Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago, pp. 205–39. Pustejovsky, James (1991) ‘The generative lexicon’, Computational Linguistics, 17 (4): 409–41. Pustejovsky, James (1995a) The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pustejovsky, James (1995b) ‘Linguistic constraints on type coercion’, in P. Saint-­Dizier and E. Viegas (eds), Computational Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–97. Pustejovsky, James and Anick, Peter (1988) ‘On the semantic interpretation of nominals’, in

bibliography  305 Proceedings of the 12th conference on Computational Linguistics, Vol.2. Budapest: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 518–23. Quirk, Randolf, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman. Rainer, Franz (1988) ‘Towards a theory of blocking. The case of Italian and German quality nouns’, in G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1988. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 155–85. Rainer, Franz and Varela, Soledad (1992) ‘Compounding in Spanish’, Rivista di linguistica, 4: 117–42. Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth (1992) ‘-­Er nominals: implications for the theory of argument structure’, in T. Stowell and E. Wehrli (eds), Syntax and the Lexicon. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 127–53. Rijkhoff, Jan (2004) The Noun Phrase, revised and extended paperback edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rijkhoff, Jan (2008) ‘Descriptive and discourse-­referential modifiers in a layered model of the noun phrase’, Linguistics, 46: 789–829. Rio-­Torto, Graça and Ribeiro, Sílvia (2009) ‘Compounding in Portuguese’, Lingue e Linguaggio, VIII (2): 271–91. Rio-­Torto, Graça and Ribeiro, Sílvia (2010) ‘Unidades pluriverbais: Processamento e ensino’, in M. H. Moura Neves (ed.), As interfaces da Gramática. Araraquara, São Paulo: Editora da UNESP, pp. 151–65. Rio-­Torto, Graça and Ribeiro, Sílvia (2013) ‘Composição’, in G. Rio-Tinto et al. (eds), Gramática derivacional do Português. Coimbra: Coimbra University Press, pp. 385–431. Rodrigues, Alexandra (2008) Formação de substantivos deverbais sufixados em português. Munich: Lincom Europa. Romagno, Domenica (2004) ‘Ancora su preverbazione e sistemi verbali. Il caso dei preverbi greci’, Archivio Glottologico Italiano, 89: 165–80. Rosch, Eleanor (1978) ‘Principles of categorization’, in E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (eds), Cognition and Categorization. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 27–48. Rosenbach, Annette (2006) ‘Descriptive genitives in English: a case study on constructional gradience’, English Language and Linguistics, 10: 77–118. Rosenbach, Annette (2007) ‘Emerging variation: determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English’, English Language and Linguistics, 11: 143–89. Rosenberg, Maria (2007) ‘Classification, headedness and pluralization: corpus evidence from French compounds’, Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 54 (3): 341–60. Ross, John R. (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Rozwadowska, Bożena (1997) Towards a Unified Theory of Nominalizations. External and Internal Eventualities. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Russian National Corpus – available at http://ruscorpora.ru/search-­main.html#. Ryder, Mary Ellen (1994) Ordered Chaos: The Interpretation of English Noun-­Noun Compounds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Rytting, C. Anton (2005) ‘An iota of difference. Attitudes to jod in lexical and social contexts’, Journal of Greek Linguistics, 6 (1): 145–79. Sager, Juan (1990) A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916) Cours de linguistique générale, eds C. Bally and A. Sechehaye, édition critique préparée par Tullio de Mauro. Paris: Payot, 1981. Scalise, Sergio (1986) Generative Morphology, 2nd edn. Dordrecht: Foris.

306  semantics of word formation and lexicalization Scalise, Sergio and Bisetto, Antonietta (2009) ‘The classification of compounds’, in R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 34–53. Scalise, Sergio and Vogel, Irene (eds) (2010) Cross-­ Disciplinary Issues in Compounding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schachter, Paul (1976) ‘A non-­transformational account of gerundive nominals in English’, Linguistic Inquiry, 7: 205–41. Schiller, Anne (2005) ‘German compound analysis with WFSC’, in Finite-­State Methods and Natural Language Processing, 5th International Workshop, FSMNLP, pp. 239–46. Schreuder, Robert and Baayen, Harald (1997) ‘How complex simplex words can be’, Journal of Memory and Language, 37: 118–39. Schwarze, Christoph (2001) ‘Aspetti semantici della formazione delle parole’, in Sonderforschungsbereich 471, Variation und Entwicklung im Lexicon. Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz. Schwyzer, Eduard (1953) Griechische Grammatik. Munich: G. H. Becksche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1982) The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Semenza, Carlo and Mondini, Sara (2006) ‘The neuropsychology of compound words’, in G.  Libben and G. Jarema (eds), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 71–95. Setatos, Michalis (1974) Phonology of Modern Greek Koine. Athens: Papazisis [in Greek]. Shamsfard, Mehrnoush and Mousavi, Maryan Sadr (2008) ‘Thematic role extraction using shallow parsing’, International Journal of Computational Intelligence, 4 (2): 126–32. Shoben, Edward J. (1991) ‘Predicating and nonpredicating combinations’, in P. J. Schwanenflugel (ed.), The Psychology of Word Meanings. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 117–35. Simone, Raffaele (2000) ‘Cycles lexicaux’, Studi italiani di linguistica teorica e applicata, 29: 259–87. Simone, Raffaele (2003) ‘Masdar, ‘ismu al-­marrati et la frontière verbe/nom’, in J. L Girón Alconchel (ed.), Estudios ofrecidos al profesor J. Bustos de Tovar. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, pp. 901–18. Simoska, Silvana (1999) ‘Die morphologische und semantische Vielfalt des Adjektiv + Nomen-­ Kompositums’, Deutsche Sprache, 27: 156–87. Simpson, J. M. Y. (1995) ‘Prague school phonology’, in E. F. K. Koerner and R. E. Asher (eds), Concise History of the Language Sciences: From the Sumerians to the Cognitivists. Oxford: Pergamon/Elsevier Science, pp. 247–53. Sproat, Richard W. (1992) Morphology and Computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. SSA (1992–2000) Suomen sanojen alkuperä I–III. Etymologinen sanakirja [The Origin of Finnish Words. Etymological Dictionary], Publications of the Research Institute for the Languages of Finland 62, Publications of the Finnish Literature Society 556, executive eds Ulla-­Maija Kulonen and Erkki Itkonen. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society/Research Institute for the Languages of Finland. Stearn, William T. ([1966] 2004) Botanical Latin: History, Grammar, Syntax, Terminology and Vocabulary. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. Štekauer, Pavol (1998) An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-­Formation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Štekauer, Pavol (2005a) Meaning Predictability in Word Formation: Novel, Context-­free Naming Units, Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Štekauer, Pavol (2005b) ‘Onomasiological approach to word-­formation’, in P. Štekauer and R. Lieber (eds), Handbook of Word-­Formation. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 207–32.

bibliography  307 Stump, Gregory T. (2001) Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stump, Gregory (2011) ‘Morphology’, in P. C. Hogan (ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 515–19. Švedova, Natalija Ju (ed.) (1982) Russkaja Grammatika. Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut russkogo jazyka, Moscow: Nauka. Sweetser, Eve (1999) ‘Compositionality and blending: semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework’, in T. Janssen and G. Redeker (eds), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 129–62. Szymanek, Bogdan (1985) English and Polish Adjectives: A Study in Lexicalist Word-­Formation. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL. Szymanek, Bogdan (1988) Categories and Categorisation in Morphology. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw KUL. Szymanek, Bogdan (1989) Introduction to Morphological Analysis. Warszawa: PWN. Szymanek, Bogdan (2010) A Panorama of Polish Word Formation. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL. Talmy, Leonard (1985) ‘Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms’, in T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–149. Taylor, John R. (1995) Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tegelberg, Elisabeth (2000) Från svenska till franska. Kontrastiv lexikologi i praktiken. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Temmerman, Rita (2000) Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Thèses (1929) ‘Thèses présentées au Premier Congrès des philologues slaves’, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 1: 5–29; reprinted in J. Vachek (1964), A Prague School Reader in Linguistics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, pp. 33–58. Thomas, George (1991) Linguistic Purism. London: Longman. Tic Douloureux, P. R. N. (1971) ‘A note on one’s privates’, in A. Zwicky, P. Salus, R. Binnick and A. Vanek (eds), Studies Out in Left Field: Defamatory Essays Presented to James D. McCawley on the Occasion of his 33rd or 34th Birthday. Edmonton and Champaign, IL: Linguistic Research, pp. 45–52. Tiersma, Peter M. (1982) ‘Local and general markedness’, Language, 58: 832–49. TLG (2001) Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Digital library, CD-­Rom, University of California, Irvine. Townsend, Charles E. (1975) Russian Word Formation. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers. Triandafyllidis, Manolis ([1941] 1991) Νεοελληνική γραμματική [Modern Greek Grammar], 3rd rev. edn. Thessaloniki: Manolis Triandafyllidis Foundation. Tribout, Delphine (2010) Les conversions de nom à verbe et de verbe à nom en français. PhD thesis, University of Paris Diderot (Paris 7). Trips, Carola (2009) Lexical Semantics and Diachronic Morphology. The Development of -hood, -­dom and -­ship in the History of English. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Trommelen, Mieke and Zonneveld, Wim (1986) ‘Dutch morphology: evidence for the Righthand Head Rule’, Linguistic Inquiry, 17: 147–69. Trubetzkoy, Nikolaj S. (1939) Grundzüge der Phonologie. Prague: Harassowitz. Twardzisz, Piotr  (1997) Zero Derivation in English. A Cognitive Grammar Approach. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS. UDC Consortium (2010) Universal Decimal Classification (UDC). Online at http://udcc.org/ (last accessed 25 June 2011).

308  semantics of word formation and lexicalization Ullmann, Stephen (1962) Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell. Uriagereka, Juan (1998) Rhyme and Reason: An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vendler, Zeno (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Vinogradov, Viktor Vladimirovič (1986) Russkij jazyk. Grammatičeskoje učenije o slove. Moscow: Nauka. Volek, Bronislava (1987) Emotive Signs in Language and Semantic Functioning of Derived Nouns in Russian. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Warburton, Irene (1976) ‘On the boundaries of morphology and phonology: a case study from Modern Greek’, Journal of Linguistics, 12: 258–78. Ward, Gregory, Sproat, Richard and McKoon, Gail (1991) ‘A pragmatic analysis of so-­called anaphoric islands’, Language, 67 (3): 439–74. Wasow, Thomas (1981) ‘Major and minor rules in lexical grammar’, in T. Hoekstra, H. van der Hulst and M. Moortgat (eds), Lexical Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 285–312. Watt, William C. (1975) ‘The indiscreteness with which impenetrables are penetrated’, Lingua, 37: 95–128. Whitney, William Dwight (1879) A Sanskrit Grammar, Including Both the Classical Language, and the Older Dialects, of Veda and Brahmana. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. Wierzbicka, Anna (1985) Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers. Wiese, Richard (1996) ‘Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax’, Linguistic Inquiry, 27: 183–93. Williams, Edwin (1981) ‘On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word”’, Linguistic Inquiry, 12: 245–74. Williams, Edwin (2007) ‘Dumping lexicalism’, in G. Ramchand and C. Reiss (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 353–81. Willim, Ewa (2006) Event, Individuation, and Countability: A Study with Special Reference to English and Polish. Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press. Wray, Alison (2002) Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wright, Sue Ellen (2006) ‘Terminology standards for the language industry’, in P. ten Hacken (ed.), Terminology, Computing and Translation. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 19–39. Wright, Sue Ellen and Budin, Gerhard (eds) (1997) Handbook of Terminology Management, Volume 1: Basic Aspects of Terminology Management. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wüster, Eugen (1931) Internationale Sprachnormung in der Technik, besonders in der Elektrotechnik [International Language Standardization, Especially Within Electrotechnics]. Dusseldorf: VDI-­Verlag. Wüster, Eugen (1979) Einführung in die allgemeine Terminologielehre und terminologische Lexikographie. Vienna: Springer. Zimmer, Karl E. (1971) ‘Some general observations about nominal compounds’, Working Papers on Language Universals. Stanford University, CA, 5, C1–C21. Zwitserlood, Pienie (1994) ‘The role of semantic transparency in the processing and representation of Dutch compounds’, Language and Cognitive Processes, 81: 358–67.

Author index

Abney, Steven Paul, 43n3 Adams, Valerie, 183, 186, 197n3 Alexiadou, Artemis 2004 (and Anagnostopoulou), 245n5 2006 (et al.), 231 2008 (and Grimshaw), 200n26, 209, 224n21 2009, 200n26 Anagnosopoulou, Elena see Alexiadou, 2004, 2006 Allen, Margaret Reece, 85, 200n24 Amiot, Dany, 103 Anastassiadis-Symeonidis, Anna, 226, 228, 236 Anderson, Stephen, 46, 143, 158n3 Anick, Peter see Pustejovsky, 1988 Arntz, Reiner, 11, 91, 92 Aronoff, Mark 1976, 180, 182, 184, 198n6 1980, 182 1984, 199n16 1992, 103 1994, 188, 199n15, 201n40 2001 (and Cho), 246n14 2005 (and Fudeman), 207, 208 Baayen, Harald, 241; see also Plag, 1999; Schreuder Baker, Raymond see Bannister Bale, Alan see Barner Bannister, Arthur, 91 Barbaresi, Lavinia Merlini see Dressler 1994 Barner, David, 17 Baroni, Marco 2002 (et al.), 106 2007 (et al.), 178n9

Bauer, Laurie 1983, 68, 78 1988, 139n9, 184 1990, 104 1997, 266 1998, 123, 158n5 2001, 80, 182–4, 241 2003, 46, 182 2005 (and Valera), 197n4 Beard, Robert, 180–202 1981, 187, 190 1982, 199n20, 199n21 1984, 188 1987, 190 1988, 27n6, 199n16 1995, 12–14, 25, 180, 186–90, 196, 198n15, 199n17, 199n21, 201n39 1998, 104 Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette, 5 Benveniste 1948/1975, 206, 211, 214 1966, 108 Berman, Ruth A., 122; see also Clark, Eve V. Bielec, Dana, 90 Bisetto, Antonietta, 119n6, 171; see also Scalise, 2009 Bloch, Bernard, 6–7, 14–15 Bloch-Trojnar, Maria, 25, 180–202, 286 2006, 12, 188 2007, 185 2011, 200n26, 201n28 2012a, 190, 199n20 2012b, 201n30, 202n40 Bloomfield, Leonard, 6–9, 27n5, 123, 138n1

310  semantics of word formation and lexicalization Bolinger, Dwight 1967, 131 1975, 102 Booij, Geert 2003 (and van Kemenade), 205 2005, 46 2007, 138n7 2009a, 136 2009b, 104, 178n5 Bosch, Peter, 147–8 Bratus, B. V., 270 Brinton, Laurel J. 1998, 183, 192–3, 201n31 2005 (and Traugott), 45, 50, 51, 65 Brooks, Patricia J. see Kempe Browne, Wayles, 145 Bruno, Carla, 214 Bücking, Sebastian, 127, 138n2 Budin, Gerhard see Wright Busa, Federica see Johnston Bybee, Joan, 219 Cabré, M. Teresa, 5, 92 Cadiot, Pierre, 119n9 Carlson, Greg, 246n14 Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew D., 12–13, 103, 200n25 Cetnarowska, Bożena, 180, 183–4, 186, 197n4, 201n29, 201n35 Chantraine, Pierre, 216–17, 221 Charitonidis, Chariton 2005, 245n5, 246n13 2011, 231 Cho, Sungeun see Aronoff, 2001 Chomsky, Noam, 7–10, 20 1957, 9 1964, 9, 31 1965, 7–9 1968 (and Halle), 249 1970, 9, 31–2, 181, 198n8, 198n10, 200n27 1980, 7–8 1981, 13–14 1986, 249 2000, 16 Civilleri, Germana Olga, 26, 203–24, 286 2009, 222n6 2010, 222n8 2012, 211, 221, 222n2, 222n4, 222n8 submitted, 203 Clark, Eve V., 108; see also Berman Claudi, Ulrike see Heine Cobuild, 185, 194, 198n5 Collins English Dictionary, 36, 40, 85, 86 Corbett, Greville G., 199n21, 199n22

Corbin, Danielle 1987, 23, 33, 42, 215, 246n9 1992, 105 Corum, Claudia, 145 Craigie, William A., 10 Croft, William 1990/2003, 213, 223n18 1991, 222n1 2000, 139n12 Cruse, Alan D. 1986, 104 2004, 178n8 Culicover, Peter W., 43n3, 265n13 Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, 205 Cysouw, Michael, 105 Dahl, Östen, 131, 135 Dal’, Vladimir Ivanovič, 271 Dalton-Puffer, Christine see Plag, 1999 Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, 104 Dimmendaal, Gerrit J., 199n21 Dokulil, Miloš, 11–12, 39, 187, 269, 272, 275 Downing, Pamela, 39, 102, 108–12, 122, 136 Dowty, David R., 173 Draskau, Jennifer see Picht Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985, 204 1994 (and Barbaresi), 236, 266, 274 2006, 83–4, 119n2 Drodz, L., 67 Efthymiou, Angeliki, 26, 225–46, 286 1999, 226, 234–6 2001, 236, 246n9 2002, 236, 246n9 2010 (et al.), 228–9, 241–3 2011a, 225–6, 230–1, 237–41 2011b, 236 2012a (et al.), 243, 246n16 2012b (et al.), 245n3 2013, 236 Eisenberg, Peter, 132 Embick, David, 16, 18 Encyclopedia Britannica, 91 Engel, Ulrich, 91 Eriksson, Olof, 106 Evola, Vito, 223n10 Fahim Elsayed, Mohammed Salah, 150, 152 Fedorova, Olga see Kempe Felber, Helmut, 67–8 Fillmore, Charles J., 161 Fliatouras, Asimakis see AnastassiadisSymeonidis, 2003

author index  311 Forse, Jessica, 26, 247–65, 287 Fradin, Bernard 2003, 104–5, 119n3 2005, 161 2009, 102 Fragaki, Georgia see Efthymiou, 2012 Fruyt, Michèle, 208 Fudeman, Kirsten see Aronoff, 2005 Gaeta, Livio 2002, 220 2003 (and Ricca), 242 2009 (and Ricca), 136 Gagné, Christina L. 1997 (and Shoben), 108–12, 116–17, 173 2006 (and Spalding), 109–10, 115, 119n2, 173 Gavanozi, Vaso see Efthymiou, 2010 Gibson, Martha see Libben, 2003 Giegerich, Heinz J. 2004, 123 2005, 142, 144, 146, 158n5 2006, 123 Givón, Talmy, 220 Gottfurcht, Carolyn, 232, 237–8, 241, 243, 246n12 Grandi, Nicola, 266 Greenbaum, Sidney see Quirk Grimshaw, Jane, 162, 180, 192, 200n26, 223n11; see also Alexiadou, 2008 Gross, Gaston, 222n1 Gruber, Jeffrey S., 257 Grzega, Joachim, 11, 39 Grzegorczykowa, Renata, 88, 187 Guevara, Emiliano, 135; see also Baroni, 2007 Gunkel, Lutz, 130–1, 135 Habert, Benoît, 114 ten Hacken, Pius, 1–27, 28–44, 83–101, 249, 287 1994, 35, 43n8, 84–5, 138n2, 138n4, 139n11, 158n6 1999, 84–5 2003a, 35, 94 2003b, 35, 94, 138n4 2007, 7, 20, 36, 249 2008, 11 2009a, 8, 10 2009b, 43n6 2010a, 84 2010b, 40, 42, 43n7, 89 2010c, 11 2011 (and Panocová), 7 Hajičová, Eva, 4

Halle, Morris, 15–18; see also Chomsky, 1968 Hankamer, Jorge, 142 Harley, Heidi, 15–18 Harris, Alice C., 158n2 Harris, Zellig S., 7 Haspelmath, Martin 1992, 104 2002, 103, 182 Havou, Eleni see Efthymiou, 2010 Heine, Bernd, 219 Herbst, Thomas, 201n28 Heslin, Peter, 203 Heyvaert, Liesbet, 14 Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., 208, 219 Hockett, Charles F. 1942, 8 1958, 18 Hoekstra, Teun, 162 Homer, 26, 203–24, 223n19 Honeybone, Patrick, 5 Horecký, Ján, 26–7, 267–80 1973, 276 1974, 270, 275 1980, 268, 279 1983, 12, 267, 279 1994, 267–8, 270–1, 274–5, 279 Hünnemeyer, Friederike see Heine INS, 227 Isabelle, Pierre, 108 Jackendoff, Ray, 9, 20–1, 28–44, 110–13, 247–65 1975, 9, 21, 32–3, 63, 180, 188, 198n15 1983, 20, 28–9, 92, 198n14, 227, 237, 246n12, 248, 251, 257, 265n9 1990, 20, 28, 198n14, 227, 237, 246n12, 248, 250–1, 257, 264n4 1991, 192, 199n20 1997, 29–30, 161–2, 170, 178n7 2002, 20–1, 23, 28–35, 39, 42, 43n4, 44n8, 51–2, 62–3, 104, 161–2, 164, 169, 173, 178n3, 178n10, 179n13, 180, 248–9 2007, 162, 251, 264n4 2008, 37 2009, 21–2, 24, 28, 34, 42, 51–2, 55, 103–4, 108–12, 118, 119n7, 119n8, 178n10, 247 2010, 21, 23, 32, 34, 37–8, 41–2, 51–4, 101n1, 135, 138n4, 177, 178n10, 179n12, 187, 198n15 see also Culicover Jacobs, Joachim, 132 Jacquemin, Christian see Habert

312  semantics of word formation and lexicalization Jakobson, Roman 1959, 208 1960, 4 Jarema, Gonia, 108, 116 Jespersen, Otto 1922, 108 1942, 137n1 Johnson, Mark see Lakoff, 1980 Johnston, Michael, 118 Josefsson, Gunlög, 102 Joseph, John, 1 Junczys-Dowmunt, Marcin, 106 Kačmárová, Alena, 269 Kallas, Krystyna, 90 Kastovsky, Dieter, 46, 50, 62, 136 Kazazis, Kostas, 245n2 van Kemenade, Jaap see Booij, 2003 Kempe, Vera, 266 Kerleroux, Françoise, 204 Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria 1993, 197n2 2009, 139n13 Koskenniemi, Kimmo, 43n5 Krifka, Manfred, 192 Kuryłowicz, Jerzy, 207 Kwiatek, Ewelina, 24, 83–101, 287 2013, 91 Labov, William, 11 Lahav, Ran, 124, 128 Lakoff, George 1972 (and Ross), 145 1980 (and Johnson), 68, 208, 223n10 1987, 208 Lang, Friedrich, 5 Langacker, Ronald W. 1987a, 14–15, 161, 178n2, 178n3 1987b, 192, 220 1991, 14 2000a, 25 2000b, 160n18 2008, 14–15 Lapata, Maria, 118 Laskowski, Roman, 188 Leech, Geoffrey see Quirk Lees, Robert B., 8–9, 182 Lehmann, Christian 1989, 219 2002, 208, 219, 223n9 2004, 208, 219 Lehrer, Adrienne, 204, 208 Lesselingue, Chrystèle, 105

Levi, Judith N 1975, 108 1977, 145–6, 158n5 1978, 9–10, 85, 87, 91, 108–9 Levin, Beth, 247; see also Rappoport Hovav Li, Charles, 108 Libben, Gary 2003 (et al.), 149 2006, 104 Liddell, Henry George, 203, 212 Lieber, Rochelle 1980, 252 1983, 19 1993, 253 2004, 19–20, 22, 23, 45–51, 54–5, 57, 63–5, 65n1, 108, 161, 164, 166, 177n2, 237, 245n1 2007 (and Scalise), 161, 170, 178n5 2009, 45, 47, 50 2009 (and Štekauer), 83–4 2010, 242–3 Lönnrot, Elias, 23, 69–81 Luraghi, Silvia, 210 Lyons, John, 103 McEnery, Tony, 119n4 McKoon, Gail, 147, 148–9, 159n9; see also Ward Maienborn, Claudia, 138n5 Mail, Noor, 41 Malicka-Kleparska, Anna, 197n1 1985, 183, 188, 200n24 1988, 180–2, 184–6, 188, 198n8, 201n33, 201n40 Malkiel, Yakov, 204 Marantz, Alec, 16–17; see also Halle Marchand 1960, 253–5, 260, 265n15 1969, 102, 182, 185, 197n3 Markos, Angelos see Efthymiou, 2012 van Marle, Jaap, 183–4 Matiasek, Johannes see Baroni, 2002 Matthews, Peter H. 1972, 223 1993, 5–6 2005, 274 Mayer, Felix see Arntz Meillet, Antoine, 211 Mela-Athanasopoulou, Elizabeth, 240 Millikan, Ruth, 111 Mironova, Natalija see Kempe Mohr, W. see Müller Mondini, Sara see Semenza, Carlo Motsch, Wolfgang, 135, 138n6

author index  313 Mourelatos, Alexander, 192, 201n6 Mousavi, Maryan Sadr see Shamsfard Müller, L. P., 41 Müller-Bollhagen, Elgin see Ortner Murray, August Taber see Homer Namer, Fiammetta, 103, 118n1 Naumann, Bernd, 204, 208 Newmeyer, Frederick J., 8 Nicoladis, Elena, 90–1, 108, 112, 118 Noailly, Michèle, 119n3 Noyer, Rolf, see Embick; Harley, 2003 Nyman, Martti, 245n2 O’Brien, Peter see Mail OED 1989/2011, 40, 182, 184, 198n5, 253–4, 264n5, 264n6 2002, 72–3, 75, 78, 82n1 Onions, C. T. see Craigie Ortner, Lorelies, 138n6 Palmer, Frank R., 198n8 Panagiotidis, Phoevos, 17 Pang, Geordi, see Mail Panocová, Renáta, 26–7, 266–85, 287; see also ten Hacken, 2011 Partee, Barbara, 131 Paul, Waltraud, 142, 144, 146 Pearson, Jennifer, 5, 10 Petropoulou, Evanthia, 95 Picht, Heribert, 67; see also Arntz Pirrelli, Vito see Baroni, 2007 Pitkänen-Heikkilä, Kaarina, 23–4, 66–82, 287–8 2005, 70 2008, 66, 68–9 Plag, Ingo 1998, 51 1999, 165, 182–3, 227, 237, 241–3, 245n1 1999 et al., 246n17 2003, 46, 165 Pompei, Anna, 205 Postal, Paul, 25, 126, 140–2, 145, 147–8, 158n1, 158n2, 158n5, 159n8 Privitera, Aurelio see Homer (Omero) Pustejovsky, James 1988 (and Anick), 194 1991, 58–60, 178n7 1995a, 21–2, 23, 25–6, 55–65, 118, 169, 178n3, 186–7, 194 1995b, 59–60 van der Putten, Frans see Hoekstra

Puzynina, Jadwiga see Grzegorczykowa, 1979, 1999 Quirk, Randolph, 201n37 Rainer, Franz 1988, 184 1992 (and Varela), 103 Rappaport Hovav, Malka, 162; see also Levin Ratcliff, Roger see McKoon Raymond, Stanley see Bannister Ricca, Davide see Gaeta, 2003, 2009 Rijkhoff, Jan, 130 Rio-Torto, Graça, 25, 161–79, 288 2009 (and Ribeiro), 170, 178n6 2010 (and Ribeiro), 170–1 2013 (and Ribeiro), 174 Rodrigues, Alexandra, 162–9 Romagno, Domenica, 205 Rosch, Eleanor, 11 Rommens, P. M. see Müller Rosenbach, Annette, 131 Rosenberg, Maria, 24, 102–20, 288 2007, 108 Ross, John, 158n1; see also Lakoff, 1972 Rozwadowska, Bożena, 197n2, 200n28 Ryder, Mary, 104 Rytting, C. Anton, 230, 245n2 Sag, Ivan see Hankamer Sager, Juan, 10, 67–8, 81 Sandra, Dominiek see Libben, 2003 Saussure, Ferdinand de, 1–4, 7–8, 13–14, 20, 67, 247, 267 Scalise, Sergio 1986, 104 2009 (and Bisetto), 170 2010 (and Vogel), 170 see also Bisetto; Guevara; Lieber, 2007 Schachter, Paul, 181 Schäfer, Florian see Alexiadou, 2006 Schäfer, Martin, 25, 84, 137, 138n3, 140–60, 288 Schiller, Anne, 106 Schlücker, Barbara, 24–5, 84, 121–39, 288–9 Schreuder, Robert, 116 Schwarze, Christoph, 208, 219 Schwyzer, Eduard, 211 Scott, Robert see Liddell Seibicke, W. see Drodz Selkirk, Elisabeth O., 15, 19, 104, 108, 143, 252 Semenza, Carlo, 104, 119n2 Setatos, Michalis, 245n2

314  semantics of word formation and lexicalization Shamsfard, Mehrnoush, 178n10 Shoben, Edward J., 109; see also Gagné, 1997 Simone, Raffaele 2000, 213 2003, 206, 211 Simoska, Silvana, 138n6 Simpson, J. M. Y., 3 Soares Rodrigues, Alexandra, 25, 161–79, 289 Spalding, Thomas L. see Gagné, 2006 Sproat, Richard, 43; see also McKoon, Ward SSA, 71–3, 75–6 Stearn, William T., 69, 81, 82n1 Štekauer, Pavol 1998, 12 2005a, 82 2005b, 11, 102, 268 see also Lieber, 2009 Stengers, Isabelle see Bensaude-Vincent Stump, Gregory T., 15 Suffner, J. see Müller Svartvik, Jan see Quirk Švedova, Natalija Ju, 270 Sweetser, Eve, 124 Szymanek, Bogdan 1985, 180, 183, 188, 193 1988, 12, 180, 188 1989, 181, 187, 193, 197n3 2010, 88–90, 94, 96 Talmy, Leonard, 53, 61 Taylor, John R., 208 Tegelberg, Elisabeth, 105 Temmerman, Rita, 11 Thèses, 4–5, 11 Thomas, Claire, 1–27, 45–65, 201n32, 208, 289 Thomas, George, 74 Tic Douloureux, P. R. N., 145 Tiersma, Peter M., 199n21 TLG, 203, 218 Tono, Yukio see McEnery Townsend, Charles E., 270 Trager, George L. see Bloch Traugott, Elizabeth C. see Brinton, 2005 Triandafyllidis, Manolis, 227 Tribout, Delphine, 232, 239

Trips, Carola, 246n14 Trommelen, Mieke, 252 Trost, Harald see Baroni, 2002 Trubetzkoy, Nikolaj S., 3, 5 Twardzisz, Piotr, 197 UDC Consortium, 91 Ullmann, Stephen, 67 Uriagereka, Juan, 36 Valera, Salvador see Bauer, 2005 Varela, Soledad see Rainer, 1992 Vendler, Zeno, 166 Vendryes, Joseph see Meillet Vinogradov, Viktor V., 270 Vogel, Irene see Scalise, 2010 Vogel, Petra M. see Naumann Volek, Bronislava, 274 Wälchli, Bernhard see Cysouw Warburton, Irene, 245n2 Ward, Gregory, 25, 145–50, 158n6, 159n9; see also McKoon Wasow, Thomas, 198n7 Watt, William C., 145, 147 Wenda, K. see Müller Whitney, William Dwight, 5 Wierzbicka, Anna, 234 Wiese, Richard, 35 Williams, Edwin 1981, 104, 252 2007, 17 see Di Sciullo; Grimshaw, 1993 Willim, Ewa, 187, 192 Wray, Alison, 88 Wright, Sue-Ellen, 10 Wüster, Eugen 1931, 5 1979, 67 Xiao, Richard see McEnery Yoon, Yeo Bom see Libben, 2003 Zifonun, Gisela see Gunkel, 2009, 2011 Zimmer, Karl E., 122 Zonneveld, Wim see Trommelen Zwitserlood, Pienie, 149, 159n11

Subject index

abbreviations, 94, 96 accepted terms, 71 action modality, 111–12 adherence, 274–5 affector, 274 affix, 17, 19, 52, 165, 167–9, 187, 204, 270 affixation, 13, 33–5 affixoid, 237, 245n3 agent nouns, 162–5 agreement, 199n22 Aktionsart, 192–3 allomorphs, 198n6, 227, 229, 247, 270 analogy, 80, 81 anaphoric island, 25, 86, 126, 140–60 Ancient Greek, 26, 71, 73, 95, 203–24 antecedent, 25, 86 apophony, 207 appellative, 274 arbitrariness, 3, 67 argument structure, 56–7, 162–4, 169, 204, 209–10 attributive modification, 122 availability (disponibilité), 33, 37, 42–3 back formation, 32, 73 bahuvrihi compounds, 138n7 blocking, 184–5 body (Lieber), 19, 47, 50 borrowing, 11, 39, 68, 69, 93–4, 96, 97–8, 101 botany, 23, 66–82 calque, 74 cartography, 92–101 causative, 225, 239, 244 chemistry, 4, 67 Chinese, 144–5

chosen terms, 71–2 classifying modification, 130–2, 134 co-composition, 57 coercion, 21–2, 89, 170, 174 Cognitive Grammar (Langacker), 14, 25, 26, 220 collocation, 60 competence, 7, 30, 41, 256 complete semantic definition (CSD), 27, 267, 268–9, 274, 276 complex event, 49 compositionality, 46, 124, 170–1, 176, 203, 209–21 compounding, 8, 9, 15, 17, 24, 25, 33, 35, 83–91, 93–101, 103–20, 121–39, 140–60, 170–7 concepts, 10, 24, 84, 90, 131, 134, 135 conceptual category, 12 conceptual structure (Jackendoff), 23, 26, 28, 51, 53–4, 65, 110–11, 187, 247–65 construction morphology (Booij), 104 conversion, 54, 182–5, 186, 193–6, 197n4 copulative compounds, 35 corpora, 10, 24, 25, 26, 91–3, 103, 105–6, 114, 153–8, 157–8, 228, 271 correspondence record, 92–3 COSMAS II, 153 countability, 185, 186, 190, 192, 209 created terms, 72–81 definition, 11, 12, 24, 83–5, 103–5, 121–39, 170 deictic compounds, 39, 136 derivation, 25–6, 35–7, 39, 70, 162–9, 176–7, 180–246, 247–65 Deutsches Referenz Korpus (DeReKo), 153

316  semantics of word formation and lexicalization diachronic linguistics, 2–3, 4, 45, 46, 51, 65 diacritic feature, 37–8 dictionary, 226, 242; see also Oxford English Dictionary diminutive, 27, 266–7 discourse model, 148–9 Distributed Morphology (DM), 15–18 dotted type, 57 DP hypothesis, 43n3 Dutch, 149 effector, 274 empty element, 141 entrenchment (Langacker), 25, 157 ergativity, 276 etymology, 82, 227, 234, 252–3, 261 European Parliament, 24, 105–6 evaluative meaning see pejorative connotation evaluative morphology see diminutive event nouns, 165–9 event structure, 56–7, 166–7, 200n26, 210, 214–15 exocentric compounds, 88–9, 152–3 Finnish, 23, 66–82 formant, 267 formulaic expression, 88 French, 24, 26, 53–4, 61–2, 69, 102–3, 105–8, 112–20, 247, 253–4, 260–4, 265n8 frequency, 219 full-entry theory, 9, 32–3 function word, 17, 30–1 gender, 275 generative lexicon (Pustejovsky), 21–2, 23, 25, 55–65 generative semantics, 8, 9, 14, 25, 87 genitive, 89, 91, 96, 100, 210, 214–15; see also Saxon genitive geodetic surveying, 92–101 German, 24, 25, 121–39, 141–2, 147–8, 149–58 gerund, 181 glide formation, 227, 230 GPS see satellite positioning system grammaticalization, 219 Greek see Ancient Greek, Modern Greek head, 103–5, 115–16, 129, 130, 132, 144–5, 150–2, 252 homonym, 6, 19 hypocoristics, 274 hyponymy, 59, 130; see also subconcepts

iconicity, 207, 236 identificational field, 257–9 idiom, 17, 18, 30 idiomaticity, 170–2, 173, 176 inbound anaphora, 158n5 inchoative, 226 inflection, 6, 13–14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 33–4, 123, 189, 191 Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS), 153 institutionalization, 200n25 integration, 127, 132 intersective modification, 127 ISO/TC37, 5 Italian, 26, 69, 234 katharevousa, 228–9 L-derivation, 13, 190, 192–3, 196–7 land surveying, 24, 91–101 langue, 3, 4, 7 Latin, 68–82, 95, 260 Latinate suffixes, 183–4, 186, 196–7 learned vocabulary, 26, 227, 228–30, 233–4, 243–5 lexeme, 103, 188 Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology (LMBM), 12–14, 25–6, 180, 186–90 lexical conceptual paradigm (lcp), 58, 60, 194–6 lexical-conceptual structure (LCS), 163, 169, 171, 173, 176, 178n7, 187, 192, 199n20, 237–9 lexical cycle, 213 lexical entry, 8, 30–1, 51–2 lexical extension rules see L-derivation lexical inheritance structure, 56, 58–9 Lexical Integrity Hypothesis, 143–4 lexicalist hypothesis, 9, 15, 31–2, 42, 142–3 lexicalization, 7, 23, 26, 45–65, 102, 104–5, 125, 131, 185, 190, 191, 195–6, 203–24; see also semantic specialization lexicalization scale, 203 lexicology, 67 lexicon, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 21, 29–31, 104, 190, 248–9, 253–4 Linguistic Wars, 8, 20 linking elements, 88, 90–1, 108 loan shift, 74 loan translation, 72, 74, 75, 79, 96, 99, 101 Logical Form (LF), 16 logical polysemy, 56, 60, 194 Mandarin see Chinese materiality, 276

subject index  317 maximal compatibility principle, 161, 165, 168–9, 173–6 maximal semantic frame, 163–4, 169, 170, 176 metaphor, 39, 67, 68, 71–2, 73, 75, 78, 81, 171, 203, 208, 213, 215, 276 metonymy, 39, 67, 71–2, 138n7, 153, 171, 203, 208, 213–17 Modern Greek, 26, 225–46 modificational type, 12, 269, 272, 275 morpheme, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 17, 21, 188 morpholexical features, 189–90 morphological family, 116–17 Morphological Spelling Component (LMBM), 188 morphome, 201n40 motivation, 67–8 multi-word units, 30 mutational type, 12, 269 named language, 8, 36 naming, 4–5, 10–12, 38–43, 66–82, 139n9 neoclassical word formation, 68, 78, 95–6, 99–100, 101, 118n1 nominalization, 25, 180–6, 191–7, 203–24 non-referentiality, 135 nouniness, 206, 220, 222n6 number, 189–90, 192 onomasiological approach, 10–12, 23, 26–7, 39, 67, 91, 102, 263, 267–80 onomasiological base, ~ mark, 11, 267–9, 270 ontological class, 48 opacity, 147, 149, 152, 176, 203, 220 outbound anaphora, 140 Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 10, 253–4 paradigm, 15, 44n8 Parallel Architecture (PA), 20–1, 23, 25, 26, 28–44, 51–5, 104, 110–11, 198n15, 248–9 parole, 3, 7 partial modification, 127 patterns of lexicalization, 54 pejorative connotation, 26, 226, 231–7, 244 performance, 7, 30, 41, 256 Phonetic Form (PF), 16 phrasal constituents, 24 phrasal verbs, 182–3 Polish, 24, 88–101 polysemy, 19, 22, 48, 55–6, 63, 171–2, 208–9, 213 Portuguese, 25, 26, 161–79, 247, 260–4

pragmatics, 25, 146–8, 157–8, 244 Prague School, 3–5, 12 predication, 222n1 prefixes, 252–64 preverb, 205 priming, 62–3, 65 privative features, 38, 48 process-result alternation, 47–50, 55–65, 167–9, 186, 194–6, 206 processing, 104–5 productivity, 4, 23, 26, 31–44, 102, 104–5, 112, 118, 121, 182–5, 207, 226, 229–30, 241–5 profitability (rentabilité), 33, 42–3, 183 pro-form, 140–60 projective conclusion space, 59, 64 projective inheritance, 59 pronoun see pro-form Proper Function (PF), 111–12 proper names, 39, 94, 136, 274 protolanguage, 33–4, 177 prototype, 11, 15, 84 psycholinguistics, 148–9, 157–8, 173 qualia structure, 22, 56–7, 59 Real Academia Española (RAE), 260 recoverably deletable predicates (RDPs), 9, 91 recursion, 93–4, 272 redundancy rules, 8, 9, 21, 32–3, 35, 180–1, 182 regularity, 7, 8, 9, 21, 33, 42–3 relational adjectives, 86–7, 89–90, 94, 96, 99, 100, 125, 131, 193–4 rewrite rules, 8, 9, 15 right-headedness, 15, 252 rule ordering, 183 Romanian, 69 Russian, 27, 266–7, 269–85 Russian National Corpus, 271 S-structure, 13, 16 satellite positioning system, 92–101 Saxon genitive, 86, 87, 94 selective binding, 57 semantic coindexation, 161–2, 164–9, 171–2, 173–4, 176 semantic drift, 190 semantic specialization, 122, 124, 128, 131, 171–2 semantic transparency, 147–9, 153, 170, 203, 220 semiproductivity, 23, 37–8, 42–3

318  semantics of word formation and lexicalization Sense Enumerative Lexicon (SEL), 21, 56, 194 separation hypothesis, 187–8 sign (Saussure), 3, 13, 14, 247, 267 Simpler Syntax Hypothesis, 43n3 skeleton (Lieber), 19, 47–50 Slovak, 268–9, 271, 275, 279 Spanish, 26, 69, 247, 260–4 specialized vocabulary, 11 speech community, 7, 14, 24 stage-level predicates, 241 standardization, 5, 10–11 stimulus-response model, 6, 7 stress, 88, 123, 132, 143 subconcept, 133–4, 137 suffixation see affix surveying see land surveying Swedish, 24, 69–74, 76–82, 102–3, 105–8, 112–20 symbolic unit, 14 synapsies, 108 syntax, 8, 121–39 synthetic compounds, 88

telicity, 205 term extraction, 92 terminology, 4–5, 10–11, 23–4, 66–82, 91–101, 151 thematic roles, 173–6 tiers (PA), 164, 251 topicality, 147–9, 157 translation, 24, 92–3, 105–8, 114 transposition, 12, 180, 189–90, 191–3, 269 Trésor de la Langue Française (TLF), 260, 263 Turkish, 234 Two-Level Morphology, 43n5 type coercion, 22, 57 type constructor, 60 Uniform Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH), 43n3 Variable R condition, 85 verbiness, 206, 210, 211 zero-derivation see conversion