Book contents
- Complex Words
- Complex Words
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction: Advances in Morphology
- Part I Lexico-Semantic Aspects of Complex Words
- Part II Structure of Complex Words
- Part III Corpus-Based Case Studies
- 13 Competition between Synthetic NN Compounds and NN.gen Phrasal Nouns in Polish
- 14 An S Is an ’S, or Is It? Plural and Genitive Plural Are Not Homophonous
- 15 The Role of Word-Formation Families and Subfamilies in the Organization of German Diminutive Compounds
- 16 Semantic Patterns in Noun-to-Verb Conversion in English
- 17 Onomatopoeia
- 18 Dingsbums and Thingy
- Index
- References
15 - The Role of Word-Formation Families and Subfamilies in the Organization of German Diminutive Compounds
from Part III - Corpus-Based Case Studies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2020
Book contents
- Complex Words
- Complex Words
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction: Advances in Morphology
- Part I Lexico-Semantic Aspects of Complex Words
- Part II Structure of Complex Words
- Part III Corpus-Based Case Studies
- 13 Competition between Synthetic NN Compounds and NN.gen Phrasal Nouns in Polish
- 14 An S Is an ’S, or Is It? Plural and Genitive Plural Are Not Homophonous
- 15 The Role of Word-Formation Families and Subfamilies in the Organization of German Diminutive Compounds
- 16 Semantic Patterns in Noun-to-Verb Conversion in English
- 17 Onomatopoeia
- 18 Dingsbums and Thingy
- Index
- References
Summary
Not only formal word families are important for the organization of the morphologically complex lexicon, but also their semantic (or rather conceptual) subfamilies. This is shown with eighteen Austrian German diminutive compound families with the diminutive suffix -chen, and for their correspondent formal word families with the diminutive suffix -erl. For all of them, their competition (leading to mutual avoidances and semantic specializations), degree of morphosemantic transparency/opacity, productivity and left- vs. right-branching are accounted for. Our electronic database consists of nearly 13,000 different diminutive types which have at least five tokens within the Austrian Media Corpus.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Complex WordsAdvances in Morphology, pp. 293 - 310Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Bauer, L. (1997). Evaluative morphology: a search for universals. Studies in Language, 21, 533–575.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological Productivity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, É. (1963). Une valeur du diminutif. Prace Filologiczne. Warszawa: Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, 18, 9–11.Google Scholar
Chanpira, E. I. (1966). Ob okkazional'nom slove i okkazional'nom slovoobrazovanii [On occasional word and occasional word formation]. In Zemskaja, E. A. and Šmelev, D. N., eds., Razvitie slovoobrazovanija sovremennogo russkogo jazyka [Development of Word Formation of the Present Russian Language], Moskva: Nauka, pp. 153–166.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E. (1978). Einführung in die strukturelle Betrachtung der Wortschatzes [Introduction into the structural study of the lexicon]. In Geckeler, H., ed., Strukturelle Bedeutungslehre, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. and Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1994). Morphopragmatics, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U., Merlini Barbaresi, L., Schwaiger, S., Ransmayr, J. and Korecky-Kröll, K. (2019). Rivalry and lack of blocking among Italian and German diminutives in adult and child language. In Rainer, F., Gardani, F., Luschützky, H.-C. and Dressler, W. U., eds., Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation, Cham: Springer, pp. 123–143.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. and Tumfart, B. (2017). New corpus-linguistic approaches to the investigation of poetic occasionalisms: the case of Johann Nepomuk Nestroy. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting, 3, 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fradin, B. (2007). Le traitement de la suffixation en -et. Langages 37, 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fradin, B., Hathout, N. and Meunier, F. (2003). French suffixation in -et and the question of productivity. Langue française, 140, 56–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagné, C. L. and Spalding, T. L. (2014). Conceptual composition: the role of relational competition in the comprehension of modifier-noun phrases and noun-noun compounds. In Ross, B., ed., The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, New York: Elsevier, pp. 97–130Google Scholar
Gagné, C. L. and Spalding, T. L. (2015). Semantics, concepts, and meta-cognition: Attributing properties and meanings to complex concepts. In Bauer, L., Körtvélyessy, L. and Stekauer, P., eds., Semantics of Complex Words, New York: Springer, pp. 9–25.Google Scholar
Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L. and Kostelecky, M. (2017). Conceptual combination, property inclusion, and the Artistotelian-Thomistic view of concepts. In Hampton, J. and Winter, Y., eds., Compositionality and Concepts in Linguistics and Psychology: Language, Cognition and Mind, New York: Springer, pp. 223–245.Google Scholar
Hay, J. B. and Baayen, H. R. (2002). Parsing and productivity. In Booij, G. and van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 2001, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 203–235.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1996). Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language, 72, 533–578.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. and Dressler, W. U. (2019a). The morphosemantic transparency/opacity of novel English analogical compounds and compound families. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 53, 67–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattiello, E. and Dressler, W. U. (2019b). Dualism and superposition in the analysis of English synthetic compounds ending in -er [manuscript].Google Scholar
Mulder, K., Dijkstra, T., Schreuder, R. and Baayen, H. R. (2014). Effects of primary and secondary morphological family size in monolingual and bilingual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 59–84.Google Scholar
Ransmayr, J., Schwaiger, S. and Dressler, W. U. (forthcoming). Semantische Untersuchungen zu österreichischen Diminutiven und Diminutivkomposita: Begriffsfelder und Graduierung der morphosemantischen Opazität. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik.Google Scholar
Ransmayr, J., Schwaiger, S., Ďurčo, M., Pirker, H. and Dressler, W. U. (2016). Graduierung der Transparenz von Diminutiven auf -chen: Eine korpuslinguistische Untersuchung. Deutsche Sprache, 44, 261–286.Google Scholar
Schwaiger, S., Barbaresi, A., Korecky-Kröll, K., Ransmayr, J. and Dressler, W. U. (2019). Diminutivvariation in österreichischen elektronischen Korpora. In Bülow, L., Fischer, A. K. and Herbert, K., eds., Dimensions of Linguistic Space: Variation – Multilingualism – Conceptualisations. Dimensionen des sprachlichen Raums: Variation – Mehrsprachigkeit – Konzeptualisierung. Schriften zur deutschen Sprache in Österreich 45, Berlin: Peter Lang, pp. 147–162.Google Scholar
Schwaiger, S., Ransmayr, J., Korecky-Kröll, K., Sommer-Lolei, S. and Dressler, W. U. (2017). Scaling morphosemantic transparency/opacity. A corpus-linguistic and acquisitionist study of German diminutives. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistics Meeting, 3, 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2001). Philosophische Untersuchungen [Philosophical Investigations]. Kritisch-genetische Edition, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar