Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T12:30:48.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Finnish -Ari derivatives: A diachronic study of a new word-formation pattern

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2016

Kirsi-Maria Nummila
Kirsi-Maria Nummila*
Affiliation:
Finnish and Finno-Ugric Languages, School of Languages and Translation Studies, FI-20014 University of Turku, Finland. kirsi-maria.nummila@utu.fi
Get access

Abstract

Among the characteristic features of the Finnish language is the use of numerous derivational affixes and diverse word-formation options. Although Finnish has very old derivational elements, fairly recent suffixes and even completely new ways of forming words are also found. It is typical of word-formation options that they change, and that their frequency and popularity varies over time. In this diachronic study, the focus is on one of the most recent suffixes used in the Finnish language, the agentive -Ari suffix (e.g. kaahari ‘reckless driver’, kuohari ‘gelder of animals’). What makes the -Ari derivatives special is that the type has been adopted on the model of words borrowed from the Germanic languages. Historically these are descended from the Latin derivational element -ārius, which was adopted widely in the European languages. The main purpose of the present study was to find out whether, from a diachronic perspective, the -Ari-derived agent nouns actually represent an independent derived semantic category in Finnish. Another purpose was to characterize the process whereby the -Ari suffix was adopted in Finnish: at what point do these derived forms actually first occur in Finnish, and how has the use of the derivational element been manifested at different times. A final significant task of the study was to clarify the potential reasons and motivations for this morphological borrowing.

Keywords

agent nounderivationderivational patternFinnishhistorical word formationloan suffixmorphological borrowing
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , May 2016 , pp. 39 - 63
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ahlqvist, August. 1856. Wotisk Grammatik jemte spräkprof och ordförtecning (Acta Societas scientiarum Fennicae 50). Helsingforsiae: Acta Societas scientiarum Fennicae.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological productivity (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2002. What you can do with derivational morphology. In Benjaballah, Sabrina, Dressler, Wolfgang U., Pfeiffer, Oskar E. & Voeikova, Maria D. (eds.), Morphology 2000, 37–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bentlin, Mikko. 2008. Niederdeutsch–finnische Sprachkontakte. Der lexikalische Einfluß des Niederdeutschen auf die finnische Sprache während des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit (Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 256). Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2012. The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology, 3rd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahlgren, Sonja & Kittilä, Seppo. 2014. Snagarilla lihikset loppu?! Symppis hevari sai kilarin ‒ havaintoja suomen lyhennejohtimien käytöstä. Kieliviesti 4, 4‒8. http://www.sprakochfolkminnen.se/sprak/minoritetssprak/suomi-finska/kieliviesti.html.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1986. Explanation in natural morphology, illustrated with comparative and agent-noun formation. Linguistics 24 (3), 519–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekberg, Lena. 1995. Ordbildningens gränser: om -are avledningar i svenskan. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 110, 179–198. Lund: Lunds Universitet.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan & Green, Melanie. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Friis, Jens Andreas. 1856. Lappisk Grammatik. Udarbeidet efter den finmarkiske hoveddialekt eller sproget, saaledes som det almindeligst tales I norsk Finmarken. Christiania: J. W. Cappelen.Google Scholar
Ganander, Christfrid. 1984 [1789]. Mythologia Fennica. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Häkkinen, Kaisa. 1990. Mistä sanat tulevat. Suomalaista etymologiaa (Tietolipas 115). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Häkkinen, Kaisa. 1994. Agricolasta nykykieleen. Suomen kirjakielen historia. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
Häkkinen, Kaisa. 2015. Spreading the written word: Mikael Agricola and the birth of literary Finnish. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Lauri. 1955. Suomen kielen käännöslainoista. Virittäjä 59, 305‒318.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Lauri. 1961. The structure and development of the Finnish language (Research and Studies in Uralic and Altaic Languages, Project 50. Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series 3). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Lauri. 2000. Suomen kielen rakenne ja kehitys, 5th edn.Helsinki: Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen laitos.Google Scholar
Heinold, Simone. 2009. Derivational morphology under the influence of language contact in French and German. Journal of Language Contact 2, 68‒84.Google Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2003. A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English (Cognitive Linguistics Research 26). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISK = Iso suomen kielioppi. Hakulinen, Auliet. al. (eds.), Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 950. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 2004. http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk/etusivu.php.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Erkki. 1966. Kieli ja sen tutkimus. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
Jarva, Vesa. 2003. Venäläisperäisyys ja ekspressiivisyys suomen murteiden sanastossa (Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities 5). Jyväskylä. https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/13423/9513915441.pdf?sequence=1.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2002. Structural factors in Turkic language contacts. London: Curzon.Google Scholar
Jussila, Raimo. 1998. Vanhat sanat. Vanhan kirjasuomen ensiesiintymiä. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1971. The old English suffix -er(e). Anglia. Zeitschrift für Englishe Philologie 89, 285–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korhonen, Mikko. 1981. Johdatus lapin kielen historiaan (Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 370). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Kulonen, Ulla-Maija. 1996. Sanojen alkuperä ja sen selittäminen. Etymologista leksikografiaa (Suomi 181). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Kulonen, Ulla-Maija. 2010. Fonesteemit ja sananmuodostus. Suomen kontinuatiivisten U-verbijohdosten historiaa (Suomi 197). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical prerequisties. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1988. A usage-based model. In Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 50), 127‒164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leino, Pentti. 1989. Kirjakieli ‒ puutarha vai kansallispuisto? Virittäjä 9, 554‒571.Google Scholar
Lilie, Einar. 1921. Studier över nomina agentis i nutida svenska. Göteborg.Google Scholar
Luschützky, Hans Christian & Rainer, Franz. 2011a. Introduction. In Luschützk & Rainer (eds.), 2011c, 3–7.Google Scholar
Luschützky, Hans Christian & Rainer, Franz. 2011b. Agent noun polysemy in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Luschützk & Rainer (eds.), 2011c, 287–338.Google Scholar
Luschützky, Hans Christian & Rainer, Franz (eds.). 2011c. Language typology and universals. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF 64(1)). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Luschützky, Hans Christian & Rainer, Franz (eds.). 2011d. Language typology and universals. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF 64(4)) Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2014. Why is the borrowing of inflectional morphology dispreferred? In Gardani, Francesco, Arkadiev, Peter & Amiridze, Nino (eds.), Borrowed morphology (Language Contacts and Bilingualism 8), 47‒80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Sakel, Jeanette. 2007. Introduction. In Matras, Yaron & Sakel, Jeanette (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 38), 1‒13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Maurer, Karl W. 1973. Die nomina agentis in den althochdeutschen Glossen. Freiburg: Becksmann.Google Scholar
Nahkola, Kari. 1999. Nykyslangin sananmuodostusoppia. Virittäjä 103, 195–221.Google Scholar
Nummila, Kirsi-Maria. 2007. Nominikantaiset -(U)ri-ammatinnimitykset henkilönnimissämme. Virittäjä 111, 543–566.Google Scholar
Nummila, Kirsi-Maria. 2011. Tekijännimet Mikael Agricolan teosten kielessä. Henkilötarkoitteisten johdosten merkitykset, funktiot ja rakenteet (Annales universitatis Turkuensis C 328). Turku: Turun yliopisto. https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/73881/AnnalesC328Nummila.pdf?sequence=1.Google Scholar
Nummila, Kirsi-Maria. 2014. Produktiivinen ilmaisutyyppi ja käyttöalan laajentuminen. Diakroninen tutkimus suomen kielen jA-johdoksista 1500-luvulta nykysuomeen. Virittäjä 118, 501–524.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Thornburg, Linda. 2002. The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. In Dirven, René & Pörings, Ralf (eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (Cognitive Linguistics Research), 279–319. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Penttilä, Aarni. 2002 [1963]. Suomen kielioppi, 3rd edn., edited and published by Penttilä, Marikki, Vantaa.Google Scholar
Pettersson, Gertrud. 2005. Svenska språket under sjuhundra år. En historia om svenskan och dess utforskande, 2nd edn.Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Pinto, Immacolata. 2012. The influence of loan words on Sardinian word formation. In Vanhove et al. (eds.), 227‒245.Google Scholar
Ryder, Mary Ellen. 1991. Mixers, mufflers and mousers: The extending of the -er suffix as a case of prototype reanalysis. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 17), 299–311. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Ryder, Mary Ellen. 1999. Bankers and blue-chippers: An account of -er formations in present-day English. English Language and Linguistics 3 (2), 269–297.Google Scholar
Ryder, Mary Ellen. 2000. Complex -er nominals: Where grammaticalization and lexicalization meet? In Contini-Morava, Ellen & Tobin, Yishai (eds.), Between grammar and lexicon (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 183), 291–331. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Scherer, Carmen. 2003. Diachronic word formation: -er nominals in German. In Mírovský, Jiří, Kotěšovcová, Anna &Hajičová, Eva (eds.), Proceedings of 17th International Congress of Linguists (CIL XVII). http://www.germanistik.unimainz.de/linguistik/mitarbeiter/scherer/publikationen/pub-er-nominals.pdf.Google Scholar
Streng, H. J. 1915. Nuoremmat ruotsalaiset lainasanat vanhemmassa suomen kirjakielessä. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Suomen kielen käänteissanakirja. Reverse dictionary of Modern Standard Finnish, 2nd edn., edited by Tuomi, Tuomo. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, 1980.Google Scholar
Söderbergh, Ragnhild. 1968. Svensk ordbildning (Skrifter utgivna av Nämnden för svensk språkvård 34), 2nd edn.Stockholm: Svenska bokförlaget.Google Scholar
Sütterling, Ludwig. 1887. Geschichte der Nomina Agentis im Germanischen. Srassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Tosco, Mauro. 2012. Swinging back the pendulum: French morphology and dc-Italianization in Piedmontese. In Vanhove et al. (eds.), 247‒262.Google Scholar
Tuomi, Tuomo. 1989. Suomen murteiden sanakirja. Johdanto. Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus & Valtion painatuskeskus.Google Scholar
Uotila, T. E. 1942. Itämerensuomen -ri-johdin. Virittäjä 18, 227–284.Google Scholar
Vanhove, Martine, Stolz, Thomas, Urdze, Aina & Otsuka, Hitomi (eds.). 2012. Morphologies in Contact (Studia Typologica). Berlin: Academie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wessén, Elias. 1971. Svensk språkhistoria 2. Ordbildningslära, 5th edn.Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Wessén, Elias. 1992. Om det tyska inflytandet på svenskt språk under medeltiden, 3rd edn.Stockholm: Akademitryck.Google Scholar
Wiik, Kalevi. 1984. Miksei munoja vaikka kanoja? Kantasuomen toisen tavun a+i-diftongin a:n kahtalaisen kehittymisen syiden pohdiskelua [With English summary: Why did the a of second syllable a+i develop in two ways in Baltic Finnic?]. Publications of the Department of Finnish and General Linguistics of the University of Turku 20, 64‒69. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar