The Semantics of Word Formation and Lexicalization

Home , Lexicalization, Modern Greek grammar, Word formation

Edited by

Lexicalization

The Semantics of Semantics The

Pius ten Hacken and Claire Thomas Word Formation and Formation Word

The Semantics of Word Formation and Lexicalisation Edited by Pius ten Hacken and Claire Thomas www.euppublishing.com Cover design: Jonathan Williams ISBN 978-0-7486-8960-6 In the study of word formation, the focus has often been on generating often been on generating the focus has of word formation, In the study the formation of new aspect of In this book, the semantic the form. of word formation from the perspectives It is viewed words is central. of lexicalization. rules and a theoretical on a specific question about Each chapter concentrates and adopts formation process in a particular language concept or a word of this question. that is appropriate to the study a theoretical framework concepts of productivity and lexicalization, From general theoretical terminology, compounding and derivation. the focus moves to that are used include Jackendoff’s The theoretical frameworks lexical Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar, Lieber’s Conceptual Structure, Lexicon, to word formation, Pustejovsky’s Generative semantic approach Morphology and the onomasiological Beard’s Lexeme-Morpheme-Base An extensive introduction approach to terminology and word formation. of the semantics of word gives a historical overview of the study how the different theoretical formation and lexicalization, explaining relate to each other. frameworks used in the contributions and lexicalization is essential This innovative approach to word formation in linguistics. reading for scholars and advanced students Professor of Pius ten Hacken, formerly of Swansea University, is now Universität, Innsbruck. Translationswissenschaft at the Leopold-Franzens at Swansea Claire Thomas has recently completed her PhD in Translation University. The Semantics of Word Formation and Lexicalization Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT The Semantics of Word Formation and Lexicalization

Edited by Pius ten Hacken and Claire Thomas Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 vii List of tables ix

1. Word formation, meaning and lexicalization 1 Pius ten Hacken and Claire Thomas 2. Semiproductivity and the place of word formation in grammar 28 Pius ten Hacken 3. Lexicalization in Generative Morphology and Conceptual Structure 45 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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)άζω 225 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 286 Bibliography 290 Author index 309 Subject index 315 List of figures

1.1 Latin facio and conficio 2 1.2 Model of grammar adopted in LMBM 13 1.3 Distributed Morphology 16 1.4 Parallel Architecture 20 2.1 Male blackbird Turdus merula 38 3.1 Parallel Architecture 52 3.2 Representation of settlement 57 3.3 Lcp lexicalized as a single lexical item 60 3.4 The logical polysemy of settlement 60 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 settlement 64 4.1 Emi, hede, sepivä and sulkasuoninen 69 4.2 Part of the derivative table by Elias Lönnrot 70 4.3 Purje and kannus 72 4.4 Kärhi, sepivä, terälehti and verholehti 73 4.5 Lanttopäinen and silposuoninen 75 4.6 Sahalaitainen, toissahainen and vastosahainen 77 4.7 Puikea vs. vastopuikea and parilehtinen vs. toisparinen 78 4.8 Suffix -mAinen in the names of the various forms of a flower’s corolla: kellomainen, perhomainen, ruusumainen, ristimäinen 79 4.9 Päätöparinen, tasaparinen and vuoroparinen 80 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 English 191 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 -ary 36 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 corpus 107 6.4 Semantic relations within the Swedish NN compounds and their French counterparts 113 8.1 Absolute occurrences of the anaphoric reference search pattern 154 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 nouns 163 9.2 Verbal bases and their deverbal nouns with affixes -dura, -ção and -mento 168 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

x semantics of word formation and lexicalization

13.1 Variables by semantic type 259 14.1 Denominal diminutive nouns in Russian 281 14.2 Deverbal diminutive nouns in Russian 284 14.3 Deadjectival diminutive nouns in Russian 285 chapter 1 Word formation, meaning and lexicalization

Pius ten Hacken and Claire Thomas

ord formation is a rule-based process for producing new words. WOften, 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 sty- listiques 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 philo- logical 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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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) Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 require- ment 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 recov- erability 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 L-derivation Lexical insertion D-structure

I-derivation Transformations

S-structure Affixation Interpretive rules

PF LF Figure 1.2 Model of grammar adopted in LMBM Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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: Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 morphemel- 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 composition- ally 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 backwa- ter. 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 inho- mogeneous 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 [+material ([ ])] b. leg [+material ([ ], [ ])]

The difference betweenchair 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’, Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

20 pius ten hacken and claire thomas

formation rules

phonological syntactic conceptual structure structure 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). Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 bound- ary 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 exem- plification 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 further- ing 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 dia- lectology, 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). Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

chapter 2 Semiproductivity and the place of word formation in grammar

Pius ten Hacken

n this chapter I will address the question of how to account for what Iappear 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 representations are linked. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 fore- shadows 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 similarsituation Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

36 pius ten hacken

Table 2.1 Adjective formation with -al and -ary Base noun Adjective in -al Adjective in -ary function functional (functionary) nation national foundation foundational (foundationary) caution cautionary evolution (evolutional) evolutionary development developmental department departmental compliment complimentary rudiment (rudimental) rudimentary fragment fragmental 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 suffixal - 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 frag- mented 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, *develop- mentary 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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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). Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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

exicalization has an important place in theories of word formation. LFrom 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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, equipollent Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

52 claire thomas

Phonological Syntactic Conceptual formation rules formation rules formation rules

Phonological Syntactic Conceptual structures structures structures

Interfaces to PS-SS SS-CS Interfaces to hearing and interface rules interface rules perception and vocalization action

PS-CS interface rules Figure 3.1 Parallel Architecture (Jackendoff 2002: 125, by permission of Oxford University Press)

Wdi (8) N Thing CAT -plural i k a t 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.

α (9) a. V1-er2 = PERSON2; [F1, (α, . . .)] (agentive -er) α b. V1-er2 = OBJECT2; [F1, (INDEF, . . . WITH α)] (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 necessary to focus first on Conceptual Structure as independent of language. Conceptual Structure is universal and language-independent; where differences 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.

(10) GO ([ThingBOY], [PathTO [PlaceIN [ThingHOUSE]]])

[BY [MOVE ([ThingBOY])]] Event

(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.’ Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 undoubt- edly 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 structure 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 E1 = process EVENTSTR = E2 = result

RESTR = <α

ARG1 = animate_ind ARGSTR = 1 FORMAL = physobj

ARG2 = 2 physobj FORMAL = entity

FORMAL = settle_result (e , 2 ) QUALIA = 2 AGENTIVE = settle_act (e1, 1 , 2 )

Figure 3.2 Representation of settlement

Event Structure shows that there are two events, a process and a result. There is also a restriction on the ordering of the events: <α means that the process takes place before the result. The Argument Structure includes two arguments, one of which is the animate individual who carries out the process, and the other the physical object, i.e. the place that is settled. Both the Event Structure and the Argument Structure are involved in the characterization of the Qualia Structure. The Formal quale ‘distinguishes the object within a larger domain’ (Pustejovsky 1995a: 85) in terms of values such as orientation, magnitude and colour. Here, it shows that a settlement is the concrete result of settling, incorporating event E2 and argument ARG2. The integration of this aspect allows us to encode the concrete meaning of some deverbal nouns that proved difficult in Lieber’s framework. The Agentive Quale shows how an entity comes about, in this case through the process of settling which is carried out by Argument 1 on Argument 2. Pustejovsky’s account is thus very different from an SEL. Rather than a list of atomic definitions, word meanings are complex, with several levels of representation that interact with each other. These levels of representation work in conjunction with a set of three Generative Mechanisms.

• Type Coercion: a semantic operation that converts an argument to the type which is expected by a function, where it would otherwise result in a type error. • Co-composition: allows a qualia structure for a phrase which reflects aspects of both constituents. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

58 claire thomas

• Selective Binding: a semantic device which applies an adjective to a particular quale of the noun it is modifying.

Together, the semantic levels of representation and the generative mechanisms build up a much more complex picture of meaning. In Figure 3.2, it was shown that the lexical item settlement comprises two events: a process and a result. Pustejovsky (1995a) claims that where there are two simple types like these, it is possible for them to combine to form a complex type, or dotted type. These are relevant to non-complex nouns as well as complex ones.

(16) a. The door slammed. b. The man came through the door. c. The man came through the door that was hanging off its hinges.

In (16a) door refers to the physical object; in (16b) it refers to the aperture. It is possible for both these senses to unite as a dotted type in (16c), where door makes reference to both the physical object and the aperture. These types cluster together in a meta-entry called a lexical conceptual paradigm (lcp).

(17) physobj.aperture = {physobj.aperture, physobj, aperture}

What this means is that in order for a lexical item to refer to a complex or dotted type (physobj.aperture), it must also be able to refer to both of the simple types that make up the dotted type (physobj and aperture). The reading in (16c) would not be possible if door did not also have the senses illustrated in (16a) and (16b). The same clustering of types into an lcp can be observed in the process-result readings of nominalizations discussed above, as shown in Pustejovsky’s (1995a: 170) example, reproduced here as (18).

(18) a. The house’s construction was finished in two months. (process.result) b. The construction was interrupted during the rains. (process) c. The construction is standing on the next street. (result)

The semantic representation in Figure 3.2 contained three of the four levels of representation identified by Pustejovsky. The fourth level, lexical inheritance structure, is concerned with the way that lexical items are ‘globally related to other concepts in the lexicon’ (Pustejovsky 1991: 419). This is achieved through two inheritance mechanisms, as laid out in Pustejovsky (1991). The first of these, fixed inheritance, concerns the static lexicalization 59 relations that exist between lexical items, such as hyponymy. For example, (19) shows the relationship between the words bird and robin.

(19) a. bird (x) CONST = {beak, feathers . . .} FORMAL = animal (x) TELIC = fly (x)

b. robin (x) CONST = {red feathers . . .} FORMAL = bird (x)

Inheritance in (19) takes place through the formal qualia role. While the more specific constitutive value of robin overrides the value in the constitutive quale of bird, the values for the other qualia roles are still inherited (Pustejovsky, 1995b), so we know, for example, that a robin flies. Pustejovsky (1995b) discusses the same hyponymous relationship between car and Honda. The second mechanism is projective inheritance, which ‘allows us to dynamically create arbitrary concepts through the application of certain transformations to arbitrary meanings’ (Pustejovsky, 1991: 434). These transformations include negation (¬), temporal precedence (≤), temporal succession (≥), temporal equivalence (=) and agency (act) which operate over the various values of the qualia roles. The application of these transformations generates the projective expansion of a predicate, and the set of all projective expansions generated on all the roles of a qualia structure forms the projective conclusion space. This allows us to explain the more ad hoc relationships between concepts. Pustejovsky (1991) demonstrates this through the examples in (20).

(20) a. The prisoner escaped last night. b. The prisoner ate dinner last night.

The fact that (20a) sounds intuitively more prototypical than (20b) is explained by the projective conclusion space of the lexical item prisoner. The telic qualia role of prisoner means roughly ‘be confined in a prison’. If the projective transformation ¬ (negation) is applied, the resulting predicate is not-confined. The application of the temporal operators ≤ (precedence) and ≥ (succession) generates two states, free before capture and free after capture. Finally, the application of act (agency) and the selection of the relevant agent (the prisoner) generates the concept escape. Escape thus lies within the projective conclusion space of prisoner, which is why it sounds Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

60 claire thomas

more prototypical than eat. The effects of collocation must perhaps be allowed for in cases such as these, but the idea of the projective conclusion space nevertheless provides a useful way of linking concepts that only seem intuitively close and therefore cannot be so easily explained through fixed inheritance structures such as hyponomy. Having examined the essentials of Pustejovsky’s (1991, 1995a, 1995b) theory, we turn to Pustejovsky’s (1995a: 177–80) account of lexicalization. The central concept here is the lcp (lexical conceptual paradigm), which is distinct from the italicised lcp (type constructor). The type constructor (lcp) creates complex, or dotted, types from simple types, as shown in (18). These types are clustered together in a lexical conceptual paradigm (lcp). There are two possible ways for the lcp to be lexicalized, or expressed as lexical items. The first possibility is that the lcp is lexicalized as a single lexical item, as Figure 3.3 illustrates. Figure 3.3 shows that an lcp consisting of the basic types t1 and t2 and the dotted type t1.t2 is expressed by the lexical item wi. This results in a case of logical polysemy, as discussed above. This is the lexicalization pattern that results in the process-result alternation we have been examining, shown in Figure 3.4.

t1 t2

t1.t2

Figure 3.3 Lcp lexicalized as a single lexical item

process result

process.result

settlement Figure 3.4 The logical polysemy of settlement lexicalization 61

give take

give.take

sale transaction purchase Figure 3.5 Split lexicalization of an lcp

The other option is for both the simple types and the dotted type that make up the lcp to be lexicalized separately. In this case, t1 is expressed by one lexical item, t2 by another and the dotted type t1.t2 by a third. Pustejovsky points out that this is the case for the lcp which is partially expressed by the lexical item transaction; the lexicalization pattern is shown in Figure 3.5. The lexical item transaction can only refer to the dotted type and not to the simple types, which must be expressed by the nominals sale and purchase. This is a case of split lexicalization of an lcp. The picture of lexicalization emerging here corresponds very closely to that expounded by Jackendoff, where the focus is on the mapping of meaning onto certain lexical items. The differences lie in how they see the process of linking certain elements of conceptual structure (Jackendoff) or semantic types (Pustejovsky). For Pustejovsky, types are already built into an lcp by the type constructor, which may either be lexicalized as one lexical item or several. In the case of Jackendoff, however, different languages ‘bundle up’ conceptual elements into lexical items in different ways: it is effectively the process of lexicalization which is concerned with the linking together of conceptual elements. The difference can be demonstrated if we examine how the difference between Romance languages and English identified by Talmy (1980) would be characterized using Pustejovsky’s framework. Figure 3.6 shows not that motion and manner of motion cannot be lexicalized separately in English, but that there is a way of lexicalizing them together. In French the verb has to lexicalize motion alone. Furthermore, the patterns of lexicalization are different but, crucially, the lcp is the same for both. This is a small point, but this area where Pustejovsky and Jackendoff diverge will be shown to be significant in the discussion of lexicalization within morphology. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

62 claire thomas

motion manner motion manner

motion.manner motion.manner

swim traverser traverser nager across en nageant Figure 3.6 Lexicalization of motion and manner of motion in French and English

4 LEXICALIZATION: AN INTEGRATED PERSPECTIVE

We can now begin to build a more complete picture of lexicalization informed by the synchronic perspectives offered by Jackendoff and Pustejovsky. It has already been established that the different conceptualizations of lexicalization are not as divergent as they first appear. The aim now is to integrate them. In section 2, it was pointed out that within Generative Morphology, the term lexicalization is often used to refer to completely idiomatized meaning, even though it may be more useful to conceive of there being a scale of lexicalization (Kastovsky 1982). It was suggested that by equating lexicalization with idiosyncrasy, it is possible to miss some of the systematicity that can be seen within items that have not completely lost their compositional meaning. This systematicity can now be explained through the dotted types in the Generative Lexicon. One of the systematic alternations that was identified concerned the process and result readings of nominalizations, illustrated again in (21).

(21) a. The settlement of the area took several years. b. The settlement was on top of the hill.

It can be argued that the existence of the process.result lcp makes it more likely that other, newer, derivations with -ment will have the same reading. This can be explained through Jackendoff’s account of priming. Jackendoff (2002) describes how both lexical items and syntactic structures prime other lexical items or syntactic structures. It is not much of a stretch to suppose that conceptual structures, or indeed lexical conceptual paradigms, might also be primed. Such a process can be demonstrated through lexicalization 63 the nominalization of the verb adjectify in the sense ‘turn [someone’s name] into an adjective’, which for many speakers is not lexicalized.

(22) a. The newspapers frequently adjectify Bill Clinton. b. The media is employing increasing adjectification of politicians’ names.

The noun adjectification in (22b) has a process reading, but it can be argued that a result reading is also activated. Suppose that on encountering an unfamiliar word, adjectification, a speaker’s interpretation is aided in part by the activation of other words ending in -ation. The interpretation of the new lexical item may be helped by redundancy rules which have been created from generalizations made about existing items (Jackendoff, 1975). The meaning of these words is encoded by the lcp process.result = {process.result, process, result}. Thus not only is the process reading understood as a result of the lcp and interpretation of the context, but the result reading is also brought onto the ‘blackboard’ (Jackendoff, 2002). This makes it more likely that the other meanings encoded in the lcp will also be lexicalized as part of the meaning of the nominalization, so the noun may begin to occur with a result reading, e.g. in (23).

(23) The adjectification the newspaper used was insulting.

Thus by applying the idea of semantic and syntactic priming to the lcp, we are able to account for the more systematic side of lexicalization, where a particular pattern can be identified. We move now to examining how we can account for the relationship of lexicalized derivations to other items in the lexicon. Lieber expresses clearly how we should view the products of word formation processes:

Noninflectional word formation – derivation, compounding, and conversion – serves to create lexemes to extend the simplex lexicon; for that reason, I believe that the meanings it expresses ought to reflect the semantic distinctions that are salient in the simplex lexicon. That is, to the extent that we find semantic classes that are significant in distinguishing the behaviour of underived lexemes, we might expect derivation, compounding, and conversion to extend those classes. And to the extent that we find polysemy in complex words, it ought to be like the polysemy we see in simplex lexical items. (Lieber 2004: 9)

Lexicalized complex items, then, have the same status in the lexicon as simplex items. I argue here that Pustejovsky’s framework allows us to characterize the relationship between derived and simplex words in the Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

64 claire thomas

lexicon. The assumption to be taken from Lieber’s argument is that the derived word is filling some kind of ‘gap’ in the lexicon, as the processes exist to extend it. Pustejovsky’s lexical inheritance structure can be used to characterize the semantic space of a lexicalized derivation in order to show how it relates to other already existing items within the lexicon. This can be demonstrated by returning to the example of settlement. We know that settlement has some relationship to the simplex lexical item town, in that they seem to be at least partially synonymous, as (24) shows.

(24) a. They built a town on the hill. b. They built a settlement on the hill.

However, it is also clear that their meanings differ enough to stop them from being interchangeable in most contexts, as illustrated in (25).

(25) a. The town of Guildford in Surrey is largely populated by commuters. b. ?The settlement of Guildford in Surrey is largely populated by commuters. c. The archaeologists uncovered an iron-age settlement. d. ?The archaeologists uncovered an iron-age town.

Neither (25b) nor (25d) is semantically or grammatically wrong, it is just that we intuitively feel that (25a) and (25c) are pragmatically more plausible. This arguably has something to do with the projective conclusion space of the lexical items, as Figure 3.7 shows. Town and settlement are related through the formal qualia role, so we know that the entities they denote may be similar in terms of form. Where they differ is in terms of the formal qualia role, i.e. how they came about. Encoded within the meaning of settlement is the idea that it was brought about by the act of settling, and it evokes all the connotations of colonising and historical events that this entails. Pustejovsky’s projective conclusion space allows us therefore to

build_act settle_act

A town

A F A = Agentive qualia role settlement F = Formal qualia role Figure 3.7 The projective conclusion space of settlement lexicalization 65 characterize and explain the relationships of newly lexicalized words with those that already exist in the lexicon.

5 CONCLUSION

Section 4 showed how Pustejovsky’s theory can be used to extend the account of lexicalization provided by Generative Morphology, in particular Lieber (2004, 2009) and Jackendoff’s Conceptual Structure. The existence of the lcp means that certain possible meanings are already primed and therefore more likely to be lexicalized, so while Generative Morphology provides an account of idiosyncratic lexicalizations and Conceptual Structure can be used to characterize these meanings, only the integration of Pustejovsky’s framework can explain the more systematic patterns found in lexicalization. Both Jackendoff’s theory of Conceptual Structure and Pustejovsky’s Generative Lexicon can contribute greatly to our understanding of how a lexicalized word gets its meaning. Jackendoff’s framework demonstrates exactly what lexicalization is in terms of the formation of a long-term memory linkage between a piece of syntax, a piece of phonology and a piece of meaning; Pustejovsky’s framework shows how the relationship of this newly lexicalized item to other items can be characterized. I started by noting that Brinton and Traugott (2005) did not see synchronic approaches to lexicalization as relevant to the various diachronic perspectives, including that in Generative Morphology. It has been demonstrated here that by examining two synchronic approaches, the Generative Morphology account of lexicalization can be better understood and the process itself better described.

NOTE

1. Lieber does not take Process to be a third category along with event and state, but claims that ‘Process readings arise from the interaction of events with unbounded arguments’ (2004: 24, fn. 6). Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

chapter 4 Term formation in a special language: how do words specify scientific concepts?

Kaarina Pitkänen-Heikkilä

he topic of this chapter is the formation of scientific vocabulary in Tnineteenth-century Finland, a process which my thesis (Pitkänen 2008) examined for the field of botany. This study examined how the Finnish language was intentionally developed to meet the demands of civi- lized society and Finnish-language science. It dealt with the methods used to form scientific terms, and considers why a certain word (formed by word formation) was chosen to represent a particular concept. The questions discussed in this chapter are: how do words specify scientific concepts and how do terms acquire their meaning? Term formation in specialised language usually requires a significant contribution from experts in different disciplines. One must not only understand the scientific concepts thoroughly, but also be familiar with the tradition of term formation in the discipline and the methods and norms of word formation in the language. Firstly, in section 1, I will describe some crucial principles in the theory of terminology and present my research questions in detail. In section 2, I will describe the background and materials of the study, as well as the three methods used in the nineteenth century when forming new Finnish terms for new concepts. I will go on to demonstrate the influence of the indigenous language, foreign languages and the history of botany in the process of term formation in section 3. Finally, in section 4, I will compare the influence of these various factors on the naming of botanical concepts in nineteenth-century Finnish. term formation in a special language 67

1 MEANING AND MOTIVATION OF SCIENTIFIC TERMS

A term is the name of a special purpose concept. In the traditional theory of terminology (e.g. Wüster 1979; Felber 1984), terminology is seen as starting from a concept that has a place in a concept system. A term is the established name of a concept, and it has been given through an agreement and wide acceptance in the language society of a certain subject field. Words in general language, particularly simplexes, can be arbitrary, as argued by Saussure, but the terms that name concepts in special languages typically have motivation. The motivation of naming can be examined through form and meaning; a word can be motivated phonologically, morphologically and semantically (Ullmann 1962: 82–93; Arnzt et al. 2002: 123–4). Phonologically motivated words are, for example, imita- tions of animal cries (such as miaow), or words formed with the help of sound-symbolic elements. A motivation of this type is not typical in scientific terminology. Semantic motivation is typically related to metaphoric and metonymic naming (such as mouse in computer technology), and often concerns semantic transfer of simplexes used also in terminology. Morphological motivation concerns complex words and typically influences the formation of new terms: if one knows the meaning of the constituents, one can predict the meaning of the entire combination (this includes all transparent compounds and derivatives). Scientific terms can also be morphologically motivated in view of the term system: such motivation can transpire through the utilization of various but repetitive derivational and compound types. Terms that belong to the same conceptual system, for instance, can have similar structures. Names of super-, sub- and co-ordinate concepts have possibly been formed so logically that the term systems reflect the concept systems. For example, in German chemical vocabulary, the suffix -ium is a marker of metals; -um is a marker of non- metals; -on is a marker of noble gases; -id, -it and -at are markers of various salts; and prefixes an-, en- and in- are markers of organic bonds (Drodz and Seibicke 1974: 91). This kind of structural congruence of term systems could be an objective, particularly in naming the concepts of special languages, because it would increase transparency of term systems and at the same time make new terms more predictable. According to Picht and Draskau (1985: 114), ideal terms are highly motivated, logical and self-explanatory. This chapter integrates lexicological and terminological methods. In lexicology, the word and its various meanings serve as the focus, whereas the theory of terminology focuses on the concept and concept systems (Sager 1990: 55–6). A new, consciously developed terminology can be understood through the old, familiar vocabulary and structures as well as through the new, logical term system. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

68 kaarina pitkänen-heikkilä

This chapter investigates what factors build the meaning of a term, what the motivations of the chosen name of a concept are, and what the relationship is between the term and the concept. Is the new term motivated in the concept system of the subject field (e.g. certain repeated structures describing certain conceptual relationships)? Is it understandable in relation to other terms in the term system, or in other words, from the term’s logical systems? Or is the term formation motivated or influenced by earlier indigenous vocabulary or by vocabularies of some foreign languages (e.g. metaphoric terms and established morphologic elements based on classical languages)? What is the relationship between a new term and its models? Such questions are also possible when we study terminology in national languages. How are concepts named? With the help of old indigenous naming resources or with the help of well-known terms in other languages? Can we understand a new term on the basis of knowledge of the term systems in other languages? Because Latin was the scientific lingua franca of Europe until the eighteenth century, many terms in natural sciences come from Latin or Greek. Because of this, we recognize many naming resources, such as classical words and structures that have been used in Latin for scientific concepts, and this makes foreign terms and term systems more transparent to us. For example, Felber (1984: 169–77) calls repeating components such as infra- and -graphy ‘term elements’, while Bauer (1983: 213–16) calls new English words that include combining forms based on Latin such as astro-, electro-, -crat and -phile ‘neo-classical compounds’. When forming new terminologies, the interesting question is what we should say about the concept. Do we need to describe the concept by naming it, or is it possible to simply choose any name without a motivation? A good term should be neutral and unambiguous (Sager 1990: 89–90). However, when we name a concept, we cannot express everything about its content. In metaphorical vocabulary, for instance, metaphors emphasize some aspects of a phenomenon and at the same time exclude other aspects if they are not shared with the source of the metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson 1980); thus they direct our attention to certain aspects of a phenomenon. In special languages, too, naming always hides some aspects, but highlights others. That is why it is very important to find the essential features when naming scientific concepts, because language not only reflects reality, it also builds it.

2 EARLY BOTANICAL FINNISH

Pitkänen (2008) examines the development of Finnish botanical terminology in the 1860s, when the first flora publication and its second edition term formation in a special language 69

emi

hede

Figure 4.1 Emi, hede, sepivä and sulkasuoninen were published in Finnish. The material consists of 1,500 botanical terms from plant morphology, which denote and describe the parts of plants and the relationships between those parts. They are simplex, derivations and compounds, and they are typically formed in a very productive way from the old vocabulary. New simplex terms, however, are quite rare. Such terms, for example, are emi ‘the female organs of a flower’ (Lat. pistil, En. carpel, pistil), hede ‘male fertilizing organ of a flower’ (Lat./En. stamen), sepivä ‘stem-clasping’ (Lat. amplexicaulis, En. amplexicaul) and sulkasuoninen ‘pinnately nerved’ (Lat. pinnatinervis), which are illustrated in Figure 4.1. The formation of botanical terminology in Finnish differs considerably from that of botanical terminology in English and the modern Romance languages. Colloquial words such as those for root, leaf and flower also differ widely in these languages because they have such a long history behind them, but technical words introduced during the past three centu- ries are cognates in all these languages. For example, petal and pollen are in French pétale and pollen, in Italian petalo and polline, in Spanish pétalo and polen, in Romanian petale and polenul (Stearn 2004: 44). In Finnish, they are terälehti and siitepöly, both compound terms formed by word formation in the nineteenth century.

2.1 First Finnish flora In the spirit of nationalism and national romanticism it was considered desirable to preserve the unique features of the language. Thus the translators and writers of early Finnish textbooks aimed to form new words on the basis of the old vocabulary by derivation and compounding. Elias Lönnrot (1802–84), the creator of Finnish botanical terminology, believed that loanwords from Latin, Greek or Swedish were not suitable because these languages were not related to Finnish. Nevertheless, even though linguistic purism was emergent in the nineteenth century and loans were mainly avoided, the majority of the terms in Finnish textbooks of that time Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

70 kaarina pitkänen-heikkilä

Figure 4.2 Part of the derivative table by Elias Lönnrot (from the archives of the Finnish Literary Society)

are different loan translations. Generally they were formed either loosely or precisely according to the models of Latin or Swedish terms. New terms were used for the first time in the first book of Finnish flora, Flora Fennica (Lönnrot 1860). The terminology proved to be very useful, and its use in botany was soon established. The basic terminology is still in use. The author, Elias Lönnrot, was famous for collecting folklore and writing the Finnish national epos, Kalevala. He was also a professor of Finnish at the University of Helsinki as well as the writer and editor of a large Finnish–Swedish dictionary (1866–80). He was familiar with plants because of his background as a doctor of medicine. Lönnrot published a test list of new vocabulary in 1858, and waited for comments on the terminology before he used and expanded it in the book. Lönnrot researched and lectured on Finnish word formation at the university in the 1850s. In addition, he developed a particular formula from the Finnish derivation system for the editors of his dictionary (see Figure 4.2). This derivative table describes and names Finnish nominal suffixes used with verb stems. Such tables and notes in the personal archives of Lönnrot (at the Finnish Literary Society) indicate that he knew the Finnish derivation system well and was able to use various, also very rare, suffixes in his word formation. His notes include a broad collection (c.3,700 words) of Finnish derivatives from various dialects, which helped him to build a good general view of the Finnish derivation system of that time (Pitkänen 2005). Lönnrot believed that the rich vocabulary of Finnish dialects offered good material for new terminologies, and that the free methods of word formation offered opportunities for many potential words. For example, term formation in a special language 71 emi is the diminutive of emä ‘mother, dam’, sepivä is the present participle form of the verb sepiä ‘to bind’ (SSA 1992–2000). In the preface of Flora Fennica (1860), Lönnrot writes that new botanical terms in Finnish are easy for Finns to understand, as opposed to the corresponding Swedish terms, which are more often borrowed from Latin (e.g. Lat. pistillum>Swe. pistill).

2.2 Various naming strategies Finnish botanical terminology can be divided into three groups depending on the origin: the terms have been (a) accepted, (b) chosen from the existing vocabulary, or (c) created on the basis of the existing vocabulary. Accepted terms are old words used in their original meanings. In total, accepted terms (c.290) account for 19 per cent of all the terms (c.1,500). They are such terms as those in (1) and belong to the basic vocabulary of the subject field.

(1) a. juuri ‘root; usually underground part of a seed plant body’ Lat. radix b. varsi ‘stem; one of the three main organs of vascular plants’ Lat. caulis c. lehti ‘leaf; a lateral organ for photosynthesis and gas exchange’ Lat. folium

In the examples, after the definition1 of a term, I express the equivalents in Latin (which are often originally Greek) because it is the language of scientific botanical nomenclature in which many morphological terms are used. It is also the language from which many languages have borrowed their own terms. In addition, I express equivalents in Swedish when it is useful for understanding the background of Finnish terms. We must remember that Latin and Swedish terms were Lönnrot’s models when he formed the Finnish terminology. Chosen terms are used for new, specific botanical meanings. They are old words used with new meanings. Such terms are domestic meaning shifts or semantic loan translations. These terms total 11 per cent (c.160) of all the terms. This is typically metaphoric and metonymic naming, as in (2).

(2) a. hede ‘a rye’s flower’ → ‘a male fertilizing organ of a flower’ Lat. stamen, En. stamen b. purje ‘sail’ → ‘the large upright petal of a sweet pea or related flower’ Lat. vexillum, Swe. segel, En. vexillum c. kannus ‘spur’ → ‘hollow nectar-producing appendage of calyx or corolla’ Lat. calcar, Swe. sporre, En. spur Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

72 kaarina pitkänen-heikkilä

Figure 4.3 Purje and kannus

In (2a), hede was chosen from the old Finnish vocabulary where it meant ‘a rye’s flower’ (SSA 1992–2000, henceforth SSA). In botany this word has been used metonymically, and the new, botanical meaning is ‘a male fertilizing organ of a flower’. In the Latin equivalent, the word stamen is used metaphorically, because the original meaning of stamen in Latin (according to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, henceforth OED 2002) is ‘warp in an upright loom; thread’. The examples in (2b–c) are both metaphorical terms. In (2b), purje is a strict meaning loan from Swedish segel ‘sail’. The Latin term vexillum is also metaphorical; its original meaning is ‘martial flag, banner’ (OED 2002). This kind of upright petal is illustrated in Figure 4.3. In (2c) kannus (lit. ‘spur’) was chosen through the models in Latin (calcar ‘spur’) and Swedish (sporre), where the concept has been named metaphorically. A spur-like ‘hollow nectar-producing appendage of calyx or corolla’ is illustrated in Figure 4.3. Created terms have been formed on the basis of the existing vocabulary and used for new, specific botanical meanings. They are new words used in new, botanical meanings. They are either loan translations from Latin, Greek or Swedish, or motivated by old domestic words. They amount to c.1,050 terms, a total of 70 per cent of all terms. They are new simplex, derivatives and compounds formed by word formation, such as (3).

(3) a. kärhi ‘a slender thread-like appendage of a climbing plant’ Lat. cirrhus, Swe. klänge, En. tendril b. sepivä ‘a leaf with its base clasping the stem’ Lat. folium amplectens, En. amplexicaul c. terälehti ‘each of the segments of the corolla of a flower’ Lat. petalum, Swe. kronblad, En. petal term formation in a special language 73

terälehti

verholehti

Figure 4.4 Kärhi, sepivä, terälehti and verholehti

d. verholehti ‘each of the parts of the calyx of a flower; enclosing the petals and typically green and leaf-like’ Lat. sepalum, Swe. foderblad, En. sepal

The created terms are discussed further in this chapter because they are the only true terms formed by word formation. Two-thirds of the created new words were formed either loosely or precisely according to either Latin or Swedish terms. For example, sepivä (3b) is based on sepä, an old Finnish name for ‘neck’; it comes from the verb sepiä ‘bind, intertwine’ (SSA) and the present participle marker -vA ‘-ing’. In Latin, amplectens ‘clasping’ is a verbal derivative of amplexus ‘embrace’ (OED 2002). Similarly, the term verholehti (verho ‘cover’, lehti ‘leaf’) (3d) has been translated morpheme for morpheme from the Swedish foderblad. The Latin term sepalum ‘sepal’, however, is not a compound; it comes originally from the Greek skepe ‘covering’ (OED 2002). The Latin petalum ‘petal’ in (3c) (

74 kaarina pitkänen-heikkilä

Nevertheless, the influence of foreign languages was still strong in the process of forming Finnish equivalents for Latin and Swedish terms. Even if linguistic purism was emergent (e.g. Thomas 1991: 204–5) and loans mainly avoided, calques (where a word from another language is translated morpheme by morpheme) and loan shifts (where an existing word acquires a new meaning under the influence of another language) were extremely common. Characteristic of Lönnrot’s botanical terms is the selection of vocabulary from various Finnish dialects, using compounds reflecting the generic and partitive relations of concepts and exploiting particular, repetitive structures for the co-ordinate concepts (for instance, certain affixes). These kinds of structure form term systems that reflect the scientific concept systems.

3 HOW UNDERSTANDABLE ARE NEW TERMS FORMED BY WORD FORMATION?

This section deals only with created terms, because with accepted and chosen terms there is not actually a question of word formation. There are three ways of understanding the meanings of the terms. Terms can be understood through the knowledge of old indigenous vocabulary, or through the knowledge of basic botanical Latin or Swedish. They can also be understood on the basis of special-purpose expertise as encoded in concept systems and term systems in botany. Although terms might seem very odd and unfamiliar, they usually have a very clear motivation. Nowadays, however, many of them are transparent for only those few who are familiar with the old vocabulary and rare structures used in the nineteenth century.

3.1 Old indigenous words Firstly, motivation comes from old indigenous words. New terms have many rare stem words and structures from various dialects. Lönnrot used very rare vocabulary from the Finnish dialects for the equivalents of Latin or Swedish words, and it is not always easy to ascertain whether, in fact, it is a question of loan translation. In addition to kärhi and sepivä, in (3a–b), good examples of the motivation of old Finnish words are illustrated in (4).

(4) a. emi ‘the female organs of a flower’ Lat. pistillum, En. pistil, carpel term formation in a special language 75

Figure 4.5 Lanttopäinen and silposuoninen

b. itiö ‘a minute, typically single-celled, reproductive unit characteristic of lower plants, fungi and protozoans, capable of giving rise to a new individual without sexual fusion’ Lat. spora, En. spore c. lanttopäinen ‘(of a leaf) with rounded shallowly notched end’ Lat. folium retusum d. silposuoninen ‘(of a leaf) with undivided veins’ Lat. folium simplicinerve

Emi in (4a) is the diminutive form of emä ‘mother, dam’. Emi means ‘the female organs of a flower’, the equivalent of which in botanical Latin is pistillum, which means ‘pestle’. The Latin term is based on a different metaphor from the Finnish term. The Finnish term references the function while the Latin term is based on the physical shape. Itiö ‘spore’ (itää ‘to sprout’ + noun suffix -iO), in (4b), is also a new derivation with a domestic motivation. It has been formed without a foreign model: for example, the Latin term comes from the Greek spora, which means ‘sowing’ or ‘seed’ (OED 2002). Lanttopäinen (lantto in dialects ‘dell’ (SSA), pää ‘end’ + suffix –inen), in (4c), and silposuoninen (silpa ‘bald, branchless’ (SSA), suoni ‘vein’ + (i)nen), in (4d), are new compounds with an indigenous naming idea in their deter- minative parts. The meanings of these terms are illustrated in Figure 4.5.

3.2 Foreign language terms Secondly, motivation comes from the terms in foreign languages. Even though Lönnrot’s terminology does not have loan words, approximately two-thirds of all terms have some kind of foreign model for naming. All terms in (5) are literal loan translations of foreign terms, although they have very domestic material, being based, for example, on rare dialect words. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

76 kaarina pitkänen-heikkilä

(5) a. hattumainen ‘hat-shaped’ Lat. corolla hypocrateriformis, Swe. hättelik b. kalpamainen ‘scimitar-shaped’ Lat. folium acinaciforme, Swe. sabelformig c. munuamainen ‘kidney-shaped’ Lat. folium reniforme, Swe. njurformig d. haaralehti ‘leaf belonging to a branch’ Lat. folium ramea, Swe. grenblad e. neuvoton ‘neuter; (of a plant or flower) having neither functional pistils nor stamens’ Lat. flos neuter, Swe. könlös

The derivative term hattumainen (shape of the corolla: literal ‘hat-shaped’) (5a) consists of the stem hattu ‘hat’ and suffix -mAinen ‘-ish, like’, and is translated morpheme for morpheme from the Swedish term hättelik ‘hat- like’. Kalpamainen (5b) and munuamainen (5c) have been formed similarly; both name the shape of a leaf’s blades. Haaralehti (haara ‘branch’, lehti ‘leaf’) (5d) is a new compound that is translated word for word from Swedish and Latin terms. Neuvoton (5e) is a privative (-tOn ‘less’) derivation from neuvo, an outdated dialect word for ‘men’s genitals’ or ‘tool’ (SSA). Nowadays, however, neuvo typically means ‘advice’, which is why it is not easy to identify (5e) as a loan translation. Nevertheless, it is a loan translation from the Swedish term könlös (kön ‘sex, gender’ + suffix -lös ‘less’). The Finnish word, however, refers only to male genitals whereas the Latin and Swedish words refer to both sexes. In addition to literal loan translations, my material also contains many free loan translations and meaning loans. Meaning loans are indigenous words that have acquired a new meaning because of foreign words. Good examples of meaning loans were presented previously in (2b–c). Purje originally means ‘sail’, but in botany it means ‘a large upright petal of flower’, and this ‘loan shift’ is a Swedish influence on botanical Finnish. Kannus originally means ‘spur’, but in botany it means ‘a slender projection from the base of a flower’, such as calcar ‘spur’ in botanical Latin.

3.3 History of botany Thirdly, the history of botanical science has markedly influenced the Finnish term system. The concept systems are based on studies by bota- nists, and the logical systems have been reflected in the term systems of different languages. For example, certain repetitive term elements reflect the relations of term formation in a special language 77 concepts such as tois- ‘double’ in (6b) and (8b) and vasto- ‘reverse’ in (6c) and (7b)2 where the same prefixes or combining forms indicate relations of concepts in the different systems.

(6) a. sahalaitainen ‘(of a leaf) having a jagged edge; saw-like’ Lat. serratum, Swe. sågad, En. serrated b. toissahainen ‘serrate with smaller teeth on the larger ones’ Lat. duplicato-serratum, Swe. dubbelsågad, En. doubly serrate c. vastosahainen ‘reversed serrate’ Lat. retrorsum serratum, Swe. omvändt sågad

(7) a. puikea ‘flat object egg-shaped in outline; oval, egg-shaped’ Lat. folium ovatum, Swe. äggrund, En. ovate b. vastopuikea ‘eggshaped in outline, broadest above the middle; reversed ovate’ Lat. folium obovatum, Swe. omvändt äggrund, En. obovate

(8) a. parilehtinen ‘having leaflets arranged on either side of a stem’ Lat. folium pinnatum, Swe. parbladig, En. pinnated b. toisparinen ‘of a pinnate leaf in which the primary divisions are themselves pinnate’ Lat. folium bipinnatum, Swe. dubbelt parpladig, En. bipinnate

The examples in (6a), (7a) and (8a) illustrate names of basic-level concepts in the concept systems. Within each numbered example (6–9), the terms in a, b, c and d are the names of co-ordinate concepts. The examples in (6) name various leaf margins that are also illustrated in Figure 4.6. Sahalaitainen (saha ‘saw’, laita ‘margin’) is a basic term, and toissahainen and vastosahainen contain the translated classical elements

Figure 4.6 Sahalaitainen, toissahainen and vastosahainen Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

78 kaarina pitkänen-heikkilä

Figure 4.7 Puikea vs. vastopuikea and parilehtinen vs. toisparinen

tois- (duplicato) and vasto- (retrorsum). Latin elements duplicato- and bi- have systematically been translated to tois- ‘double’ in Finnish, and retrorsum and ob- to vasto- ‘reverse’. In examples (7b) and (8b), the Latin terms have these prefixes. Puikea is an old Finnish adjective suitable for naming this egg-shaped form of a leaf blade. Vastopuikea is the same form but reversed (see Figure 4.7). Tois- ‘double’ and vasto- ‘reverse’ are not generally established first parts of compounds in Finnish special languages, but they are firmly established in botany. It is brought about by Lönnrot’s translation of the repetitive structures of Latin and Swedish terms. In English, Bauer (1983: 213–16) calls those terms that have such elements borrowed from Latin neoclassical compounds. Such ultimately classical structures form term systems that reflect scientific concept systems. In botanical Latin, pinna is one of the term elements, as is the Swedish prefix par-, from which comes the Finnish element pari- ‘pair’. Latin pinnatum means ‘feathered’, and pinna ‘wing, fin’ (OED 2002). This arrangement of leaflets3 (see Figure 4.7) has been named in Latin through metaphor, but not in Swedish or Finnish. These terms will also be illustrated in (10) and (11) with another precept of compound formation. In addition, the same suffixmAinen - can indicate that the terms are co- ordinate concepts for each other. This is illustrated in the examples in (9).

(9) a. kellomainen ‘bell shaped’ Lat. corolla campanulatus b. perhomainen ‘butterfly like’ Lat. corolla papilionaceus c. ruusumainen ‘rose shaped’ Lat. corolla rosaceus d. ristimäinen ‘cross shaped’ Lat. corolla cruciatus term formation in a special language 79

Figure 4.8 Suffix -mAinen in the names of the various forms of a flower’s corolla: kellomainen, perhomainen, ruusumainen, ristimäinen

The examples in (9) are all literal loan translations from Latin and name different types of corolla or the flower’s shape (see Figure 4.8). Botanical Finnish also has an interesting compound formation method between super- and subordinate concepts in generic concept systems. By this I mean a method in which the name of a subordinate concept is formed by using the first part of a superordinate concept as the second part of the subordinate concept. In (10–11), (a) illustrates the name of superordinate concepts and (b–d) illustrate the names of various subordinate concepts.

(10) a. parilehtinen ‘having leaflets arranged on either side of a stem; feathered’ Lat. folium pinnatum b. päätöparinen ‘unequally feathered, has a single terminal leaflet’ Lat. folium impari-pinnatum c. tasaparinen ‘pinnate and ending with a pair of leaflets, not a single terminal leaflet’ Lat. folium paripinnatum d. vuoroparinen ‘of a pinnate leaf where the leaflets are not opposite’ Lat. folium alterne pinnatum

(11) a. sahalaitainen ‘serrated; (of a leaf) having a jagged edge, saw-like’ Lat. folium serratum b. hienosahainen ‘finely serrated’ Lat f. serrulatum c. toissahainen ‘double serrated’ Lat. f. duplicato-serratum d. vastosahainen ‘reverse serrated’ Lat. f. retrorsum-serratum

In (10), parilehtinen (pari ‘pair’, lehti ‘leaf’) is the name of the superordinate concept, and the names of its subordinate concepts are päätöparinen, tasaparinen and vuoroparinen (see Figure 4.9). This naming method makes it possible to predict the superordinate concept on the basis of a new name of a subordinate concept. It has been Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

80 kaarina pitkänen-heikkilä

Figure 4.9 Päätöparinen, tasaparinen and vuoroparinen

used in Finnish botany since Lönnrot’s time. When a term system has been established (and the terms lexicalized), new terms can be formed on the basis of it. For example, a new term from 1995 is hienonirhainen (‘finely dentate’), which obviously names a subordinate concept of the old term nirhalaitainen (‘of a toothed leaf-margin which has symmetrically triangu- lar teeth, rather than rounded or oblique, saw-like teeth’ En. dentate). The same is true for the term herttasepoinen (‘cordated clasping’, En. cordate ‘heart-shaped leaf blade: broad at the notched base, narrow at the tip’) from 1903, which names a subordinate concept of Lönnrot’s term sepokan- tainen (‘stem clasping’). This seems to be a productive method in botanical Finnish and has not come from Latin or Swedish models. It is, however, an analogical rather than a productive method, because it has never been used in standard Finnish (for a discussion of analogy, see Bauer 2001: 75–96). Another interesting, exceptional method for forming new compounds has been used in forming names for co-ordinate concepts in partitive concept systems. Lönnrot tended to form subordinate compounds in which the name of the partitive superordinate concept is the first part and the name of the subordinate concept is the second part. This is illustrated in (12).

(12) lehti ‘leaf’ (superordinate concept in a partitive concept system) a. lehtilapa ‘the broad flat part of a leaf’ Lat. lamina, Swe. bladskifva b. lehtiruoti ‘the stalk that joins a leaf to a stem’ Lat. petiolus, Swe. bladskaft, En. petiole

Such compounds have their head as the first part and the qualifying subordinate element as the last component, as in lehtilapa (lehti ‘leaf’, lapa ‘blade’) and lehtiruoti (ruoti ‘bone; rib’), where the first part is in the nomi- term formation in a special language 81

native case, not the genitive. Similar compounds are possible in botanical Latin, as in phyllophorus (‘leaf-bearing’

4 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I would like to briefly consider the capacity of words specifying scientific concepts and the balance between various factors behind the naming of scientific concepts. It is important to realize that naming in botanical Finnish has typically been influenced by both Finnish and foreign languages. New terms have been formed by derivation and compounding from indigenous material, but at the same time, the idea for naming might come from a foreign language. Botanical Finnish, however, did not have any loan words in the nineteenth century, and they are still fairly rare in plant morphology. Rather than borrowing or simply forming a loan translation it was typical of Lönnrot’s method to choose certain rare words from dialects as the material for the equivalents of the Latin or Swedish terms – even if Finnish had more common equivalents. The central terms of Lönnrot’s terminology have been used for over 150 years, and they have shown that new, transparent, domestic terms, or in other words new words formed by word formation, can be operational in scientific terminology. Domestic structures, understandable metaphors and new analogical forms that have become established for a special language can build clear, logical and self-explanatory terminology. The salient question in naming is, of course, the requirements of science and its concept systems. It is important to be familiar with the history of the science in question when forming new terms; for example, when a system has been established for naming concepts, new terms follow the model and structures of the lexicalized terms, as well as terms that have been formed analogically. In addition, it is important to remember that when our understanding of a concept changes, we may also need a new term that describes the concept better. Consequently, in special-purpose term formation, the history and concept systems of the field are possibly as important as the language we use in the naming of the concepts. According to Sager (1990: 89–90) the meaning of a term should be independent of the context. Thus a term should always mean the same thing in different contexts. The meaning of a term is explained in a permanent definition. In the present study, the meanings of new terms are predictable on the basis of the old, indigenous word and structures from which they Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

82 kaarina pitkänen-heikkilä

have been formed and the logical system of terms that comes from botanical Latin. Štekauer (2005a) points out that there is something systematic about the interpretation of context-free, novel words. The same can be said of special languages: when the language and terminology become familiar, it is possible to predict the meanings of new terms with the help of intuitions that can arise gradually by using a special language, even though new, analogical methods have also been used in addition to familiar, productive methods. In the interpretation of a term it is essential to know the meaning (or etymology) of the word and structures used, the history of the special field and its vocabulary, and the history of the scientific concept and concept system. Thus a new, consciously developed terminology can be understood through the old, familiar vocabulary and structures as well as through the new, logical system of terms.

NOTES

1. English definitions of the terms are typically presented according to Stearn (2004) or the OED (2002). 2. The Finnish language has no prefixes; tois- and vasto- are the repeated first parts of compounds. The equivalents in Latin and Swedish also have prefixes. 3. leaflet ‘a small leaf; a component of a compound leaf’ chapter 5 Nominal compounds as naming devices: a comparison of English and Polish land surveying terminology

Pius ten Hacken and Ewelina Kwiatek

ompounding is a frequently used word formation process in many Clanguages, but different languages tend to have slightly different systems. In terminology, there is a strong urge to use corresponding terms in translation. Many terms are compounds. Therefore, when compounding systems diverge, this leads to translation problems for terms. In this chapter, we consider the nature of these problems in the context of English and Polish terminology in the domain of land surveying. We start by presenting our definition of compounding (section 1). Then we describe how this definition applies to English and Polish (sections 2 and 3). Next, we describe how we collected a set of terms for both languages (section 4). Finally, we analyse the set of terms for each language and compare the use of compounding in them (section 5).

1 A DEFINITION OF COMPOUNDING

In order to analyse compounding in a language, we need a working definition of what constitutes compounding. It is generally agreed that defining compounding is not straightforward. After an overview of criteria used for definitions, Lieber and Štekauer (2009: 14) conclude that ‘there are (almost) no reliable criteria for distinguishing compounds from phrases or from other sorts of derived words’. Similarly, Dressler (2006: 24) claims that ‘[m]ore explicit universal definitions of the intensional type are not only theory-dependent [. . .] but also cross-linguistically never watertight – in many languages there are exceptions or fuzzy transitions to non-compounding.’ Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

84 pius ten hacken and ewelina kwiatek

In our view, this approach to the definition of compounding, although widespread, is not warranted. As argued in ten Hacken (2010a), the existence of different definitions for a concept such as compounding should not be approached as an indication that there is a single natural concept that each definition tries to approximate with a larger or smaller degree of success. Instead, each definition sets up a different concept and the discussion about which definition is the best actually concerns the question which of these concepts serves us best. When Dressler (2006: 30) states that ‘an intensional definition of compounds must be preferential, by referring to prototypes, rather than discrete’, he presupposes that compounding is a pre-theoretical concept that can be used as a standard for the evaluation of definitions. Prototypes may be the best way to approach natural concepts in the mental lexicon, but if compounding is a theoretical concept, it must have a precise definition and the definition takes priority over any individual person’s intuitions. In this light, the absence of ‘reliable criteria’ for Lieber and Štekauer or the ‘exceptions or fuzzy transitions’ for Dressler can only be interpreted in two ways. Either they consider compounding as a pre-theoretical category which can be used as a point of departure for research but not as the object of theoretical claims, or they claim that the definitions under consideration are not adequate because they are underspecified. The latter occurs, for instance, when we consider a definition such as (1).

(1) An A+N combination is a compound if the A is not inflected although it should be inflected if it were a syntactic unit.

The problem with (1) is that it is only a sufficient, not a necessary condition. It implies that German Rotwein (‘red_wine’) is a compound, because rot would have to be inflected in a syntactic context, e.g. der rote Wein (‘the redINFL wine’). (For more discussion of these cases, see Schlücker (this volume) and Schäfer (this volume).) What (1) does not do is to decide whether English A+N combinations are compounds, because in English adjectives are never inflected. The choice of a definition of compounding is inevitably at least to some extent theory-dependent. The motivation for a definition is that it sets up a useful category. It is not a theoretical claim, because it cannot be refuted, but if the category that results from the definition is interesting, it fulfils its purpose. The definition we will use is the one presented in ten Hacken (1994, 1999) and given in (2).

(2) A compound is a structure [X Y]Z or [Y X]Z, such that: a. The denotation of Z is a subset of the denotation of Y; nominal compounds as naming devices 85

b. If S is a possible way of specifying Y, the denotation of Z is determined by the range of Ss that are compatible with the semantics of X; c. X does not have independent access to the discourse.

The definition in (2) sets up compound as a binary structure. (2a) states that it is semantically headed, but it does not specify whether it is left-headed or right-headed. (2b) is a paraphrase of Allen’s (1978) Variable R condition. In particular, it implies that there is no limited set of construction-specific relations that characterize the relationship between head and non-head, as proposed, for instance, by Levi (1978).1 (2c) specifies that the non-head of a compound is not introduced as a new entity. This means that unless it works as a proper noun and identifies a single entity in the outside world on its own, it cannot be referred to in an unmarked way by means of a pronoun. As emphasized in ten Hacken (1994, 1999), (2) should be used to identify compounding constructions. For some individual compounds, it may be difficult to apply the definition. However, by varying the components of the compound without changing the construction, it is possible to determine whether the construction belongs to compounding. This will be illustrated in sections 2 and 3.

2 NOMINAL COMPOUNDING IN ENGLISH

Although (2) is a definition of compounding in general, we will here concentrate only on nominal compounding. A nominal compound is a compound with a noun as its head, i.e. Y = N in (2). The reasons for this restriction are mainly practical. As we are interested in the terminology of a specific domain and in this domain almost all terms are nouns or nominal phrases, it would be difficult to collect enough instances of adjectival and verbal compounds. Moreover, the issues they raise are not the same as for nominal compounds. In discussing the way compounding works in English, we should not start from our termbase, but from general language examples. There are at least three constructions we should consider, exemplified in (3).

(3) a. garden party b. gentleman’s agreement c. solar panel

All examples in (3) are entries in the Collins (1986) dictionary, which provides an indication that they are used as names for specific concepts. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

86 pius ten hacken and ewelina kwiatek

The construction in (3a) is the prototypical compounding construction, discussed in much of the literature. It is therefore a good example to explain the application of the definition in (2). All instances of this construction are right-headed. In this specific example, the interpretation ‘party in a garden’ can be derived from the components because party refers to an event that takes place at a specific location and garden can fill this slot. The final condition in (2) can be illustrated with the sentence in (4).

(4) Anna went to a gardeni partyj. It*i/j was bigger than she expected.

As the coindexation indicates, it can refer only to party or garden party, not to garden, although semantically there is nothing abnormal about the latter interpretation. The reason is that garden does not introduce a particular entity in the discourse if it occurs in the expression garden party. The construction illustrated in (3b) is in many respects similar to the one in (3a), but it is important to distinguish it from the syntactic construction exemplified by Ben’s agreement. The contrast is illustrated in (5).

(5) a. This went counter to a gentlemani’s agreement. *Hei objected quite strongly.

b. We need Beni’s agreement to proceed. However, hei is unlikely to give it. c. a gentleman’s full agreement d. these gentleman’s agreements

Whereas in (5a), he cannot refer to gentleman, in (5b) he can very well refer to Ben. This is because the compound gentleman’s agreement does not introduce gentleman as a discourse element. Inserting an adjective as in (5c) is not ungrammatical, but the expression no longer involves the compound, as the meaning demonstrates. (5d) shows that the determiner agrees with the compound as a whole, not with gentleman. Therefore, we can conclude that the construction illustrated in (3b) can be distinguished from the syntactic construction as in Ben’s agreement. Whereas (3b) is a compound, Ben’s agreement is not. The status of (3c) is much less clear. The problem is that solar is an adjective and seems to denote a property that is predicated of panel. This suggests that we are dealing with a syntactic construction similar to, for instance, big panel. However, there is a difference in the way the meanings of solar and big are determined in these contexts. As a starting point, let us compare the way the adjectives are described by Collins (1986), quoted in (6).2 nominal compounds as naming devices 87

(6) a. big: of great or considerable size, height, weight, number, power or capacity b. solar: of or relating to the sun

The meaning of big depends in part on the noun it modifies. Not only the dimension varies, as (6a) illustrates, but also the scale. A big spider is much smaller than a big dog. Nevertheless, there is an inherent meaning component in the sense of big. It refers to the top end of a scale that is probably most centrally determined by size. Underspecified as this may be, it is much more specific than (6b). The only meaning that can be assigned to solar is a relationship to an entity designated by a noun, sun. As a result, big panel is interpreted as panel of a particular size, whereas solar panel can only be assigned a meaning if we can establish a relationship between panel and sun. The way this relationship is determined is exactly what is described in (2b) for compounding. The formal relationship between sun and solar is not based on a morphological rule. Solar was not formed in English by word formation but borrowed from Latin. Levi (1978) was one of the first to make the argument that expressions such as (3c) should be treated in a way parallel to expressions such as (3a). She worked in the framework of generative semantics in which sun would appear in the deep structure of (3c). It is not necessary, however, to make such an assumption if we want to analyse (3c) as a compound. The same can be achieved if we assume that solar is linked to sun in the lexicon in a way suggested by (6b). Therefore we conclude that all of the examples in (3) are compounds under our definition (2). For the Saxon genitive construction in (3b) and the relational adjective construction in (3c), we should be careful to distinguish individual occurrences from examples of syntactic constructions of the same form. In cases such as children’s film or legal action, only the context and the interpretation can decide whether we are dealing with a compound or a syntactic construction. Without sufficient context, they are ambiguous. Some minimal pairs are given in (7).

(7) a. this children’s film b. these children’s film c. non-legal action d. illegal action

In (7a–b), the agreement of the determiner demonstrates that (7a) includes a compound but (7b) does not. In (7c–d) the ambiguity is resolved by the negation, which makes (7c) a compound and (7d) a syntactic adjective- noun combination. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

88 pius ten hacken and ewelina kwiatek

3 NOMINAL COMPOUNDING IN POLISH

The traditional concept of compounding in Polish is quite different from the concept defined in (2). Szymanek (2010: 225) gives the contrast in (8) as an example.

(8) a. dobranoc (‘Good night!’) b. dobra noc (‘a/the good night’)

In (8), stressed syllables are underlined. Polish has a very regular stress assignment rule. With very few exceptions, stress is on the penultimate syllable of a word. Formally, the difference between (8a) and (8b) is that the former is a word, the latter a phrase. As indicated by the glosses, Polish does not have articles. (8a) can be considered as a compound if that concept is defined along the lines of (9).

(9) A compound is a combination of two stems that constitutes a single prosodic word.

The definition in (9) does not refer to semantic differences. In the case of (8), the difference in status correlates with a difference in meaning. Whereas (8b) is a noun phrase with compositional meaning, (8a) is, in Wray’s (2002) terms, a formulaic expression, i.e. an expression that is used in specific, pragmatically determined contexts. It is not possible, however, to general- ize over the semantic difference in any meaningful way. Moreover, the definition in (9) is not immediately applicable in many languages other than Polish. Its applicability depends on such specific rules as stress assignment in Polish that clearly identify the word as a prosodic domain. According to our definition in (2), (8a) is not a compound. Following Grzegorczykowa and Puzynina (1999: 455–68), Szymanek (2010) includes the types in (10) in his concept of compound.

(10) a. gwiazd-o-zbiór (‘star-Ø-collection’, i.e. constellation) b. łam-i-strajk (‘break-Ø-strike’, i.e. strike breaker) c. dług-o-dystans-owiec (‘long-Ø-distance-er’, i.e. long-distance runner) d. prac-o-daw-ca (‘job-Ø-giv-er’, i.e. employer)

In (10), the Polish words are divided into formatives by hyphens that do not appear in normal orthography. The formatives glossed Ø are linking elements. (10a) and (10d) are compounds of the type corresponding to (3a) in English. In (10d), dawca (‘giver’) is the head. (10b–c) are excluded by our definition in (2) because they are not headed. In (10b), the stem łam nominal compounds as naming devices 89

of the verb łamać (‘break’) cannot be the head, because the whole word is a noun, not a verb. The construction is similar to English pickpocket. In (10c), the suffix -owiec functions in much the same way as English -er in four-poster. It determines the basic semantic category of a concept that is specified by an A+N combination. Ten Hacken (2010b) gives an overview of such constructions and proposes an analysis which does not involve compounding. Szymanek (2010: 218–19) discusses a number of Polish translations of English compounds of the type in (3a), listed in (11).

(11) a. numer telefonu (‘number telephonegen’, i.e. telephone number) b. papier komputerowy (‘paper computeradj’, i.e. computer paper) c. papier do komputera (‘paper for computergen’, i.e. computer paper) d. pasta do zębów (‘paste for teethgen’, i.e. toothpaste)

Szymanek (2010: 219) states that ‘[w]hat is important is the fact that the Polish expressions just cited are syntactic objects, and that they may involve both inflection and derivation, but not compounding.’ It is interesting that this statement is presented as a ‘fact’, even though no explicit definition of compounding is given. Under a definition such as (9), the observation is correct, but under (2) this is much less obvious. The genitive construction in (11a) is similar to (3b). In the discussion of (3b), we noted how important it is to distinguish the compounding variant and the syntactic variant, see (7a–b). The analogous contrast for (11a) is (12).

(12) a. ten numer telefonu

(‘this number telephonegen’, i.e. this telephone number) b. numer tego telefonu

(‘number thisgen telephonegen’, i.e. the number of this telephone)

As the glosses indicate, when the demonstrative modifies telefonu, the meaning is no longer that of the concept of ‘telephone number’, but refers to some other type of number assigned to a particular telephone set. Therefore numer telefonu has the same ambiguity as analogous constructions in English. In the most common sense it is a compound under the definition in (2), but with appropriate coercion, as in (12b), it can be re-analysed as a syntactic construction. As with the English counterparts, the preference for the compound sense in (11a) depends on the individual nouns combined. The relational adjective construction in (11b) corresponds to (3c).3 The formation of relational adjectives by means of the suffix -owy is a very Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

90 pius ten hacken and ewelina kwiatek

productive process in Polish. Kallas (1999: 496) gives a table of adjective formation processes and their meanings in which -owy is given as triggering seventeen of the eighteen meaning relations between the adjective and the underlying noun. Szymanek (2010: 87) calls the combinations of relational adjectives and nouns ‘Noun Phrase’. This is understandable because Polish does not have articles and a condition such as (1) is traditionally assumed to distinguish compounds and syntactic constituents. However, for the same reason as the one that made us conclude that (3c) is a compound if we adopt the definition in (2), we should analyse (11b) as a compound. This is supported by the nature of the discussions of relational adjectives in Kallas (1999: 485–94) and Szymanek (2010: 85–97). Both go through a range of thematic roles and meanings that relational adjectives may have which corresponds largely to the range of meanings found in English N+N compounds. Therefore we will assume that constructions such as (11b) are compounds. Finally, (11c–d) illustrate a prepositional construction. Szymanek (2010: 219) highlights the alternative structures (11b) and (11c) for the same concept. This should not be taken as an argument that if (11b) is a compound, (11c) should be as well. We have to distinguish the concept named and the range of meanings a particular construction may have. Whereas violinist and violin player are synonymous, the former is a derivation and the latter a compound. A first observation about (11c–d) as opposed to (11a–b) is that the former have an explicit marker of the relationship, the preposition do, whereas the latter do not. Bielec (1998: 216–18) describes the meaning of do when followed by the genitive as ‘by [+ time]’, ‘to [+ place]’, or ‘for’. As the glosses indicate, we take the last of these to be the core meaning. The question is then whether N+do+N constructs such as (11c–d) meet condition (2b) on the range of relationships between the two nouns. It is interesting to compare the Polish N+do+N construction with the French N+de+N and N+à+N constructions discussed by Nicoladis (2002). Examples are given in (13).

(13) a. sac de toilette (‘bag of toilet’, i.e. toilet bag) b. tasse à café (‘cup with/for coffee’, i.e. coffee cup)

Nicoladis (2002: 49) notes that (13b) refers to a kind of cup, not to any cup filled with coffee. On the basis of language acquisition data from bilingual and monolingual children in Canada, she concludes that ‘prepositions are becoming linking items in French’ (2002: 58). Linking elements are elements that have no or very little meaning of their own but contribute to the form of a compound. Such elements are traditionally recognized as nominal compounds as naming devices 91

Fugenzeichen in German morphology, as in Engel (1996: 520). A German example is Schönheit-s-königin (‘beauty-Ø- queen’). The vowels glossed as Ø in (10) can be seen as examples in Polish. Linking elements in German are strongly connected to the genitive and Nicoladis (2002: 49) notes that both à and de can be used to express possession. Given the absence of a morphological genitive marker in French, we can see the constructions in (13) as the French correlates of the genitive compounds in (3b) and (11a). When we now return to Polish do in (11c–d), we note that it has a much more specific meaning than de and à in (13). In Levi’s (1978) system of Recoverably Deletable Predicates (RDPs), do corresponds to the RDP for. For French de and à no such characterization in terms of a single RDP is possible. Clause (2b) of the definition requires that the range of possible relationships is determined by the meaning of the components, as opposed to the construction. While admitting that more research into N+Prep+N constructions across languages remains necessary, we conclude that Polish N+do+N constructions are not compounds according to the definition in (2). Overall, then, Polish compounds are of three types. First, there are N+N compounds such as (10a) and (10d). Second, there are genitive compounds such as (11a). Finally, there are compounds with relational adjectives as in (11b). The first type is right-headed, whereas the other two are left-headed.

4 ENGLISH AND POLISH TERMBASES

In order to investigate how compounding is used in English and Polish terminology, we used two termbases for the domain of land surveying that were created for the research in Kwiatek (2013). As one of the purposes of that research was to investigate conceptual mismatches between English and Polish terms, the termbases for each language were created separately. The English termbase has 490 term records, the Polish one 459. In the selection of the terms, a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches was adopted. The top-down approach is the classical, onomasiological approach to terminology. The bottom-up approach starts from the collection of terms from corpora of specialized text. As Arntz et al. (2009: 220) indicate, the starting point for a terminological project is the delimitation of the field and its division into subfields. In order to do this, we used the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC, 2008), the system of Encyclopaedia Britannica (1986), and a standard university textbook, Bannister et al. (1998). Combining the information from these three sources, we found the ten subfields of land surveying listed in (14). Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

92 pius ten hacken and ewelina kwiatek

(14) a. Analysis and adjustment of errors b. Satellite positioning system (GPS) c. Geodetic surveying d. Cadastral surveying e. Topographic surveying f. Engineering surveying g. Hydrographic surveying h. Photogrammetry i. Geographic information systems j. Cartography and mapping

Rather than attempting to cover all of these subfields, we concentrated on three of them which show interesting terminological differences, namely (14b), (14c) and (14j). Whereas (14c) and (14j) are fields that have established terms in the course of a more nationally oriented history, (14b) is a new field with many recently added terms. For the English termbase, we took the British terminology as used in England and Wales as the standard. For the purpose of term extraction, we collected a corpus consisting of textbook chapters, articles from scientific journals and technical magazines, professional and educational websites, and manuals for specialized soft- ware. In order to cover the terminology of a field such as geodetic surveying, it is necessary to include terms that occur in related fields. While the corpus texts were all from the three selected subfields, we also recorded terms from other subfields that were found in these texts. In addition, we recorded terms from adjacent domains where necessary. In the case of geodetic surveying, we included, for instance, measuring units from mathematics, aberration from optics, and latitude from geography. For each term, a term record was completed which specifies the standard information types in a way similar to the examples given by Cabré (1999: 124–5) and Arntz et al. (2009: 223–5). They include citation form, abbreviation, grammatical information, subject field, definition, three examples, synonyms, status (in relation to standardization), author and date. In addition, we included lexical relations (hyperonym and/or holonym, as appropriate), and entity type (based on Jackendoff’s (1983) conceptual constituents). As mentioned above, the termbases were intended to be used also for research into mismatches and gaps. In addition to the two monolingual termbases, we also produced a set of correspondence records (see Cabré 1999: 127). In these records, not only translational equivalents are recorded, but also conditions on how a term in one language is restricted as a translation of a corresponding term in the other. In order to produce correspondence records, the monolingual termbases were extended where nominal compounds as naming devices 93

necessary. Thus, if the translation of a Polish term was not in our English corpus, we added it after verifying that it is used in the relevant type of English texts. While we included terms from subfields other than the three we focused on in our monolingual termbases, we did not produce correspondence records for these terms. This explains the different number of term records for each language.

5 COMPOUNDS IN THE TERMBASES

In this section, we give an overview of the use of compounding as a naming device in the English and Polish termbases. As a starting point, we consider the proportion of compounds in the termbases. Figure 5.1 shows the distribution for the English termbase. Four classes are distinguished in Figure 5.1. The first two are compounds. They constitute almost half of the termbase, 238 of 490 terms. Most of these have two components, e.g. carrier frequency, but a significant minority is the result of two or more applications of compounding, e.g deeds registration system. Non-compounds are also divided into two classes. A small minority have a compound as part of the term, e.g. mean sea level. In this case, the full term combines an adjective and a compound. The compound is not a term on its own. There were twenty-five such cases. The remaining large category includes terms of various forms, e.g. contour, public right of way, prime meridian. Figure 5.2 shows the corresponding distribution in the Polish database. When we consider the diagrams, the most striking differences are that compounds are more frequent in the Polish termbase and that there is a new category of borrowings. Compounds are a clear majority of the Polish

Compounds (recursive) Compounds (2 components) Non-compounds (compound components) 46% Non-compounds (no compound components)

40%

5% Figure 5.1 Compounds in the English termbase Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

94 pius ten hacken and ewelina kwiatek

Compounds (recursive) 34% Compounds (2 components) Non-compounds (compound components) Borrowing Other non-compounds

51% 5% 2% Figure 5.2 Compounds in the Polish termbase

terms, 268 of 459. All twenty-four borrowings in our Polish termbase are from English. They include terms such as replica code and abbreviations such as EGNOS (European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service). It is remarkable that there are no fewer than thirty-nine recursive compounds, because Szymanek (2010: 223) suggests that compounding is not recursive in Polish. However, as we saw in section 3, Szymanek uses a rather different concept of compounding than we do. An example from this class is (15).

(15) gleboznawcza klasyfikacja gruntów

‘pedologicalfem classification landgen-pl’ i.e. soil-based land classification

In (15), we see a combination of a relational adjective, a noun and a genitive noun. We will come back to the analysis of this class after considering the relative frequency of compound types in the two languages. So far, we have only considered compounding as a single category. It is also interesting to look at the distribution of compounds among compounding constructions. Figure 5.3 gives the distribution in English. N+N compounds such as ground antenna, corresponding to the type (3a) in section 2, constitute more than half of all compounds. Most of the remaining compounds combine a relational adjective with a noun as in (3c), e.g. autumnal equinox. Perhaps surprisingly, there were only two compounds with a Saxon genitive, Peter’s projection and Tissot’s indicatrix. Both of these include a proper name, but six other compounds with a proper name do not have the genitive marker, e.g. Robinson projection. The category of compounds with phrasal non-heads is illustrated by dual frequency receiver. Here, dual frequency is not a compound but an adjective-noun combination, see ten Hacken (2003a, 2003b). nominal compounds as naming devices 95

30% N+N Proper name non-head Neoclassical Phrasal non-head 52% Possessive non-head RA+N 1%

7% 3% Figure 5.3 Distribution of compounding types in the English termbase

The final category in Figure 5.3 is that of neoclassical compounds. In neoclassical word formation, stems based on Ancient Greek and Latin words are used to form new words in a modern language. As many European languages have a similar system of neoclassical word formation, it is not always possible to distinguish borrowing and actual word formation in this domain. Following Petropoulou (2009), we assume that neoclassical word formation is not a homogeneous category. Only those neoclassical words whose components can be analysed in accordance with our definition in (2) are considered compounds here. This includes, for instance, tacheometry but not perimeter. Whereas tacheo-, based on Ancient Greek ταχύς [tachýs] (‘fast’), is used in the sense of speed in the former, the latter includes peri-, based on the preposition περί [perí] (‘around’). In Polish, the distribution among compounding constructions is given in Figure 5.4.

7% 8%

N + N Neoclassical

21% N + GN N + RA or RA + N

64%

Figure 5.4 Distribution of compounding types in the Polish termbase Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

96 pius ten hacken and ewelina kwiatek

A comparison of Figure 5.4 with the English distribution in Figure 5.3 shows some striking differences. The only type that is equally represented in both languages is the neoclassical one. Relational adjectives and genitive nouns, as exemplified in (16), are much more frequent in Polish.

(16) a. południk zerowy

‘meridian zeroadj’, i.e. prime meridian b. efekt Dopplera

‘effect Dopplergen’, i.e. Doppler effect

The examples in (16) correspond to (11b) and (11a), respectively. Both relational adjectives and genitive nouns generally follow the head, but relational adjectives precede the head if the head is itself a compound with a genitive noun. This is illustrated in (15). In both Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4, only the topmost operation is taken into account, so that (15) is classified as RA+N. The category of N+N compounds in Figure 5.4 does not correspond to the type discussed in section 3 and illustrated in (10a) and (10d). Whereas (10a) and (10b) are right-headed, the N+N compounds in our termbase are all left-headed. Some examples are given in (17).

(17) a. sygnał PRN ‘signal PRN’, i.e. PRN signal b. technika cross-correlation ‘technique cross-correlation’, i.e. cross-correlation

In all of the nineteen N+N compounds in our termbase, the non-head is a code, abbreviation or borrowing. Most cases are of the type illustrated in (17a). They can be seen as loan translations in which the order of the constituents is adapted to match the one found with genitive nouns and relational adjectives. The abbreviation PRN in (16a) stands for pseudoran- dom noise, which is a binary signal similar to noise but which can be exactly reproduced. In the case of (17b), the borrowing cross-correlation is made more explicit by classifying it as a technika. As codes, abbreviations and borrowings such as in (17) are not inflected in Polish, it is impossible to determine which case they appear in. Szymanek (2010: 217) gives the example of film wideo (‘film video’, i.e. video film) and calls it ‘a somewhat irregular syntactic phrase of the Noun + Relational Adjective type’. However, they could also be analysed as genitives without overt inflection. This analysis is supported by their left-headedness, aligning them with cases such as (16b). One of the ideas underlying the decision to concentrate on three subfields of land surveying was the prospect of identifying different trends that nominal compounds as naming devices 97

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Total Cartography Geod. Surv. GPS Other

Non-compounds Non-compounds (no compound components) (compound components) Compounds (2 components) Compounds (recursive)

Figure 5.5 Compounds in each subfield of the English termbase are characteristic of the individual fields. Figure 5.5 gives an overview of the three subfields in English. As explained in section 4, the selection of terms was based on texts from three subfields, cartography, geodetic surveying and GPS. The first column gives the distribution in the overall database and therefore corresponds exactly to Figure 5.1. The last column gives the distribution of land surveying terms that do not belong primarily to any of the three subfields we concentrated on, but nevertheless occurred in the corpus of texts we collected for these subfields. The variation from one field to the next is not very big. It is interesting to compare Figure 5.5 to the corresponding data for Polish in Figure 5.6. The most striking observation about Figure 5.6 is the concentration of borrowings in the subfield of GPS. This is not surprising and indeed the choice of GPS as one of the fields was motivated by the expectation that there would be more borrowing from English here. It is interesting to see how this affects the distribution between the other naming mechanisms. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

98 pius ten hacken and ewelina kwiatek

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% TotalCartography Geod. Surv. GPS Other

Other non-compounds Compounds (recursive) Compounds (2 components) Non-compounds (compound components) Borrowings

Figure 5.6 Compounds in each subfield in the Polish termbase

In general, Polish terminology has more compounds, but the relative distribution in the subfields is remarkably similar to the one in English. Cartography has somewhat more compounds than average and geodetic surveying somewhat fewer. For recursive compounds this is the same and GPS is more or less at the average. Compared to English, borrowings in Polish encroach somewhat on the territory of compounding, pushing its proportion below the one in geodetic surveying, but much more on that of the ‘other non-compounds’. These observations suggest that certain concepts are more likely to be named by a compound than others. After all, a field such as cartography will have largely the same concepts in English and in Polish. Another conclusion these observations suggest is that borrowing is more likely to occur if no compound can be formed. We can also compare the distribution of different compounding constructions among the subfields. Figure 5.7 shows the distribution in English. nominal compounds as naming devices 99

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Total Cartography Geod. Surv. GPS Other

RA+N Possessive non-head Phrasal non-head Neoclassical Proper name non-head N+N

Figure 5.7 Distribution of compounding types per subfield in English

The differences between the three subfields are not very striking. Cartography has relatively many RA+N and geodetic surveying relatively many N+N compounds. The ‘other’ subfields have a rather different distribution, but the total for this category is only thirty-one. We can now compare this to the corresponding Polish data in Figure 5.8. An interesting observation in Figure 5.8 is the concentration of N+N compounds in the field of GPS. As illustrated in (17), these compounds are loan translations. As such, we expect to find them in the field of GPS for the same reason that borrowings are more frequent in this field. When we compare the proportion of RA+N compounds in the different fields for English and Polish, no particular trend can be discovered. The N+N and N+GN compounding types are less directly comparable between English and Polish because the former is marked in Polish and the latter almost non-existent in English. It is interesting to note that in Polish, as in English, neoclassical compounds are more frequent in the ‘other’ subfields. We can think of two possible explanations. First, neoclassical compounds can be more frequent in the other subfields of Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

100 pius ten hacken and ewelina kwiatek

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% TotalCartography Geod. Surv. GPS Other

N + RA or RA + N N + GN Neoclassical N + N

Figure 5.8 Distribution of compounding types per subfield in Polish

land surveying. Alternatively, neoclassical compounds designate more general concepts, which are more likely to occur in texts in other subfields than the one the term belongs to. As the neoclassical compounds in other subfields do not belong to the same subfield, the latter seems to us more plausible.

6 CONCLUSION

Adopting the definition of compounding in (2), we found that both in English and in Polish a large proportion of terms in land surveying are compounds. Although both languages have noun-noun compounds, genitive compounds and relational adjective compounds, noun-noun compounds are marginal in Polish and genitive compounds are marginal in English in our termbases. The distribution of compounding types over the individual subfields cannot be correlated between the two languages. If a subfield has more relational adjective compounds than the average in one language, this does not predict that it has more relational adjective compounds in the other language. nominal compounds as naming devices 101

A much stronger correlation can be observed for the use of compounding as such. When a subfield has many compounds as terms in one language, it tends to have many in the other language as well. This suggests that concepts in certain domains are particularly prone to be named by a compound. More research is needed to explore whether this hypothesis can be substantiated. As expected, Polish terminology in the subfield of GPS is marked by borrowings from English. However, they mainly affect the number of non-compounds (simple or derived words, phrasal expressions). Among compounds, a special type of N+N compound based on loan translation from English is relatively frequent in this subfield. Finally, it would be worth investigating the distribution of neoclassical compounds in more detail. As our termbase was based on the extraction of terms from three subfields and neoclassical compounds were relatively frequent among other land surveying subfields, we suggest that they are used to designate concepts that are more general and therefore more likely to occur in texts of other subfields.

NOTES

1. Jackendoff’s (2010: 413–51) system for characterizing the relationships is compatible with (2b) because the system is generative. Although it specifies fourteen primitive relations, it also specifies mechanisms for combining them in an in principle unrestricted way. 2. Only the first sense is given in (6). Other senses are specialized for individual nouns the adjectives modify. The function of these further senses is to illustrate how the general first sense is used in particular contexts. In (6b) the example, which serves the same purpose, is also left out in order to make it more directly comparable to (6a). 3. Both (11b) and (11c) sound somewhat marked in Polish, but not more so than computer paper in English. More common is papier do drukarki (‘paper for printergen’, i.e. printer paper). A frequency check in Google, carried out on 19 July 2011, suggests that this Polish expression is more frequent than (11b) and (11c) combined. In English, printing paper and printer paper are each 3.5–4.5 times as frequent as computer paper. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

chapter 6 Semantic and formal structure: a corpus-based study of Swedish NN compounds and their French counterparts

Maria Rosenberg

his chapter addresses word formation and lexical representation. TIt examines the relation between semantic and formal structure in Swedish NN compounds and their French counterparts. The underlying assumption is that semantic structures are lexicalized, and thus can be more or less productive. The study adopts a primarily onomasiological perspective, which goes from meaning to form (see Marchand 1969; Štekauer 2005b), although the semasiological perspective will also be present. I borrow Downing’s (1977: 838) quotation of Bolinger here:

Words are not coined in order to extract the meanings of their elements and compile a new meaning for them. The new meaning is there FIRST, and the coiner is looking for the best way to express it without going to too much trouble. (Bolinger 1975: 109)

Swedish NN compounding is highly productive, and NN compounds are easily formed for new concepts (see Josefsson 2005). French seems to prefer lexicalized NP constructions or free syntactic phrases, although NN compounding is productive (see Fradin 2009). Hence one might predict that, for the most part, Swedish NN compounds do not correspond to NN compounds in French. Another important difference between the two languages is that the semantic relation within Swedish NN compounds is implicit, whereas it can be partly specified by prepositions in their French counterparts. The main objective of this study is twofold: to examine the formal structure of the French counterparts of the Swedish NN compounds, as well as the semantic relations expressed by the Swedish NN compounds semantic and formal structure 103 and the corresponding French constructions. One further objective is to examine to what extent Swedish NN compounds correspond to French NN constructions and in what way the latter are more restricted compared to the former. Given these objectives, it seems appropriate to use a method based on empirical data. Hence I have compiled a small parallel corpus. In that regard, what is being conducted here is a pilot study. Still, the analysis aims to find systematic generalizations, and is both quantitative and qualitative with respect to formal and semantic structure. Despite formal differences between the two languages, a unified semantic account, based on Jackendoff (2009), is adopted. The chapter will be organized as follows. Section 1 accounts for the theoretical context for this study. The parallel corpus and the data are presented in section 2. The classification of the formal structure of the data follows in section 3. Section 4 deals with previous accounts of the meaning of compounds in different frameworks, and section 5 with the semantic analysis of the data. Section 6 contains some concluding remarks.

1 THEORETICAL CONTEXT

This section accounts for the theoretical context and presents some morphological notions relevant for the present study. The delimitation between compounds and lexicalized phrases in French is also briefly addressed.

1.1 Lexeme-based morphology In this chapter, a compound is defined as a complex lexeme, formed by morphological rules which associate lexemes (Amiot 2005: 190). The term lexeme is taken in the sense, for example, of Lyons (1963), Matthews (1972) or Aronoff (1992). According to the latter, a lexeme is ‘a (potential or actual) decontextualized vocabulary word’ (Aronoff 1992: 13), underspecified for inflection and member of one of the open grammatical categories, N, V or A. In French, a compound is either a noun or an adjective (see Namer 2005: 133). In general, the morphological head is said to correspond to the constituent that determines the grammatical category and/or the major part of the meaning of a complex word (see, for example, Carstairs-McCarthy 1992: 20). Distributional criteria are relevant for gender assignment to NN compounds, but otherwise the head of an NN compound can be based on semantic grounds. Haspelmath (2002: 87) and Rainer and Varela (1992: 22) among others define the head constituent of a compound as being its Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

104 maria rosenberg

hyperonym. Generally, Romance compounds are said to be left-headed, as opposed to right-headed Germanic compounds: salade-santé vs. health salad (see Williams 1981; Selkirk 1982; Scalise 1986; Booij 2009b).1 The head notion in morphology has been debated (see, for example, Bauer 1990; Haspelmath 1992; Beard 1998; Fradin 2003); I return to this issue in section 5.3. This chapter adopts Jackendoff’s (e.g. 2002, 2009) architecture of grammar as tripartite and parallel: phonology, syntax and semantics are independent generative components, connected by interface rules. Furthermore, the lexicon is assumed to have a hierarchical structure with general abstract schemas at the highest level and single instantiations at the lowest level. Redundancy is allowed, so that outputs of a productive rule can also be listed (Booij 2009b). In addition to simplex words or lexemes, the lexicon also contains larger units, such as compounds, meaningful constructions and idioms. These more complex lexical items are constructed by either morphological or syntactical means, and can be referred to as syntactic atoms (see Cruse 1986: 35–6; Di Sciullo and Williams 1987; Fradin 2003: 192–5).

1.2 Interpretation, lexicalization and productivity of compounds As to the role of productivity in the semantics and lexicalization of word formation, Ryder (1994) claims that new compounds are created and interpreted through knowledge about productive semantic patterns. According to Jackendoff (2009) as well, the productivity of compounding involves a set of principles, a productive rule system, for the interpretation of new compounds. Lexicalized compounds conform mostly to these principles, although compounds exhibit idiosyncrasies, and children’s evidence for the general principles must come from generalizing over the learned compounds. Jackendoff’s (2009) view resembles Booij’s constructional approach to morphology, where abstract word formation patterns are generalizations from existing complex words, correlating form and meaning (see Booij 2009b: 201). The psycholinguistic findings of Libben (2006) indicate that the human mind seems to both store and compute as much as possible. A compound which has been encountered often enough can be lexicalized. Its representation is then stored as a whole, with morphological structure, but can still be decomposed into its constituents (Libben 2006: 6). Semenza and Mondini (2006) note that aphasia research, experimental psychology and formal linguistics reach the same conclusions regarding the representation and processing of compounds. They claim that during lexical retrieval, there are strong indications for the parsing (composition or decomposi- semantic and formal structure 105

tion) of compounds, transparent as well as opaque,2 where the head has no privileged role.

1.3 Compounds vs. lexicalized phrases in French As to the delimitation between compounds and lexicalized phrases in French, I refer to Corbin (1992: 51), who claims that only those complex sequences which cannot be generated otherwise than by morphological mechanisms, i.e. lexical rules of composition, are compounds (e.g. ouvre- boîtes ‘can opener’). In contrast, sequences that have regular syntax, such as bas bleu ‘bluestocking’, are not compounds but syntactic constructions. However, with regard to French NN constructions, the division between syntax and morphology is not clear-cut. According to different criteria (e.g. that the first noun is a hyperonym of the compound, no preposition can be inserted between the two nouns, the two nouns are not coordinated, proper nouns are not included, and depending on the nature of the classifying relation) some of them are NN compounds (e.g. attentat-suicide ‘suicide attack’), deriving from morphology, whereas others are NN phrases (e.g. sortie piétons ‘pedestrian exit’), formed by syntax (see Fradin 2003: 199, 202–6).3 Lesselingue (2003) deals with what she refers to as [N1N2]N3 compounds in French as a continuum. At one end, N3 is a hyponym of the class denoted by N1, e.g. poisson-chat ‘catfish’. At the other end, there are hybrids, e.g. porte-fenêtre ‘French door’, corresponding to endocentric co-ordinate compounds. NN constructions, such as physique-chimie ‘physics-chemistry’, with two distinct referents, are syntactic rather than compounds according to Lesselingue (2003). In sum, not every French NN construction is an NN compound. Note finally that Swedish NN compounds are written as one word (blomkål ‘cauliflower’), whereas French NN constructions either contain a hyphen (chou-fleur ‘cauliflower’) or are written as two words (chapeau cloche ‘cloche hat’).

2 DATA

The data, consisting of Swedish NN compounds and their French counterparts, draws from a parallel corpus. Cysouw and Wälchli (2007) signal the relevance of parallel corpora for morphological and typological studies. Furthermore, Tegelberg (2000) claims that, at the word level, the risk of interference between source language and target language is low. The parallel corpus that I have compiled for this study is limited to written texts, drawing from debates of the European Parliament held in the European Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

106 maria rosenberg

Table 6.1 Total number of tokens in the parallel corpus Swedish French Total Token 20,286 23,640 43,926

Table 6.2 Swedish NN compounds and French counterparts in the parallel corpus Swedish NN compounds French counterparts Token 983 940 Type 398 475

Union’s languages and rendered in both Swedish and French versions (hence, neither French nor Swedish is necessarily the source or the target language). In this respect, and as shown in Table 6.1, the corpus is rather limited. As mentioned, this study is part of ongoing research.4 Nevertheless, the corpus seems to confirm the conclusion drawn by Eriksson (1997), namely that French uses more words than Swedish does in order to express the same content (partly dependent on the frequent use of compounding in Swedish). As shown by Table 6.2, I managed to find attestations for almost a thousand Swedish NN compounds along with their French counterparts, despite the limited size of the corpus. We see that nearly 5 per cent of the Swedish part of the corpus consists of NN compounds. These figures are consistent with findings of the quantity of German nominal compounds in much larger corpora (see, for example, Baroni et al. 2002; Schiller 2005; Junczys-Dowmunt 2008). In a corpus of 1 million Swedish tokens, one would expect to find about 50,000 NN compounds. The lower number of tokens of the French counterparts is due to the fact that some of them are abbreviations that correspond to two Swedish compounds, such as LMR (limite maximale de résidus (des pesticides)) ‘MRL (maximum residue level (for pesticides))’ vs. gränsvärde för bekämpningsmedelsrester ‘threshold value for pesticide residues’. In contrast, Table 6.2 shows that the French counterparts are more diverse and correspond to more different types.

3 FORMAL STRUCTURE OF THE FRENCH COUNTERPARTS

The French counterparts were classified according to their formal structure. Table 6.3 shows the frequency of the different formal structures found in the corpus, exemplified with an attestation of a Swedish NN compound and its French counterpart. semantic and formal structure 107

Table 6.3 Formal structure of the French counterparts in the parallel corpus Swedish NN Token Type French counterparts Token Type compounds 983 398 940 475 NN: beslutsprocess NA: processus décisionnel 265 140 ‘decision process’ ‘decision process’ NN: dagcentrum N de N: centre de jour 165 114 ‘day centre’ ‘day centre’ NN: människohandel N: traite 236 84 ‘human trafficking’ ‘trafficking’ NN: våldsvirus N de DET N: virus de la violence 118 58 ‘violence virus’ ‘virus of violence’ NN: medlemsparti NN: parti membre 58 12 ‘member party’ ‘member party’ NN: könsbudgetering N (A) à DET N: 17 10 ‘gender budgeting’ budgétisation sensible au genre ‘budgeting sensitive to gender’ NN: sysselsättningsstrategi N pour DET N: 9 6 ‘employment strategy’ stratégie pour l’emploi ‘strategy for employment’ NN: småjordbrukare AN: petits agriculteurs 6 6 ‘small farmers’ ‘small farmers’ NN: hälsopåverkan N (A) sur DET N: 6 5 ‘health effects’ impact sur la santé ‘impact on health’ NN: (högsta prioritet på) Omission: une priorité absolue ø – 5 dagordningen ‘(highest priority on) ‘an absolute priority’ the agenda’ NN: barnsjukhus N pour N: hôpital pour enfants 14 4 ‘children’s hospital’ ‘hospital for children’ NN: ansträngningar på gräsrotsnivå A: les efforts populaires 4 4 ‘efforts at the grass-root level’ ‘popular efforts’ NN: hemarbete N à N: travail à domicile 4 4 ‘housework’ ‘work at home’ NN: samhällsklasser N dans DET N: horizons dans la 4 3 ‘social classes’ société ‘horizons in society’ NN: jämställdhetsperspektiv English loanword: 5 2 ‘gender perspective’ gender mainstreaming NN: (vara ett viktigt) önskemål Other: devrait tous nous préoccuper 24 23 ‘(be an important) wish’ ‘ought to concern us all’

In my data, NA and N de N constructions, as well as simple Ns, are the most frequent French counterparts of Swedish NN compounds. In contrast, French NN constructions are rarely attested. Only 0.25 per cent of the total number of tokens in the French half of the corpus are NN constructions, not all of which are NN compounds (compared to nearly 5 per cent of the total tokens in the Swedish half). Given the low numbers of attestations of French NN compounds in the parallel corpus, I consulted Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

108 maria rosenberg

a set of compounds used in a previous study (Rosenberg 2007), which aimed to examine the pluralization of French compounds. That study lends support to the result of the present study, namely that compounding is a marginal phenomenon in French word formation.5 The French N de N and N à N constructions are highly productive syntactic phrase types, called ‘synapsies’ in French (Benveniste 1966), corresponding to stable lexical units (see pomme de terre ‘potato’ or assiette à soupe ‘soup plate’). Nicoladis (2002) suggests that the prepositions à and de in these kinds of constructions are in an intermediate state to become linking elements. Note, however, that N à N constructions are remarkably rare in the data.

4 SEMANTIC RELATIONS WITHIN NN COMPOUNDS

In the absence of any formal clues, the particular meaning of an NN compound must be examined through its internal semantic relation and the meaning of each constituent. Hence my study builds upon works such as Downing (1977), Levi (1978), Gagné and Shoben (1997) and Jackendoff (2009), which all examine the relation holding between the constituents of a compound.6 However, I do not agree with Lieber (2004: 49) that a general characterization of the semantic relations within root compounds is probably impossible (see also Selkirk 1982). According to Isabelle (1984), odd interpretations of compounds are in fact rare. Clark and Berman (1987) report that from the age of four children can interpret various relations (e.g. possession, location, containment, material and purpose) between head and modifier in Hebrew compounds (see Jarema 2006: 58).

4.1 Downing’s (1977) list Although Downing (1977: 828) emphasizes that it is impossible to come up with a finite list of the semantic relationships within NN compounds, she compiles an inventory of semantic relations. Her inventory draws from earlier classifications proposed by scholars such as Jespersen (1922), Li (1971) and Levi (1975). These show considerable overlap and therefore seem to indicate that some relations are perceived as more typical than others:

• Whole-part (duck-foot) • Half-half (giraffe-cow) • Part-whole (pendulum clock) • Composition (stone furniture) • Comparison (pumpkin bus) • Time (summer dust) semantic and formal structure 109

• Place (Eastern Oregon meal) • Source (vulture shit) • Product (honey glands) • User (flea wheelbarrow) • Purpose (hedge hatchet) • Occupation (coffee man)

We will see that Downing’s (1977) list with its general scope is not as elaborated and detailed as the semantic relations proposed by Jackendoff (2009) (see section 4.3).

4.2 Gagné and Shoben’s (1997) list Although Gagné and Shoben (1997: 72–3) agree with, for example, Downing (1977) that a list of the semantic relations within NN compounds can never be exhaustive, they firmly believe that a relatively short list can account for the majority of the conceptual combinations. Gagné and Shoben’s (1997: 74) list follows in large parts the taxonomy of Shoben (1991), which is in turn largely based on Levi (1978). In their description, the head is labelled as ‘noun’ and the non-head as ‘modifier’.

• noun causes modifier (flu virus) • modifier causes noun (college headache) • noun has modifier (picture book) • modifier has noun (lemon peel) • noun makes modifier (milk cow) • noun made of modifier (chocolate bird) • noun for modifier (cooking toy) • modifier is noun (dessert food) • noun uses modifier (gas antiques) • noun about modifier (mountain magazine) • noun located (at/in/on) modifier (mountain cloud) • noun used by modifier (servant language) • modifier located (at/in/on) noun (murder town) • noun derived from modifier (oil money) • noun during modifier (summer cloud)

Gagné and Spalding (2006: 148) claim that it is important to examine how complex words are formed and interpreted in order to understand their processing and mental representation. ‘Conceptual combination’, i.e. the process of combining two concepts to form a new concept (in the conceptual system), is in their opinion highly relevant to the study of Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

110 maria rosenberg

compounds (in the language system), and a new combined concept is not just an additive process, it is ‘more than a hybrid of its parts’ (Gagné and Spalding 2006: 149). Gagné and Spalding (2006: 154) specify that nothing prevents, for example, a relation involving ‘noun has modifier’ to be further discriminated into has-part (picture book) or has-ownership (student book). However, they emphasize that a more general relation does still provide a lot of information and is important in the course of processing. Gagné and Spalding (2006: 154–5, 162) underline that, during interpretation, several relations compete for selection, thereby allowing compounds to be potentially ambiguous. In this way, the active processing of both stored and novel compounds is similar: they are all first decomposed and then re-composed by use of the relation that links the constituents. However, the interpretation tends to converge on a fixed meaning of the compound that fits the context (Gagné and Spalding 2006: 163). In addition, it is easier to interpret and use a highly frequent relation than a less frequent one (Gagné and Shoben 1997: 81) (see also section 5.4).

4.3 Jackendoff’s (2009) semantic relations In Jackendoff’s (2009) Conceptual Semantics, a compound’s meaning is a function of the meaning of its constituents: an N1N2 compound has the meaning F (X1, X2). There are of course exceptions, such as compounds with cranberry or strawberry constituents, which play no role in the compound’s meaning, and so called ‘promiscuous’ compounds, which can have several meanings simultaneously, such as boxcar (‘car that carries a box’, ‘that resembles a box’ or ‘that serves as a box’).7 According to Jackendoff (2009: 122), in order to retrieve the semantic structure of an N1N2 compound, one has to designate a head and determine the semantic relation between the constituents. Jackendoff (2009: 123–4) enumerates several basic functions for the semantic relation within NN compounds (based on the analysis of 2,500 English compounds). Without claiming to be exhaustive, he gives the following list:

• CLASSIFY (X1, Y2), ‘N1 classifies 2N ’ (beta-cell) • Y2(X1), ‘(a/the) N2 of/by N1’ (sea level) • BOTH (X1, Y2), ‘both N1 and N2’ (politician-tycoon) • SAME/SIMILAR (X1, Y2), ‘N1 and N2 are the same/similar’ (zebrafish) • KIND (X1, Y2), ‘N1 is a kind of N2’ (puppy dog) • SERVES-AS (Y2, X1), ‘N2 that serves as N1’ (extension cord) • LOC (X1, Y2), ‘N2 is located at/in/on N1’ (sunspot), also ‘N1 is located at/in/on N2’ or ‘N2 with N1 at/in/on it’ (icewater) • LOCtemp (X1, Y2), ‘N2 takes place at time N1’ (spring rain) semantic and formal structure 111

• CAUSE (X1, Y2), ‘N2 caused by N1’ (knife wound) • COMP (Y2, X1), ‘N2 is composed of N1’ (rubber band), also ‘N1 is composed of N2’ or ‘N2 that N1 is composed of’ (bathwater) • PART (X1, Y2), ‘N2 is part of N1’(apple core), also ‘N2 with N1 as a part’ (wheelchair) • MAKE (X, Y, FROM Z), ‘X makes Y from Z’: a. ‘N2 made by N1’ (horse shit) vs. ‘N2 that makes N1’ (honeybee); b. ‘N2 made from N1’ (olive oil) vs. ‘N2 that N1 is made from’ (sugar beet) • PROTECT (X, Y, FROM Z), ‘X protects Y from Z’: a. ‘N2 protects N1’ (lifeboat); b. ‘N2 protects from N1’ (mosquito net)

In addition to the semantic relations listed above, Jackendoff (2009: 120) borrows the term ‘Proper Function’ from Millikan (1984) and treats it as an action modality,8 applying to entities that are supposed or designed to perform specific functions. Proper Function is true irrespective of actual situations and can be further divided into (a) artefacts (e.g. can opener); (b) parts of artefacts (e.g. back of a chair) or of organisms (e.g. leaves of a plant); (c) objects destined to become something (e.g. seed>plant). In an N1N2 compound, N1 can be an argument of the Proper Function of N2, e.g. in coffee cup, cup has a Proper Function to contain coffee (Jackendoff 2009: 125). This notion corresponds more or less to PURPOSE in Downing’s (1977) list and ‘noun for modifier’ in Gagné and Shoben’s (1997) list. To sum up, we see that the three lists of semantic relations within NN compounds, although not totally identical, have a lot in common. Note, however, that the first two lists (Downing 1977; Gagné and Shoben 1997) intend to capture the most general relations, while the last one (Jackendoff 2009), although not exhaustive, aims to account for an unlimited amount of relations found within compounds. Consequently, I have chosen to use Jackendoff’s list for the classification of the data.

5 SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

This section deals with the semantic analysis of the data by focusing on different aspects, namely semantic classification, variants, head and morphological family, which will be accounted for in separate sections.

5.1 Semantic classification In what follows, the collected data is classified according to the semantic relations listed by Jackendoff (2009), with the addition of the last version of CAUSE, ‘N2 causes N1’, drawn from Gagné and Shoben’s (1997) list, as Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

112 maria rosenberg

well as PURPOSE, described as ‘N2 is intended for N1’. Hence, I prefer to use PURPOSE instead of Proper Function, an action modality according to Jackendoff (2009), and therefore, in my opinion, situated at a different level than the other semantic relations. Note that Jackendoff’s relations, elaborated for right-headed English compounds, apply directly to Swedish NN compounds. With respect to French, the ordering between N1 and N2 has to be reversed. Let me also signal that my classification is tentative in some cases. I will not go into details of the classification, just point to some tendencies which merit further investigation. First, four semantic relations dominate in the data, namely PURPOSE, the argument schema Y2(X1), LOC (with its three variants) and CLASSIFY. Apart from the LOC relations, the most frequent relations are rather general and occasionally vague; therefore it is not surprising that they dominate in the classification. With regard to the relation between semantic and formal structure, an analysis of the data I collected shows that PURPOSE and CLASSIFY can be rendered by nearly all of the formal structures in French. Inversely, NA and N de N constructions, the most frequent French counterparts of Swedish NN compounds, are open to nearly all of the semantic relations which are expressed by Swedish NN compounds. Recall the claim made by Nicoladis (2002) that the French prepositions à and de in N à N and N de N constructions are in an intermediate state of becoming linking elements. Given the flexible semantics of the N de N constructions, my data actually seems to give independent evidence to support her claim, although only with respect to de ‘of/about/from’. In contrast, the few attestations of French constructions involving the preposition à ‘to/in/at/with/of’ appear to be limited to a few relations, such as PURPOSE, LOC and PART.9 Likewise, French constructions with pour ‘for’ render, quite obviously, a PURPOSE relation. Only two out of the four MAKE relations in Jackendoff (2009) were attested in the data, corresponding to ‘noun makes modifier’ and ‘noun made of modifier’ in Gagné and Shoben’s (1997) list, or, more or less, to Product and Source in Downing’s (1977) list. They are rendered by NA and N de N constructions in French. French NN constructions are only attested for two relations, namely CLASSIFY and BOTH. Hence the narrow semantic scope of French NN constructions can provide a clue to their marginality. The BOTH relation can be considered as identical to coordination, and coordinate constructions, overall, are rare in the data. In my opinion, coordinate NN compounds are also rare in Swedish. Note also that the PROTECT and KIND relations were not attested at all in my data. In sum, Table 6.4 shows that several of the semantic relations have few attestations in my data. They can thus be assumed to be less productive. However, this fact might also be dependent on the selected text genre in the corpus. semantic and formal structure 113

Table 6.4 Semantic relations within the Swedish NN compounds and their French counterparts Semantic relation Swedish NN compound French counterpart Type PURPOSE sysselsättningsstrategi stratégie pour l’emploi 112

‘N2 is intended for N1’ ‘employment strategy’ ‘strategy for employment’ Y2(X1) kvinnoslaveri esclavage des femmes 80 ‘(a/the) N2 of/by N1’ ‘woman slavery’ ‘slavery of women’ LOC hemarbete travail à domicile 30

‘N2 is located at/in/on N1’ ‘housework’ ‘work at home’ LOC köttdisk rayon boucherie 25

‘N1 is located at/in/on N2’ ‘meat counter’ ‘meat counter’ LOCtemp vårtoppmöte sommet de printemps 16 ‘N2 takes place at time N1’ ‘spring summit’ ‘spring summit’ CLASSIFY rambeslut décision-cadre 70

‘N1 classifies N2’ ‘framework decision’ ‘framework decision’ PART familjemedlem membre de la famille 13

‘N2 is part of N1’ ‘family member’ ‘member of the family’ PART databaser bases de données 8

‘N2 with N1 as a part’ ‘databases’ ‘bases of data’ COMP glastak plafond de verre 13

‘N2 is composed of N1’ ‘glass ceiling’ ‘ceiling of glass’ COMP foderärter pois fourragers 2

‘N1 is composed of N2’ ‘feed peas’ ‘feed peas’ MAKE mjölkko vache laitière 4

‘N2 makes N1’ ‘dairy cow’ ‘dairy cow’ MAKE köttmjöl farine de viande 4

‘N2 made from N1’ ‘meat meal’ ‘meal of/from meat’ CAUSE bekämpningsmedelsrest résidu de pesticide 3

‘N2 caused by N1’ ‘pesticide residue’ ‘residue of pesticide’ CAUSE våldsvirus virus de la violence 4

‘N2 causes N1’ ‘violence virus’ ‘virus of violence’ BOTH invandrarkvinna femme migrante 6

‘both N1 and N2’ ‘immigrant woman’ ‘immigrant woman’ SERVES-AS gränsvärde limite maximale 5

‘N2 that serves as N1’ ‘threshold value’ ‘maximal limit’ SAME/SIMILAR lagstiftningsdjungeln législation, laquelle est 3

‘N1 and N1 are the same/ ‘legislation jungle’ extrêmement confuse similar’ ‘legislation which is extremely confusing’ Types of Swedish NN compounds 398

5.2 Variants For the most part, Swedish NN compounds and their French counterparts attested in the data express the same semantic relation. For example, Swedish hemmafru ‘housewife’ corresponds to French femme au foyer ‘woman at/of the house’ ’housewife’ where the use of the preposition makes Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

114 maria rosenberg

the LOC relation explicit. In some cases, the Swedish NN compound and its French counterpart are not semantically equivalent: djurbestånd ‘animal stock’ manifests a COMP relation (‘N2 is composed of N1’) whereas animaux d’élevage ‘breeding-livestock’ manifests a PURPOSE relation (‘N1 is intended for N2’). In other cases, such as fodertillsats ‘feed additive’ in example (1), the use of the prepositions dans ‘in’ or pour ‘for’ in the French counterparts affects the semantic relation, PART or PURPOSE:

(1) a. fodertillsats (PART) additif destiné à l’alimentation des animaux ‘feed additive’ ‘additive destined for animal nutrition’ (PURPOSE) b. additif dans l’alimentation animale (PART) ‘additive in animal nutrition’ c. additif pour l’alimentation animale (PURPOSE) ‘additive for animal nutrition’

Habert and Jacquemin (1993: 38) point to the fact that the same concept can be rendered by variant nominal constructions, and that morphology often intervenes in such cases. Thus variants are important because they can permit us to account for different, competing linguistic forms used to describe the same concept. A parallel corpus is highly useful in order to shed light upon this phenomenon, since there are cases where the source language linguistically codes an established concept which does not exist in the target language but must be rendered somehow. Some Swedish NN compounds for particular concepts correspond consistently to one and the same French construction (and concept), such as arbetsplats ‘workplace’ vs. lieu de travail ‘workplace’, or folkhälsa ‘public health’ vs. santé publique ‘public health’, whereas others, such as those in examples (2–5), correspond to different constructions in French, which thus seems to lack established linguistic forms.

(2) a. födelsetal taux de natalité (4 attest.) ‘birth rate’ ‘birth rate’ b. taux de croissance démographique (1 attest.) ‘rate of demographic growth’

(3) a. arbetsmarknad marché du travail (11 attest.) ‘labour market’ ‘labour market’ b. marché de l’emploi (3 attest.) ‘employment market’ c. monde du travail (1 attest.) ‘labour world’ semantic and formal structure 115

(4) a. arbetsliv vie professionnelle (4 attest.) ‘working life’ ‘professional life’ b. monde du travail (1 attest.) ‘labour world’

(5) a. barnomsorg structures d’accueil pour enfants (4 attest.) ‘child care’ ‘reception facilities for children’ b. crèches (2 attest.) ‘kindergartens’ c. garde-éducation (1 attest.) ‘care-education’ d. infrastructures d’accueil des enfants (1 attest.) ‘reception facilities for children’ e. modes de garde (1 attest.) ‘minding facilities’ f. prendre soin des enfants (1 attest.) ‘take care of children’ g. garde des enfants (1 attest.) ‘care of children’ h. prise en charge pour les enfants (1 attest.) ‘care of children’

The most striking example is barnomsorg ‘child care’. A well-established concept in Swedish, it has several French counterparts in the data, as indicated in (5).10 The different competing forms are partly explained by the fact that French prefers freely generated or lexicalized syntactic constructions instead of compounding.

5.3 Head Gagné and Spalding (2006), who assume that NN compounds are interpreted through the semantic relation between the constituents, claim that the modifier (non-head) is more relevant here than the head N: the head N provides the category name, whereas the modifier implies a contrast among members, indicating the subcategory (see honey bee vs. chocolate bee). Thus they question the predominance attributed to the head noun for a compound’s interpretation. Without going too far into debate about the complexity of the morphological head (see section 1.1), it should be noted that there are examples in the data, such as those in (6–11), where Swedish NN compounds correspond to simplex Ns in French, and at least in (6a, 7–10) the head of the Swedish NN compound is not represented in the French counterpart. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

116 maria rosenberg

(6) a. bekämpningsmedelsrester pesticides ‘pesticide residues’ ‘pesticides’ b. bekämpningsmedelsrester résidus ‘pesticide residues’ ‘residues’

(7) aromämne arôme11 ‘aroma compound’ ‘aroma’

(8) minoritetsgrupper minorités12 ‘minority groups’ ‘minorities’

(9) lobbygrupper lobbies ‘lobby groups’ ‘lobbies’

(10) analysmetoder analyses ‘analysis methods’ ‘analyses’

(11) våldsoffer victimes ‘violence victims’ ‘victims’

Arguably, most of the Swedish NN compounds above draw most of their semantic content from the first constituent. This generalization is not valid for all Swedish NN compounds, such as shown by the last example (11) våldsoffer ‘(violence) victim’. It seems likely that whether the head or the non-head of the Swedish NN compound is expressed by a simple N in French has to do with the particular semantic relation within the compound.

5.4 Morphological family and relation frequency Schreuder and Baayen use the term morphological family ‘to denote the set of words derived from a given stem by means of either compounding (tablespoon, timetable) or derivation (tablet, tabular)’ (1997: 121). Jarema notes that ‘[m]orphological family size, the type count of a morphological family, has been found to influence word recognition, while morphological family frequency ([. . .] token count of a morphological family) has not’ (2006: 52), referring to Schreuder and Baayen (1997). This evidence relates, with regard to the modifier (non-head) constituent of the compound, to Gagné and Shoben’s (1997: 73–4) claim that, during conceptual combination, people make use of distributional knowledge about how frequently a particular relation combines with a particular modifier. They argue that since the locative relation is highly frequent for the modifier mountain, for example, it should also be the easiest to interpret. In my data, semantic and formal structure 117 there were some instances of what might be called morphological families, such as (12).

(12) a. huvudorsak (CLASSIFY) cause principale ‘main cause’ ‘main cause’ b. huvudmål (CLASSIFY) but ultime ‘main objective’ ‘ultimate goal’ c. huvudpunkt (CLASSIFY) point essentiel/point principal ‘main point’ ‘essential point/main point’ d. huvudskäl (CLASSIFY) raison principale ‘main reason’ ‘main reason’

Swedish NN compounds with huvud ‘head’ in initial position, as in (12), manifested only one of its available relations, CLASSIFY, mostly corresponding to the French adjective principal ‘main’. On the other hand, we also find cases such as (13–14).

(13) a. livsmedelskedja (Y2(X1)) chaîne alimentaire ‘food chain’ ‘food chain’ b. livsmedelssäkerhet (PURPOSE) sécurité des aliments/alimentaire ‘food safety’ ‘food safety’

(14) a. låginkomstfamiljer (PART) les familles à bas revenus ‘low income families’ ‘families with low income’ b. familjeliv (CLASSIFY) vie familiale ‘family life’ ‘family life’ c. familjebegrepp (CLASSIFY) concept de la famille ‘family concept’ ‘concept of family’ d. familjepolitik (PURPOSE) politique familiale ‘family policy’ ‘family policy’

Examples (13–14) show Swedish NN compounds containing livsmedel ‘food’ and familj ‘family’ along with their French counterparts. Here, there does not seem to be any preferred relation for the modifier (or non-head) constituents. Hence one might wonder to what extent different modifiers actually have preferred relations in the sense of Gagné and Shoben (1997).

6 CONCLUDING REMARKS

In conclusion, in order to render the semantic relations expressed within Swedish NN compounds, French makes use of several different formal Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

118 maria rosenberg

structures. My data indicates that French NA constructions are the most frequent counterparts, followed by N de N constructions and simple Ns. NA and N de N constructions are able to express nearly all of the semantic relations proposed for NN compounds. Hence this result can be taken as support for Nicoladis’ (2002) claim that the preposition de is on its way to become a linking element, which in turn could imply that N de N constructions should have the same status as compounds in French, namely deriving from morphology. When the French counterparts of Swedish NN compounds correspond to simple Ns, they can correspond to either one of the two constituents in the Swedish compound, thus not necessarily to the head constituent. One might assume that this has to do with the semantic relation expressed in the Swedish compound, a hypothesis which needs to be further investigated. The distribution of semantic relations in combination with particular constructions in French also merits more detailed study than is carried out here. New constructions and variations may be helpful to shed light upon semantic restrictions governing particular constructions and their productivity. Overall, the semantic classification of the data indicates that the most productive semantic relations are quite general. There were few French NN constructions in the data. However, the analysis indicates that they are semantically less flexible than Swedish NN compounds. This might thus partly explain why they are also considerably less productive. In light of this finding, it would be interesting to examine Swedish counterparts of French NN constructions. One can predict that they would correspond to NN compounds to a very high extent. To conclude, the contrastive perspective is highly profitable and presents the advantage of having potential application within second-language acquisition and natural language processing, such as machine translation and disambiguation analysis (see Johnston and Busa 1999). Moreover, parallel corpora are most useful for studying the often ignored impact of contextual and pragmatic factors on the interpretation of compounds (see Lapata 2002). According to Pustejovsky (1995a) and Jackendoff (2009), among others, the lexicon is a generative system allowing meaning to be flexible. In this context, further important issues are to examine to what extent compounds are open to different interpretations or have fixed meanings, as well as to continue to explore the semantic structure of nouns.

NOTES

1. In French, neoclassical compounds, e.g. océanographe ‘oceanographer’, are traditionally seen as right-headed (Namer 2005: 22). semantic and formal structure 119

2. However, Gagné and Spalding’s (2006: 147) state that ‘whether a compound is represented as a whole word or in terms of its constituents appears to be related to semantic transparency’. Dressler (2006: 41) distinguishes four degrees of morphosemantic transparency within compounds. Transparency of the head is most important: (a) transparency of both constituents (doorbell); (b) transparency of the head, opacity of the non-head (strawberry); (c) transparency of the non-head, opacity of the head (jailbird); (d) opacity of both constituents (humbug). Following Semenza and Mondini’s (2006) claim, I will not consider transparency degrees in this study. 3. Fradin (2003: 196, 199) has a restricted view of French NN compounds, in contrast to Noailly (1990: 65–93) who seems to treat all French NN constructions (including compounds) as syntactic. 4. A bidirectional, extensive and well-balanced Swedish-French parallel corpus is being elaborated along the lines proposed by McEnery et al. (2006: 46–51). 5. Only 303 (0.008 per cent) French plural NN compounds were attested in a French corpus consisting of 3,702,906 tokens compiled by Umeå University, Sweden and containing text from two Belgian newspapers, La libre Belgique and Le Soir, and two French newspapers, Le Monde and Le Monde Économique. 6. Note that Bisetto and Scalise (2005) propose a different classification of compounds, based on the grammatical relation between the constituents: subordinate, attributive or coordinate. Subordinate compounds involve a complement relation, such as chèque-restaurant ‘dinner cheque’. In attributive NN compounds, the non-head expresses, often metaphorically, an attribute of the head, such as camion-suicide ‘suicide lorry’. The constituents of coordinate compounds are linked by the conjunction ‘and’, such as boulanger-pâtissier ‘baker-confectioner’. 7. It is not ambiguous in the way football is between ‘game’ or ‘ball’, since it picks out the same object no matter which interpretation you give it (Jackendoff 2009: 117). 8. That is, ‘variant interpretations [. . .] under which a nominal can be understood’, which can be part of its lexical meaning (Jackendoff 2009: 119). 9. According to Cadiot (1993), there are two principal types of N1 à N2 constructions: à/AVEC ‘with’ (verre à pied ‘goblet’) and à/POUR ‘for’ (verre à dents ‘tooth mug’), corresponding to PART and PURPOSE in Table 6.4. 10. In the Swedish data, there are two occurrences of barnkrubba ‘kindergarten’, which is archaic and non-idiomatic, and must be due to a translation of an expression such as crèche ‘kindergarten’ in French. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

120 maria rosenberg

11. The French counterpart substance aromatique ‘aroma compound’ is also attested. 12. The French counterpart groupes minoritaires ‘minority groups’ is also attested. chapter 7 The semantics of lexical modification: meaning and meaning relations in German A+N compounds

Barbara Schlücker

his chapter explores the semantics of German A+N compounds as Topposed to A+N phrases. Taking into account various data, the chapter shows that in their semantics, German A+N compounds are far from being simple or consistent. The main claim is that there are systematic meaning differences between lexical and syntactic adjectival modification but that these differences do not arise from differences on the level of semantic form. That is, the internal modification relations found in A+N compounds and A+N phrases are basically the same, contrary to what has been proposed in the literature. Furthermore, the chapter also discusses differences and similarities between the semantic properties of A+N and N+N compounds. The structure of the paper is as follows: section 1 introduces the issue; section 2 gives a brief overview of the formal properties of German A+N compounds and phrases. The third section discusses the main point of the chapter, that is the semantics of lexical adjectival modification as opposed to phrasal adjectival modification. The fourth section examines the difference between adjectival lexical modification and nominal lexical modification and is followed by a summary in section 5.

1 INTRODUCTION

Research on the semantics of nominal compounds concentrates for the most part on N+N compounds, in English as well as in German and other languages. The reason for this is obvious: N+N compounding is highly productive, both in English and German, and it seems reasonable to assume that one explanation for this productivity lies in the fact that N+N Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

122 barbara schlücker

compounding combines two concepts but leaves open the exact nature of the relation between them. From this point of view, the meaning of compounds is inherently underspecified and therefore very flexible. In comparison to N+N compounds, the semantics of A+N compounds seem to be rather simple: the property denoted by the adjective is predicated to the noun referent, such that a blackbird is a bird that has the property of being black, or, more precisely, a blackbird is an individual that is black and a bird. Thus, instead of the various meaning relations found with N+N compounds (e.g. a dollhouse is a house FOR dolls, a garden house is house LOCALIZED in the garden and a glasshouse is a house MADE-OF glass), there seems to be just a simple attributive modification relation in the case of A+N compounds. Of course, A+N compounding very often involves semantic specialization, as can be seen from the above example: not every black bird is a blackbird; rather, blackbird denotes a certain species, Turdus merula. Thus one of the questions to be answered is whether compounding always and inherently involves semantic specialization and whether this contributes to the semantic difference between lexical and syntactic modification. Another question has to do with the claim that, despite the above description, the meaning relation between the adjective and the noun is not generally as simple. Although such an ‘attributive’ relation can be found in most German A+N compounds, there are also deviant cases, such as Gelbfieber ‘yellow fever’: this is not a fever that is yellow but rather a fever that makes the person concerned become yellow (or, more precisely, have a yellow skin). So, instead of modifying the head noun, the adjective in these cases modifies an implicit referent (‘skin’). The main questions to be addressed in this paper are, therefore, first: What is the effect of word formation? That is, what is the difference between syntactic and lexical modification, as in (1a) and (1b), respectively.

(1) a. hohes Haus ‘high house’ b. Hochhaus ‘high_house’, i.e. skyscraper And second: Do compounds have an abstract meaning? How does the modifier contribute to the compound meaning? As can be seen from the examples in (2), the function of the modifier in a compound can roughly be described as identifying and selecting a subconcept of the concept denoted by the head noun (see Zimmer 1971; Downing 1977; Berman and Clark 1989).

(2) a. FertigAhausN, HochAhausN ‘ready house’, i.e. prefabricated house, ‘high house’, i.e. skyscraper

b. KrankenNhausN, EckNhausN ‘invalid house’, i.e. hospital, ‘corner house’ the semantics of lexical modification 123

c. WohnVhausN, BadeVhausN ‘living house’, i.e. residential house, ‘bathing house’, i.e. bathhouse

d. HinterPhausN, OberPhausN ‘back house’, i.e. rear building, ‘above house’, i.e. upper house

The modifier, whether it is an adjective, a noun, a verb or a preposition, selects one particular meaning aspect (e.g. the intended use, the form or location) in order to do so, although the subconcepts will usually not only differ from each other in this particular respect. I will not consider V+N and P+N compounds in the remainder of the chapter; however, I will argue that, despite the common function of modifiers as just described, there may also be functional differences between adjectival and nominal lexical modifiers.

2 FORMAL PROPERTIES OF GERMAN A+N COMPOUNDS AND PHRASES

In a way, the above mentioned example blackbird is rather atypical for English, because it is unquestionably regarded as a compound. This status is also reflected by the fact that it is consistently written as one word. There are a number of similar, often quite old compounds, such as poorhouse, shortbread, hotbed or greenhouse, but in general it seems rather difficult to establish a clear formal difference between nominal compounds and corresponding phrases in English, both for A+N and N+N combinations. Accordingly, a discussion about the classification of forms like black board, silk tie and apple pie has been going on at least since Bloomfield (1933) and has not yet been decided (see Bauer 1998 and Giegerich 2004, 2006, among many others).1 German, on the contrary, exhibits a clear formal difference between nominal compounds and corresponding phrases, as they can be distinguished unambiguously by means of stress and inflection: the main stress is on the head of the phrase but on the modifier of the compound and the phrasal modifier is inflected but not the lexical one. This distinction is also reflected by spelling, as compounds are consistently written in one word whereas phrases are written in two words – see (3).

(3) alte Stádt – Áltstadt ‘old city’

Morphologically complex adjectives are excluded from A+N compounding, with the exception of adjectives suffixed byal - , -ar , -är , -iv , -ig (e.g. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

124 barbara schlücker

Instrumentalmusik ‘instrumental music’) and some participle forms. There are no restrictions whatsoever on the noun. The question of the semantic effects of word formation and the semantic difference between lexical and syntactic modification hinges crucially on a clear formal difference between lexical and syntactic modification. As German allows such a clear formal distinction, the German data are especially well-suited for investigating the semantic properties of lexical and syntactic modification.

3 SYNTACTIC AND LEXICAL MODIFICATION

A very common assumption about the semantics of compounds as opposed to phrases is that phrases have compositional meaning whereas compounds have non-compositional meaning, i.e. they exhibit semantic specialization – see (4).

(4) a. alte Stadt – Altstadt ‘old city’ – ‘historic city centre’ b. süßes Wasser – Süßwasser ‘sweet water’ – ‘freshwater’ c. frischer Käse – Frischkäse ‘fresh cheese’ – ‘cream cheese’

The compositional interpretation of phrases has often led to an analysis according to which syntactic modification is intersective modification: alte Stadt denotes an individual that is both old and a city. However, it has often been mentioned that such an analysis is deficient. First, it does not work for non-intersective adjectives like ehemalig ‘former’ or angeblich ‘alleged’: ehemaliger Präsident ‘former president’ does not refer to the intersection of the set of individuals that are former and the set of individuals that are a president. Second, intersective modification often also seems to be inap- propriate (or at least inaccurate) when dealing with intersective adjectives in cases such as (5).

(5) a. red apple, pink grapefruit b. roter Apfel, rosa Grapefruit

A red apple is an apple with a red peel whereas a pink grapefruit is a grapefruit with pink pulp (but a white or yellow peel) – see Lahav (1989, 1993), Sweetser (1999). The same holds for the German counterparts in (5b). Interestingly, these examples are phrases as can be seen from the the semantics of lexical modification 125

inflected adjective and stress, indicating that these meaning properties do not originate from the supposed non-compositional interpretation of compounds. All in all, these few examples show that the analysis of syntactic adjectival modification is far from simple. It becomes even more complicated if relational adjectives such as nuklear ‘nuclear’, sozial ‘social’ or medizinisch ‘medical’ are taken into consideration. These adjectives do not denote a property on their own but rather establish a meaning relation between the base noun they are derived from and the head noun. Furthermore, they deviate from other adjectives with regard to their morphosyntactic behaviour. Therefore I will not consider these adjectives here.

3.1 Intersective and partial modification Cases like (4) show that there is a very clear meaning difference between A+N phrases and A+N compounds. However, one could easily argue that this meaning difference does not stem from a basic difference between the semantics of syntactic adjectival modification and lexical adjectival modification, but that it rather has to do with the fact that Altstadt, Süßwasser and Frischkäse are lexicalized compounds. For this reason, I will use newly coined, non-lexicalized combinations of an adjective and a noun in order to investigate the semantic difference between syntactic and lexical modification, such as rot ‘red’ and Ball ‘ball’. Of course, the phrase roter Ball is a common expression, but neither the compound Rotball nor the phrase roter Ball is a lexicalized sequence in German. To begin with, the adjective is not accessible for syntactic modification after compounding. In (6a), the degree particle (or adverb) sehr ‘very’ modifies the adjective rot; in (6b), however, rot, in the modifier position of the compound, cannot be modified. In this prenominal position, sehr can only modify the entire compound, which is, however, a noun and for this reason cannot be modified by an adverb.

(6) a. Das ist ein sehr roter Ball ‘This is a very red ball’ b. *Das ist ein sehr Rotball ‘This is a very red_ball’

The non-accessibility of the adjective in the modifier position of the compound can also account for semantic differences between phrases and compounds, as illustrated by the examples (7)–(9).2 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

126 barbara schlücker

(7) a. *Das ist ein blauer roter Ball ‘This is a blue red ball’ b. Das ist ein blauer Rotball ‘This is a blue red_ball’

(8) a. *Das ist kein roter Ball, obwohl er rot ist ‘This isn’t a red ball though it is red’ b. Das ist kein Rotball, obwohl er rot ist ‘This isn’t a red_ball though it is red’

(9) a. ??Das ist ein roter Ball, weil er rot ist ‘This is a red ball because it is red’ b. Das ist ein Rotball, weil er rot ist ‘This is a red_ball because it is red’

Example (7) shows that compounds apparently allow for incompatible attribution whereas phrases do not. That is, adding an attribute that is semantically incompatible with the modifier yields a semantic contradic- tion in the case of the phrase but not with the compound. Similarly, the negation in (8) causes a contradictory reading in the case of the phrase but not with the compound. And finally, the causal subordinate clause in (9) leads to a tautological interpretation with the phrase but it is perfectly informative with the compound. All these data can be explained on the assumption that the adjective embedded in the compound is semantically non-accessible. The non- accessibility of the internal constituents of morphologically complex words has first been observed by Postal (1969). Postal claimed that complex (as well as monomorphemic) words are anaphoric islands, i.e. neither the internal constituents of a complex word nor the entities that constitute part of the meaning may serve as antecedents for pronominal reference.3 However, the data discussed by Postal (1969) are restricted to N+N combinations. Whereas anaphoric reference can easily be made to a nominal antecedent by means of pronouns, this is more difficult in the case of adjectival antecedents. A proposal for anaphoric reference to an adjective is given in (10) and indeed it shows that the adjective embedded in the compound cannot easily be accessed (although such an interpretation is not totally excluded).4

(10) a. Ich habe nicht nur einen roten Ball, sondern auch einen solchen / so einen Schläger b. ??Ich habe nicht nur einen Rotball, sondern auch einen solchen / so einen Schläger ‘I do not only have a red ball but also such a racket’ the semantics of lexical modification 127

The question then is how this non-accessibility can be explained. Bücking (2009, 2010) proposes an explanation on the level of semantic form. He adopts the abstract modification template MOD* (see (11a)) which is accompanied by the structural condition in (11b) (see Bücking 2010: 256).5

(11) a. MOD*: λQ λP λx [P(x) ˄ R (x, v) ˄ Q(v)] b. Condition: if MOD* is applied at the lexical level, then R is instantiated as

Rintegral, if it is applied on the phrasal level, R corresponds to the identity function.

According to (11a), a modifier-head structure consists of two predicates P and Q whose arguments x and v stand in a relation R to each other. According to (11b), R may be spelled out in two different ways. At the lexical level, i.e. in the case of compounds, R is instantiated as Rintegral. Rintegral ‘identifies some entity’s integral constituents’ (Bücking 2010: 257). At the phrasal level, R is the identity function. Phrasal modification, then, is intersective modification whereas lexical modification can be described as partial modification. (12) and (13) illustrate how the application of the template yields the respective interpretation of syntactic and lexical modification.

(12) a. Syntactic modification: λQ λP λx [P(x) ˄ identity (x, v) ˄ Q(v)] = λQ λP λx [P(x) ˄ Q(x)] b. roter Ball: λx [ball (x) ˄ red (x)]

(13) a. Lexical modification: λQ λP λx [P(x) ˄ Rintegral (x, v) ˄ Q(v)] b. Rotball: λx [ball (x) ˄ Rintegral (x, v) ˄ red (v)]

Thus, according to this analysis, non-accessibility is the result of a partial modification relation: the adjectival modifier is inaccessible as it is bound to a non-specified variable v that represents an integral constituent of the head noun. This analysis can explain the data in (7)–(9), as illustrated in (14): the (a)-sentence is semantically contradictory because x cannot be blue and red at the same time. (14b), however, denotes individuals x that are a ball and blue and that have an integral part v (not specified) that is red. In this way, the predication of blue and red does not conflict.

(14) a. *blauer roter Ball: λx [blue (x) ˄ ball (x) ˄ red (x)]

b. blauer Rotball: λx [blue (x) ˄ ball (x) ˄ Rintegral (x, v) ˄ red (v)]

However, there are some objections to be raised to this analysis. First, an intersective analysis for syntactic modification sometimes seems to fail Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

128 barbara schlücker

(or at least to be inaccurate) for intersective adjectives. For cases like (5) the partial analysis seems to be much more adequate than the intersective analysis. Lahav (1993) makes a similar argument regarding cases like (15), which can be perfectly applied to the German phrasal equivalents.

(15) a. braune Kuh ‘brown cow’ b. brauner Kristall ‘brown crystal’ c. brauner Keks ‘brown cookie’

A brown cow is a cow whose body’s surface (or most of it) is brown, but not the internal organs or the face, a brown crystal must be brown outside and inside and for a cookie to count as brown it suffices to be covered with brown sugar. Lahav (1989) argues that this problem applies to almost all adjectives and that the part of noun referent that is to be modified by the adjective varies considerably and non-systematically with the types of noun referents. Consequently, the interpretation of syntactic modification must be highly flexible, just like lexical modification, and involves contextual and conceptual knowledge. On the other hand, the meaning of many compounds can be captured more adequately with an intersective interpretation than with a partial one – see (16):

(16) a. Rotwein ‘red wine’ b. Direktflug ‘non-stop flight’ c. Billigfleisch ‘cheap meat’ d. Blaubeere ‘blueberry’ e. Feingold ‘fine gold’

It is the complete wine that is red and not an integral part thereof, and the flight as a whole is direct, not a part of it. This is not to say that there may not be semantic specialization in some of these cases (of course, not every berry that is blue is a blueberry and only gold with a fineness of 999 counts as fine gold). But the underlying modification structure in all of those cases is intersective, not partial. And finally, there are three subclasses of A+N compounds that can be captured neither with an intersective nor with a partial analysis as they exhibit a structurally more complex modification relation. In these cases, the adjective does not modify the head noun but rather an implicit referent that is semantically related to the head noun. Note that these modification relations cannot be captured by the partial analysis as this is a relation between the modifier and an integral part of the head constituent. In the cases at hand (see (17)–(19)), however, there is a modification relation the semantics of lexical modification 129 between the adjectival modifier and a noun referent which is distinct from the head noun. In the first subclass, exemplified in (17), there is generally a causal relation, bringing about a change of state such that the implicit noun has the property denoted by the adjective.6

(17) a. Gelbfieber ‘yellow fever’ b. Jungbrunnen ‘young fountain’, i.e. fountain of youth c. Trockenhaube ‘dry hood’, i.e. dryer hood d. Magersucht ‘meagre addiction’, i.e. anorexia

The compound Jungbrunnen, for instance, does not denote an entity that is a fountain and young at the same time, nor is any part of the fountain young. In fact, the internal semantic structure is much more complex: it is a fountain that causes the person who takes a bath in the water of this fountain to become young (see also Gelbfieber – section 1). The class in (18) is similar, but it lacks the causal relationship: the adjective modifies an implicit noun referent that is semantically related to the head noun. So warm in (18a) is related to an implicit noun ‘house’, such that Warmmiete denotes the rent that has to be paid for a heated house.

(18) a. Warmmiete ‘warm rent’, i.e. rent including heating b. Leerfahrt ‘empty drive’, i.e. journey without cargo c. Nacktkultur ‘nude culture’, i.e. nudism d. Trockenschnitt ‘dry haircut’

In the last subclass, as exemplified in (19), the adjective is interpreted as an adverb and it modifies an implicit verb that is semantically related to the expressed noun: a Schnellgericht is a meal that is prepared quickly.7

(19) a. Schnellgericht ‘quick meal’, i.e. instant meal b. Scharfschütze ‘sharp shooter’ c. Simultandolmetscher ‘simultaneous interpreter’

To summarize, the data in (7)–(9) provide evidence for the assumption that there is a semantic difference between lexical adjectival modification and syntactic adjectival modification. As these data are newly coined, non-lexicalized A+N combinations, this difference cannot originate from idiosyncratic lexicalized meaning aspects. Taking into account various types of data, I have argued that an approach that operates on the level of semantic form, analysing syntactic modification as intersective modification and lexical modification as partial modification, cannot explain the semantic properties of A+N compounds and phrases in general, as Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

130 barbara schlücker

there are phrases with a partial meaning relation and compounds with an intersective meaning relation as well as compounds that have a much more complex semantic structure.

3.2 Lexical modification as classifying modification The claim advanced here is that there is no difference between lexical and syntactic adjectival modification in terms of semantic form. The modification relation between the adjective and the noun can be very well captured by a modification template such as that in (11a), given that R receives a more flexible interpretation so that it can also account for compounds with a complex internal semantic structure, such as in (17)–(19). But, importantly, there is no correlation between the different specifications of R on the one hand and the lexical/syntactic distinction on the other. In fact, phrases as well as compounds can realize any of the possible specifications of R. The only exception in this regard are complex internal structures where the adjective modifies an implicit noun referent as such structures are only rarely found with phrases. Instead, lexical modification should be regarded as classifying modification, which can best be characterized from two perspectives. First, compounds refer to a complex concept which is a subconcept of the concept denoted by the head. According to Gunkel and Zifonun (2009, 2011), classifying modification means that the complex expression refers to a concept that is a subconcept of the concept denoted by the head alone (i.e. the hyperconcept) and that this subconcept is created by conceptual restriction (see also Rijkhoff 2004, 2008). This sets compounds apart from derivations and exocentric compounds and also from some (though not all) lexicalized A+N phrases such as grüner Daumen (‘green thumb’), because the subconcept has an inherent systematic relationship to the hyperconcept and also to potential co-subordinate concepts. This gives rise to contrasts such as (20).

(20) a. Junghase ‘young rabbit’, i.e. leveret b. alter Hase ‘old rabbit’, i.e. old stager

Junghase has an implicit meaning relation to the hyperconcept Hase as well as to potential co-hyponym concepts such as Althase lit. old rabbit, ‘leading rabbit’, but the lexicalized phrase alter Hase does not. Classifying modifiers, according to Gunkel and Zifonun (2009), need to meet two conditions: they must be non-referential and restrictive. Adjectives are not referential in principle (for further discussion of this point see section 4) and they can, normally, be used restrictively (although they also may be used non-restrictively), i.e. they are used in order to the semantics of lexical modification 131 determine the reference of the NP, whereas a non-restrictive modifier adds further information about an independently established referent – see Partee (1997: 319). However, an adjective such as rot may be used restrictively both in a compound and a phrase, so this does not yet explain the difference between syntactic and lexical modification. The second claim therefore is that compounding creates a new, self-contained concept. This sets compounds apart from phrases. Syntactic modification may be restrictive and it adds information to one particular instance of the concept denoted by the head, such as in (21).

(21) Ich möchte den roten Ball kaufen (nicht den blauen) ‘I want to buy the red ball (not the blue one)’

Importantly, however, no new concept is created. The phrasal modifier specifies one particular instance of the concept denoted by the head but leaves the concept as it is. Lexical modification, on the other hand, yields a new, individual subconcept. Similar distinctions have been made by Bolinger (1967; reference vs. referent modification) and Rosenbach (2006, 2007; type vs. token restriction). Gunkel and Zifonun (2011) introduce several structural types of classifying modification among which are N+N compounds and A+N phrases with relational adjectives, such as medizinische Untersuchung ‘medical examination’ or häusliche Gewalt ‘domestic violence’.8 Obviously, A+N compounds are also generally classifying. If lexical modification creates a new, individual subconcept, it can easily be explained why compounds are well-suited for use as common nouns and why they often (though not in general) become lexicalized (see also Dahl 2004). Lexicalization, in turn, often comes along with semantic specialization. More precisely, if it is the inherent function of lexical modification to identify an individual subconcept then this subconcept may be narrowly delimited. This is exactly what semantic specialization means – see (22).

(22) a. dicker Hase ‘fat rabbit’ b. Junghase ‘young rabbit’, i.e. leveret

Junghase is not only a rabbit that is young (such as a dicker Hase is a rabbit that is fat) but it also has an additional meaning component ‘offspring’, that is it is the term used in order to denote the next generation. On this basis we might conclude that compounds are inherently apt for semantic specialization, but semantic specialization is bound to lexicalization. Rotwein ‘red wine’ and Direktflug ‘non-stop flight’, on the other hand, are examples Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

132 barbara schlücker

of lexicalized compounds that refer to established subconcepts but do not exhibit semantic specialization: every red wine is a Rotwein, and every direct flight a Direktflug, without further meaning restrictions. If compounds are inherently classifying, speakers will use compounds rather than phrases if they want to express that an adjective and a noun fuse into a new single complex concept.9 On the other hand, hearers use this conceptual knowledge when interpreting new, unknown A+N combinations: when encountering an unknown A+N compound they will accommodate the existence of such an individual, self-contained subconcept. In the light of this view on compounds, it is interesting to consider again the formal properties of compounds and phrases which, as stated above, can be clearly distinguished from each other, among other things, by stress. First, as pointed out by Eisenberg (2002), the initial stress on the modifier constituent of compounds can be interpreted as morphologized contrastive stress. That is, the stress on the modifier is used to refer to alternative subconcepts of the head concept in the case of compounds, but not in the case of phrases, as exemplified in (20). Second, the initial stress on the modifier constituent in compounds can be interpreted as an indication for a holistic interpretation of these complex expressions. Jacobs (1993, 1999) suggests a connection between the stress patterns of heads and their sister constituents and their semantic properties. The basic idea is that there is an ‘integrational’ relation between two sister constituents that conflate them to one single semantic entity in such a way that their meaning is ‘semantically processed at one fell swoop’ (Jacobs 1999: 57). That is, those entities are referred to holistically, there is ‘only one property, although its quality is determined by combining the meanings of the two constituents.’ The relation of integration is asymmetric as there is always one constituent that is integrated into the other, so that it does not correspond to a separate processing step. The stress pattern indicates whether there exists such a relation of integration between two constituents or not: in case of integration the integrated constituent bears the stress, otherwise the stress is on the head. This is exactly what is found in the case of A+N compounds and phrases: the compounds have main stress on the modifier. Thus the meaning of the adjective is not processed separately but forms a complex semantic entity with the head noun. In the case of A+N phrases, however, the main stress is on the head noun, indicating that the adjective and the noun are to be processed separately and that they do not form a semantic unity. That is, the initial stress on the adjective in the case of a compound works as an indication for the hearer that the processing of the adjective has to be postponed and that it rather has to be interpreted together with the noun as part of the complex meaning unit. the semantics of lexical modification 133

3.3 The identification of the subconcept In this section, I will discuss the way in which lexical modifiers identify new subconcepts and provide an alternative explanation for the data in (7)–(9). As stated above, there are several kinds of adjectival modification relations, including intersective and partial modification as well as more complex modification structures involving an implicit referent. The lexical modifier singles out a salient feature of the subconcept but this is not (necessarily) the only one that discriminates this particular subconcept from other co- subconcepts. It is just one that seems to be suitable to identify this particular subconcept. Often, therefore, these are properties that can be observed in one way or another, such as outer shape, localization, taste, sound, etc. However, less observable properties such as abstract properties and properties referring to the function of the subconcept are also found, as in (23).

(23) a. Großhandel ‘big trade’, i.e. wholesale trade b. Vollmilch ‘full milk’, i.e. whole milk c. Magermilch ‘meagre milk’, i.e. low-fat milk d. Intensivstation ‘intensive ward’, i.e. intensive care unit e. Rundschreiben ‘round letter’, circular letter

Even if the property denoted by the adjectival modifier is not at all predicated to the head noun, as it is the case with compounds with an implicit referent, this modifier can be used in order to identify a subconcept of the head noun. This can be seen from the examples in (17)–(19) as well as from the recently attested, non-established examples in (24).

(24) a. Schlankfrucht ‘slim fruit’ b. Nacktgebot10 ‘naked instruction’

The first example refers to fruit that makes one stay (or become) slim, namely melons (which certainly do not have a slim shape themselves), the second to usage instruction(s) concerning nudity for sauna visitors. It is, however, impossible to receive the same interpretation for the corresponding phrases schlanke Frucht and nacktes Gebot. It seems, then, that any kind of modification relation can be used for identifying a subconcept of the head noun. We can now get back to the data in (7)–(9). Comparing the (a)-sentences, repeated here as (25), reveals that the reader has to accommodate different interpretations of the (non-existent) concept ‘Rotball’.

(25) a. Das ist ein blauer Rotball ‘This is a blue red_ball’ Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

134 barbara schlücker

b. Das ist kein Rotball, obwohl er rot ist ‘This isn’t a red_ball though it is red’ c. Das ist ein Rotball, weil er rot ist ‘This is a red_ball because it is red’

The surface of ‘Rotball’ as referred to in (25a) is obviously not red. Rot may instead be used in order to indicate the function of this concept, for instance marking the road surface with red signs. It may also be the case that the concept ‘Rotball’, linked to a particular subconcept, originally meant ‘ball with a red surface’ but that in the course of time the colour changed while the concept remained stable.11 The surface of ‘Rotball’ as referred to in (25b) may be red or not; in any case this is not the reason for it being called a ‘Rotball’. Only in the concept of ‘Rotball’ as referred to in (26c) is the red surface the salient feature that indicates this particular subconcept. Note, however, that there must be other properties, too, that distinguish the concept ‘Rotball’ from the concept ‘Ball’, because otherwise (25c) would be not informative but rather tautological, as its phrasal counterpart in (9a). The acceptability of the sentences in (25) as opposed to their phrasal counterparts (7b), (8b) and (9b) can be explained on two assumptions. First, lexical modification is classifying modification. The function of the lexical modifier is to identify a new, self-contained concept. The modification relation is very flexible and it can modify the noun referent as well as any other, semantically related referent. Second, speakers generally try to give a meaningful interpretation to any sentence they hear. It is not at all problematic to infer three different interpretations of the newly coined compound Rotball as in (26) in order to yield three meaningful, acceptable sentences, given the classifying function of compounds as described.

4 NOMINAL LEXICAL MODIFICATION

In this last section I will compare adjectival and nominal lexical modification. The preceding sections have presented both shared and different properties of A+N and N+N compounds. To start with the differences, nominal lexical modification generally includes an additional relational meaning predicate, such as INSTRUMENT, LOC, PART-OF etc., as illustrated in (26).

(26) a. Fingersprache INSTRUMENT (x, y) ‘finger language’‚ i.e. sign language b. Fingerring LOC (x, y) ‘finger ring’ the semantics of lexical modification 135

c. Fingerspitze PART-OF (x, y) ‘fingertip’

Adjectival lexical modification, on the other hand, lacks such a relational predicate, although the meaning relation between the adjective and the noun is not always straightforward, as discussed above. So, the modification template introduced in (11a) might also be used for nominal lexical modification, given an additional condition that accounts for the fact that R in N+N compounds is to be specified as a lexically filled relational meaning predicate. In fact, such analyses have frequently been proposed in the literature – see Motsch (2004), Guevara and Scalise (2009), Jackendoff (2010), among many others. On the other hand, adjectival as well as nominal lexical modification seems to be classifying modification. According to Gunkel and Zifonun (2009), non-referentiality is a precondition for classifying modification. They argue that adjectives are inherently non-referential, in contrast to nouns.12 However, from a semantic point of view, nouns are referential (or non-referential) in the same way as adjectives are. Whether a noun is referential depends on the particular use of the noun phrase it is part of. So, to be more precise, a modifier may not be used referentially in order to serve as a classifying modifier. This explains very well ‘[. . .] the well- known fact that referential expressions do not fit well into the internal structure of lexical items, which has its counterpart in the apparently universal reluctance to incorporate definite noun-phrases’ (Dahl 2004: 180), as illustrated in (28):

(28) a. *Die-Birnenblume ‘the pear flower’ b. Birnenblume ‘pear flower’

Referential modification, i.e. modification by means of a modifier that refers to an individual non-linguistic object, seems to be restricted to phrasal modification, such as in (29), and it does not have a classifying function.

(29) a. das Zimmer mit den bunten Bildern ‘the room with the colourful pictures’ b. der Tisch meines Vaters ‘the table of my father’

However, as has often been observed in the literature, there are also non-classifying N+N compounds with a modifier that is interpreted Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

136 barbara schlücker

referentially. These compounds do not denote self-contained subconcepts. Their function has rather been characterized as descriptive, deictic or discourse-structuring. They are used to compress information, e.g. in a newspaper headline (see, among others, Downing 1977; Kastovsky 1982; Booij 2009a). Downing’s (1977) well-known apple juice seat forms an illus- trative example: this compound (as well as its German counterpart) can be used, in a particular situation, in order to refer to a seat in front of which stands a glass of apple juice. Certainly, this use does not imply the existence of a subconcept ‘apple juice seat’. Interestingly, however, such a reading is dependent on an appropriate context. In context-free use the hearer will always accommodate an adequate subconcept. Other examples are taken from newspaper headlines. The compounds in (30) do not denote particular subconcepts of debates or videos respectively but they are condensed expressions, referring to recent events.

(30) a. Grundschul-Debatte: Was ist wirklich gut für unsere Kinder? ‘Primary school debate: what is really good for our children?’ b. Tierquäler-Video – Esel an Fallschirm gebunden ‘Animal torturer video – donkey tied to parachute’

For instance, (30a) refers to a recent debate on the referendum on the dura- tion of primary schooling in Hamburg. In particular, the modifier nouns are interpreted referentially, referring to a specific primary school system and a specific animal torturer respectively. Similarly, if the modifier is a proper name, as in (31), this modifier refers to an individual non-linguistic object and is therefore often interpreted referentially, such that the compound does not receive a classifying interpretation (and is therefore normally not lexicalized – see Gaeta and Ricca 2009).13

(31) a. Rumänien-Diktator ‘Romania dictator’ b. Berlusconi-Prozess ‘Berlusconi process’

The data from nominal lexical modification thus confirm the idea that the (default) meaning of lexical modification is classification. They also support the claim that classifying modifiers must be interpreted non-referentially. Accordingly, A+N compounds are always classificatory whereas N+N compounds may or may not be classificatory. the semantics of lexical modification 137

5 CONCLUSION

In this chapter, I have argued that the semantic structure of German A+N compounds is far from being clear or uniform across the data. In the literature, relatively little attention has been paid to the internal semantic structure of A+N compounds. Quite often, the semantics of A+N compounds are described as a simple ‘attributive’ structure, i.e. the property denoted by the adjectival modifier is predicated to the nominal referent. However, I have presented various data supporting the claim that there is much more variation and argued that, contrary to N+N compounds, this variation does not stem from an underspecified mediating variable, but rather from the fact that the referent the adjectival modifier is predicated to may be either the head noun referent or an implicit, semantically related referent. The second claim is that A+N compounds and A+N phrases do not differ with regard to their internal semantic structure but that in principle the same range of semantic relations can be found both with A+N compounds and phrases. The only difference in this regard are complex modification relations with an implicit noun referent to be modified as such relations are almost exclusively found with compounds. However, the different semantic behaviour A+N compounds and phrases exhibit is not related to the underlying modification relation but to the fact that compounds denote new, self-contained, stable subconcepts of the concept denoted by the head noun whereas phrases add information to one particular instance of the concept denoted by the head, leaving, however, this concept unchanged.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (HU 1635/1-1). I would like to thank the audience of the workshop ‘Meaning and Lexicalization of Word Formation’ at the 14th International Morphology Meeting 2010 in Budapest for the stimulating discussion. Special thanks go to Martin Schäfer.

NOTES

1. In view of the problems of differentiating between English compounds and phrases, Sweetser (1999) does not make a difference between A+N compounds and A+N phrases with regard to the semantics of English A+N modification. Other approaches, such as Jespersen Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

138 barbara schlücker

(1942: 137), claim that English compounds can only be identified on the basis of their deviant semantic properties. Bloomfield (1933: 227), on the other hand, argues that semantic specialization (as exemplified in blackbird as opposed to black bird) is not an appropriate criterion for compoundhood. 2. These are similar to examples discussed in ten Hacken (1994: 99–100) and Bücking (2009: 185). 3. See also Schäfer (this volume). 4. Ten Hacken (1994: 100) argues that there is no test that can identify the syntactic category of the modifier constituent of a compound. He suggests that an adjective such as rot ‘red’ in Rotbus may also be analysed as a noun ((das) Rot ‘(the) red’) as adjectives can be converted into nouns on a regular basis, such that the pronominal reference test can be applied. The test shows that pronominal reference to the alleged noun Rot is excluded. However, this argument does not work for all adjectives. Importantly, the nominalized forms of most adjectives do not coincide with the base form as they end with a schwa, see hart – das Harte ‘hard’, alt – das Alte ‘old’. Also, the fact that adverbial modification of the modifier constituent is excluded (see (6b)) does not provide evidence against the adjectival status of this constituent but rather indicates that the modifier constituent is semantically unacces- sible. While I am not convinced that the adjective can be analysed as a converted noun, from a broader, cognitive view it can be argued that the word class is of minor importance as the modifier serves to identify a subconcept indepent of the word class it belongs to (see the examples in (2)), or, as Jackendoff (2010: 424) puts it: ‘the syntax of English compounding is to some extent even blind to syntactic category’. From this point of view, the modifier constituent seems to be constrained by semantic and pragmatic restrictions rather than by syntactic category restrictions (see ten Hacken 2003b). 5. This template is based on a proposal by Maienborn (2003). 6. Related classifications can be found in Ortner and Müller-Bollhagen (1991), Simoska (1999) and Motsch (2004). 7. Yet another semantic subclass of A+N compounds are the so-called Bahuvrihi or possessive compounds (exocentric compounds), such as Rothaut ‘redskin’, Dummkopf ‘dumb head’ or Rotkehlchen ‘red throat’, i.e. robin redbreast. However, their internal semantic structure can be regarded as an ‘ordinary’ intersective relation. Crucially, those compounds receive a metonymic interpretation – see Booij (2007). 8. Note the semantic difference between A+N phrases with relational adjectives and A+N phrases with non-relational adjectives: while the former denote new, self-contained subconcepts, this is not true for the semantics of lexical modification 139

the latter as they do not receive a classifying interpretation – see teure Untersuchung ‘expensive examination’, große Gewalt ‘heavy violence’. Admittedly, there are also cases of A+N phrases with non-relational adjectives that nevertheless have a classifying meaning, e.g. saure Sahne ‘sour cream’. However, within the limits of this paper, they cannot be further discussed. 9. This is of course reminiscent of the view expressed in morphological/ typological works that word formation entities provide names whereas syntactic entities provide descriptions – see Bauer (1988). The claim that compounds are inherently classifying is closely linked to the idea that they exhibit a naming function. However, the question of naming forms an issue on its own, as this notion is far from being clear and uncontroversial. For this reason, it is not addressed in the present chapter. 10. (a) BILD-Zeitung, 21-07-2010; (b) Tagesspiegel, 14-02-2010 11. For a similar example involving Rotbus (‘red bus’), see ten Hacken (1994: 99). 12. A similar, typological view is taken in Croft (2000) who states that the (unmarked) pragmatic function of nouns is reference to an object, whereas it is modification by a property in the case of adjectives. 13. There are also cases of lexicalized compounds with a proper name modifier, such as Molotowcocktail ‘molotov cocktail’ or Röntgenstrahlen ‘X-rays’. In these cases, however, the proper name is not interpreted referentially. Rather, it has a commemorative function, i.e. the subconcept is named after the person denoted by the proper name modifier – see Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2009). Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

CHAPTER 8 Semantic transparency and anaphoric islands

Martin Schäfer

his chapter investigates the relationship between semantic transpar- Tency of compounds and their status as anaphoric islands. More specifically, I will take a detailed look at the behaviour of German adjective-noun compounds in this respect. The chapter argues that semantic transparency plays a crucial role in accessing compound-internal components for anaphoric reference and discusses a number of factors that motivate the actual usage of anaphora.

1 INTRODUCTION

Postal (1969) argued that words, whether monomorphemic or derived, are anaphoric islands.1 That is, neither internal constituents of morphologically complex words nor entities contained in the meaning of a word can serve as antecedents to a following anaphoric element, or, in Postal’s words, allow outbound anaphora.2 Two pieces of data supporting his claim are reproduced in (1) and (2), his (3) and (53), respectively.

(1) a. Max’s parentsi are dead and he deeply misses themi. b. *Max is an orphan and he deeply misses them.

(2) a. Harry was looking for a rack for booksi but he only found racks for very small onesi. b. *Harry was looking for a bookrack but he only found racks for very small ones.

In (1a), the pronoun them refers anaphorically to the referent of the noun phrase Max’s parents. In contrast, in (1b) them cannot refer to Max’s semantic transparency and anaphoric islands 141

parents, although the meaning of the word orphan ‘involves reference to the parents of an individual’ (Postal 1969: 206). Example (2) aims to show that even complex words are islands. In the first sentence, the noun phrase books can be picked up by the pro-form one in the second clause, contrasting with the morpheme book contained in the compound bookrack in the second sentence, which cannot be picked up by the pro-form one. In contrast to Postal’s findings, German adjective-noun- compounds do not act as barriers for anaphoric reference – see (3) and (4).

(3) Ich bin das Grünglas losgeworden, das weiße liegt noch im Auto. ‘I am the green-glass got.rid.off, the white lies still in.the car’ i.e. I got rid of the green glass, the white glass is still in the car.

(4) Ich liebe Großstädte, in kleinen gehe ich ein. ‘I love big-towns, in small go I in’ [cf. ein-gehen ‘to perish’] i.e. I love big cities, I cannot exist in small cities.

Standardly, both examples are interpreted as involving anaphoric reference by an empty element to the head of the compound. Thus we can assume the structure in (5) for (4), where PRO stands for an empty element:

(5) Ich liebe [Groß[städte]i], in kleinen PROi gehe ich ein.

On the other hand, this kind of anaphoric reference does not seem to be available across the board, as, for example, (6) shows, where # marks pragmatic deviance.

(6) #Mein Vater hat in seinem Garten schon mal einen Grünspecht gesehen, aber noch nie einen schwarzen. ‘My father has in his garden already once a green-woodpecker seen but so far never a black.’ Intended: My father once saw a green woodpecker in his garden, but he has never seen a black woodpecker.

In (6), we have the same basic configuration, that is an AN construction, followed by an A pro-form construction, but the strongly preferred interpretation is with anaphoric reference to the whole compound, not to just its head. Thus, instead of the intended interpretation of the second, elliptic AN construction as Schwarzspecht ‘black woodpecker’, the preferred interpretation is schwarzer Grünspecht, ‘black green woodpecker’. These two points, first that there are counter-examples to anaphoric islandhood, and secondly that anaphoric reference is sometimes more or Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

142 martin schäfer

less easily available, are not surprising, given that both aspects have been repeatedly pointed out in the literature on English. Why then this chapter with its focus on AN compounds in German? Firstly, two recent papers dealing with AN constructions use the status of compounds as anaphoric islands as a test for assigning compound or phrasal status to A N constructions for which no other measures are available (see Giegerich 2005 for English and Paul 2005 for Mandarin Chinese AN constructions), making it worthwhile to gather together the counter-evidence to the idea of anaphoric islandhood as a syntactic test once again. Secondly, the pattern found in the German data cannot be found in English, allowing us to elaborate on the mechanism behind these types of anaphoric relations. The chapter is organized as follows: section 2 introduces two rival accounts of anaphoric islandhood data and reviews the psycholinguistic evidence discussed in this context. Section 3 discusses the details of the German data and some findings from an explorative corpus study. Section 4 concludes the chapter.

2 ACCOUNTING FOR ANAPHORIC ISLANDS

The pattern in Postal’s data has been interpreted in two ways. In the first view, the pattern is taken as evidence for the existence of an anaphoric island and the relationship between the anaphoric element and its antecedent is seen as a syntactic relation. Based on this interpretation, the pattern has also been used as a diagnostic for compoundhood. In the second view, the key to the patterns lies in the pragmatics involved. I will discuss the two accounts in turn, dismissing the former in favour of the latter.

2.1 A syntactic interpretation A syntactic interpretation contains two core ingredients: (a) a classical anaphora account and (b) a strong version of the lexicalist hypothesis (also referred to as lexical integrity hypothesis). (7) contains a typical statement of the classical anaphora account, a quote from Hankamer and Sag’s description of what ‘by now may be called the “classical” position’ (1976: 394).

(7) Classical anaphora account: ‘[A]ll anaphoric processes are transformations that involve deletion (or conversion to a pro-form) of an underlyingly present, fully lexical segment under conditions of identity with an antecedent segment; [. . .]’ (Hankamer and Sag 1976: 394) semantic transparency and anaphoric islands 143

The lexicalist hypothesis can likewise be given in a maximally strong form– see (8).

(8) Lexicalist hypothesis [maximally strong version]: ‘The syntax neither manipulates nor has access to the internal form of words’ (Anderson 1992: 84)3

In weaker variants of the lexicalist hypothesis, anaphoric reference to word-internal constituents is allowed, for instance Selkirk’s (1982: 70) Word Structure Autonomy Condition. With (7) and (8) in place, the difference in the pair of example sentences in (2), repeated here for convenience, is accounted for as follows.

(9) a. Harry was looking for a rack for booksi but he only found racks for very small onesi. b. *Harry was looking for a bookrack but he only found racks for very small ones.

The underlying form of small ones in sentence (9a) is small books, where books, stripped of its inflectional ending, is a fully lexical segment that is identical to the preceding segment book in the phrase a rack for books. The conditions of the classical anaphora account are fulfilled and the second occurrence of books can be replaced by the pro-form ones. The very same conditions seem to be met in (9b): we have the underlying small books, with book again being identical to book in bookrack. However, this time, it is blocked by the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis: the syntactic process of anaphora formation is not allowed to look into the compound bookrack. Therefore, no identity can be established and no pro-form can be introduced. Following the logic of this explanation, this pattern, or rather the unavailability of this pattern, has been used to establish whether AN constructions in languages with few if any morphosyntactic marking of compounds are compounds or not. A simple example from English will clarify the logic behind this test. English has no clear morphosyntactic criteria for AN compounds, because the word forms of the adjective and the noun are unaffected by phrasal or compound status, and secondary criteria like spelling and stress placement are not decisive, that is a compound does not have to be spelled as one word, nor does it necessarily need to carry main stress on its left-hand constituent.4 Thus an AN construction like young dogs could, in principle, be either a phrase or a compound. However, employing lexical integrity and the classical anaphora account, we can settle this issue. First, we need to find a sentence containing a second AN construction with identical head, e.g. old Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

144 martin schäfer

dogs in I like young dogs, but Sue prefers old dogs. Secondly, we need to check whether it is possible to delete or replace the second head. In this case, it is possible – see John likes young dogs, but I prefer old ones. Combining the classical anaphor account and lexical integrity, there is only one possible way in which this deletion/substitution can take place, schematically given in (10).

(10) Schema for head noun deletion/substitution: a. A N . . . A N [Two AN constructions]

b. A Ni . . . A Ni [Head-Head identity can be established] c. A Ni . . . A Ni or A pro-formi [Head of second AN is deleted or replaced by a pro form]

In order to end up with the configuration in (10c), that is with a deleted or replaced head of the second AN construction, we need to start with two AN constructions in (10a) where the head to be deleted or replaced is still present. Only then can we identify two identical lexical segments, as required by the classical anaphora account, in this case the two heads, as indicated in (10b) through the use of the identical subscript. At the same time, the identity of the two heads can only be established if the first head can be seen by the syntactic component. According to the maximally strong version of the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis, this is only possible if the first AN construction is phrasal. Therefore the availability of the ANi . . . ANi/A pro-formi pattern shows that the first AN construction is phrasal. Recently, this argument has been employed in Giegerich (2005) and Paul (2005) for AN constructions in English and Mandarin Chinese, respectively. Thus, according to the pattern outlined in (10), Giegerich’s data in (11) – see (4) in Giegerich (2005: 579ff.) – can be taken to show that medical appointment is a phrasal construction whereas mental disorder is a compound.5

(11) a. Do you have a medical appointment or a dental one? b. *Is this a mental disorder or a nervous one?

Paul also uses the anaphoric island diagnostic in her discussion of Mandarin AN compounds, a representative minimal pair being (12), taken from (51a) in Paul (2008) and (19) in Paul (2005).

(12) a. *Wǒ xǐhuān lǜ-chá, hóng de yě kěyǐ I like green-tea red SUB also possible i.e. ‘I like green tea, but black [lit. red] tea is also OK.’ b. Amei bù xǐhuān huáng méigui, hóng de hái kěyi Amei NEG like yellow rose red SUB still acceptable i.e. ‘Amei doesn’t like yellow roses, red ones are still OK.’ semantic transparency and anaphoric islands 145

According to the syntactic reading of the contrast in (12), which is based on the parallel A N constructions lǜ-chá ‘green tea’ and hóng -chá ‘black [lit. red] tea’, the ungrammaticality of (12a) shows that lǜ-chá ‘green tea’ is a compound, whereas the grammaticality of (12b) shows huáng méigui ‘yellow rose’ (paired with hóng méigui ‘red rose’) to be a phrasal A N construction. The problem with the argument is that there are counter-examples for almost every prediction of the syntactic account, which are briefly summarized below, where we will start with some general remarks and then focus on counter-evidence involving compounds in English. In general, the counter-evidence shows two important things. Firstly, it shows that the syntactic explanation as stated by Postal is insufficient. Secondly, it shows that any explanation for the data must be able to explain different degrees of acceptability. This cline in acceptability was observed in one of the first reactions to Postal’s original paper, a paper by Lakoff and Ross (1972) giving the data and judgements reproduced in (13), their (2b) and (3a–b), where one in (13a) and it in (13b) and (13c) are intended to refer to the guitar.

(13) a. *A guitarist bought one yesterday b. ?*The guitarist thought that it was a beautiful instrument. c. ?John became a guitarist because he thought that it was a beautiful instrument.

Clearly, this cline cannot be explained by Postal’s original proposal, which makes a categorical difference between islands and non-islands. Other authors offering counter-examples to Postal’s strong claim include Tic Douloureux (1971), Corum (1973), Browne (1974) and Watt (1975), whose main claims and accounts are discussed in Ward et al. (1991) as well as Levi (1977). A representative set of counter-examples involving English compounds is presented below, first with anaphoric references to the first element of the compound – see (14) – and secondly with anaphoric reference to the second part of the compound – see (15).

(14) a. Although casual cocainei use is down, the number of people using iti routinely has increased.

b. Patty is a definite Kal Kani cat. Every day she waits for iti. c. I was an IRSi-agent for about 24 years . . . I stopped working for themi.

The examples in (14) are from the appendix to Ward et al. (1991). Cocaine use in (14a) is a synthetic compound which should disallow anaphoric reference to its two constituents. However, it refers back to cocaine and not to cocaine use. Similarly, it in (14b) refers back to the denotation of Kal Kan, that is to a specific brand of catfood, where Kal Kan is embedded in a Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

146 martin schäfer

standard endocentric compound, and finally, in (14c), it refers back to the IRS.6 The data discussed by Ward et al. (1991) is restricted to anaphoric reference to the first element of the compound, whereas Levi (1977) presents data where we see that reference to the second element is also possible – see (15), Levi’s (17b), (18b) and (19a).

(15) a. State taxesi were higher than municipal onesi. b. Steam ironsi need more maintenance than thosei that iron dry. c. Student poweri is insignificant compared to thati of the Dean.

In (15a), ones refers back to the denotation of taxes and not to that of state taxes, those in (15b) refers to that of irons and not to the denotation of steam irons, and finally that in (15c) refers back to the denotation of power and not to the denotation of student power. The German data presented in section 1 strengthens Levi’s observation insofar as the first A N constructions are clear compounds according to morphosyntactic criteria, whereas for English similarly clear-cut criteria are not available. In addition, the difference between the data in (3)–(4) and (6) shows also a cline in acceptability. Thus, while the patterns observed by Paul and Giegerich still need an explanation, it seems clear that anaphoric islandhood of the antecedents is not the correct one. The main alternative to the original proposal is the pragmatic account outlined below.

2.2 A pragmatic interpretation Ward et al. (1991) offer a pragmatic account for the anaphoric island data, summed up in the following quote: ‘. . . the degree to which outbound anaphora is felicitous is determined by the relative accessibility of the discourse entities evoked by word-internal lexical elements, and not by any principle of syntax or morphology’ (1991: 449). The question that emerges from this account is, naturally, what then determines the relative accessibility of the discourse entities involved. Ward et al. (1991) distinguish two sets of factors: (a) morphosyntactic/semantic factors and (b) pragmatic factors, that is contrastiveness and topicality. They discuss semantic transparency as the key morphosyntactic and semantic factor. Semantic transparency of a compound is understood by Ward et al. to involve accessing the meanings of both parts of the compound. Thus they claim that interpreting cocaine use and Kal Kan cat in the examples (14a) and (14b) above both require the hearer to access the meanings of the two constituents of the compounds. Due to this access to the meaning of the individual constituent, the corre- semantic transparency and anaphoric islands 147

sponding discourse entities are evoked and, in turn, available for anaphoric reference. In contrast, institutionalized, idiosyncratic compounds can acquire opaque meanings, that is meanings that cannot be ‘straightforwardly’ (1991: 454) interpreted on the basis of the meanings of the constituents of the compound. Once a compound has acquired an idiosyncratic meaning, ‘a hearer may access the meaning of the compound directly, i.e. without morphologically decomposing it’ (1991: 454). In consequence, the potential discourse entities are not evoked. This explains the pragmatic deviance of (16), Ward et al.’s (23a).

(16) Fritz is a [cow]iboy. # He says theyi can be difficult to look after.

While this explanation itself rests on a categorical contrast (either the meanings of the individual constituents are accessed or not), Ward et al. are careful to point out that opacity is a gradient phenomenon: ‘. . . the distinction between transparent words and opaque or institutionalized words is gradient rather than categorical. We would therefore expect word-internal morphemes to evoke discourse entities with a greater or lesser degree of accessibility depending, inter alia, upon the relative transparency of the containing word’ (1991: 455). However, a relative measure of semantic transparency is not introduced by the authors. Interestingly, Ward et al. argue that ‘While semantically transparent compounds do allow felicitous outbound anaphora, it is also true that anaphora involving antecedents within compounds is, other things being equal, more difficult to construe than anaphora involving non-word- internal antecedents’ (1991: 455). To account for this, they speculate that it may have something to do with the fact that in modifier-head constructions, which the compounds in their data essentially are, the modifiers are more backgrounded than the heads, a claim they support by referring to psycholinguistic evidence from McKoon et al. (1990).7 Note that this explanation only targets anaphoric reference to the non-heads of compounds, whereas the German data introduced in section 1 (examples (3), (4) and (6)) in all cases involves anaphoric reference to the head of the compound. As for pragmatic factors, Ward et al. (1991: 456) discuss contrast and topicality. Discourse entities seem to be more accessible if in salient opposition to some other discourse entity (see also Watt 1975): ‘topical discourse entities evoked by word-internal elements facilitate outbound anaphora . . .’ (Ward et al. 1991: 456). The role of topicality in the facilitation of outbound anaphora is also discussed by Bosch (1983: 238, note 116), who notes that this factor might be responsible for the difference in acceptability in the following example sentences from the original Postal paper:8 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

148 martin schäfer

(17) a. Prejudice against Jews makes rich ones donate money. b. *Anti-Semitism makes rich ones donate money.

(18) a. Max hunts for wild animals but Pete only kills domesticated ones. b. *Max is a wild-animal hunter but Pete only kills domesticated ones.

(19) a. Harry solicits for prostitutes and Pete arrests them. b. *Harry is a pimp and Pete arrests them.

All three b-sentences contain different examples for anaphoric islands, e.g. a neoclassical derivation in (17b), an [[AB]C] compound in (18b) and a monomorphemic word in (19b), yet for all three ‘islands’, the same, simple explanation can account for the missing availability of anaphoric reference: ‘The (a) sentences can be about Jews, wild animals, or prostitutes respectively, and accordingly anaphoric relations linking up to the corresponding referents are possible. In the (b) sentences there is no possibility for corresponding aboutness relations and hence no anaphora either’ (Bosch 1983: 238). In the German data, topicality and contrastiveness are inherent features of the pattern under investigation.

2.3 Psycholinguistic evidence The pragmatic account is partially supported by findings from psycho- linguists. On the one hand, Ward et al. (1991) report the results of a number of psycholinguistic experiments9 that show the importance of the two factors of transparency and topicality. On the other hand, their claims can be fruitfully linked to other psycholinguistic research on compounds. Ward et al. (1991) report experiments where the accessibility of discourse units serving as antecedents for anaphora was manipulated by (a) varying morphosyntactic structure (the antecedent either occurred in a nominal compound or in a verb phrase) and (b) varying topicality and contrast. The two most important results of the experiments are (a) when the antecedent is topical, there is no significant difference in reading times regardless of the antecedent occurring in a compound or not and (b) when the antecedent is non-topical, the reading times for the compound internal versions and the VP version differ significantly. In McKoon et al. (1993), these findings are accounted for by assuming that we use a discourse model, i.e. a continually updated representation of information built up in comprehension of texts. The model ‘is made up of the entities evoked by linguistic and contextual information, the relations among the entities, and their accessibilities relative to potential referential cues’ (McKoon et al. semantic transparency and anaphoric islands 149

1993: 72). Importantly, they propose that a number of factors, such as topicality and morphosyntactic as well as extralinguistic context, influence the accessibility of a given discourse entity, and that the referential cue, i.e. the anaphoric element itself, also determines relative accessibility. Therefore what might be, at a specific position in the text, accessible through use of a personal pronoun might not be accessible by other pro-forms in the same position.10 Another aspect of compounds, namely their internal semantics, has also been the subject of psycholinguistic investigations. Zwitserlood’s (1994) study on Dutch compounds addresses exactly this point. Zwitserlood classifies the compounds used in her study into three different groups: (a) fully transparent compounds; (b) truly opaque compounds; and (c) partially opaque compounds. In the case of fully transparent compounds, the meaning is synchronically related to the meaning of the individual constituents, as in, for example, milkman. The truly opaque compounds, in contrast, bear no semantic relation to any of the constituents. Zwitserlood uses the English blackguard ‘one of the idle criminal class’ to illustrate this; a Dutch example she uses is klokhuis, lit. ‘clock house’ but meaning ‘core of an apple’. Finally, partially opaque compounds are linked to the original meaning of one of the constituents, e.g. jailbird refers to a person that is often in jail. The most important finding of Zwitserlood’s experiments is that all compounds, including the truly opaque compounds, are represented as morphologically complex at some level. Transparent compounds and partially opaque compounds11 facilitate semantic access to the meanings of their constituents. This is interpreted by Zwitserlood as evidence that transparent and partially opaque compounds are linked (a) to their own semantic representation and (b) to the semantic representation of their constituent words. Truly opaque compounds, in contrast, behave semantically like monomorphemic words in that they are only linked to their own semantic representation. Libben et al. (2003), in a study on English compounds, also found that all compounds show morphological constituency. In addition, they found that the transparency of the head played a decisive role for the time it takes to make a lexical decision, i.e. the time it takes to determine whether or not a string of letters is a word of one’s language.

3 THE GERMAN DATA

Ward et al.’s (1991) data contains a large number of compounds, but anaphoric reference is never made to the right-most constituent. Instead, the anaphoric reference is made to the first constituent, as in the examples Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

150 martin schäfer

in (14). In addition, in Ward et al.’s examples, the anaphoric element is always (a) a pro-form on the surface and (b) a form serving as a noun phrase (or a prepositional phrase) by itself. As a consequence, the anaphoric elements are mostly personal pronouns or there, and only in a few cases is one used as an anaphoric pro-form. The anaphoric element thus typically refers to a concrete discourse entity introduced by the antecedent, whereas the German pattern as introduced in examples (3) and (4) always involves the deletion of the head noun. The anaphoric element is a pro-form that is not visible on the surface. This pro-form does not serve as a noun phrase but just replaces the head noun. In addition, the whole test pattern already rests on contrastive topicality, which allows focusing on other factors that lead to anaphoric reference in these examples. Below, I will first introduce a standard classification of German AN compounds and discuss their behaviour with regard to anaphoric reference. In a second step, I will discuss the results of an explorative corpus search for the pattern under investigation.

3.1 Subclasses of German A N compounds and anaphoric islandhood We get a first feel for the interrelatinship between the semantic transparency of German A N compounds and the availability of our deletion pattern if we go through examples of the standard subclasses of A N compounds. An endocentric compound is understood here as allowing the paraphrase ‘[AB]N is a BN’, that is the compound is a hyponym of its head. The classes described here are based on the classification schemes for AN compounds in Fahim (1977), who employs simple paraphrase tests for the distinction between all in all five classes. Three of the five classes are subcategories of endocentric compounds, here referred to as endocentric class A, endocentric class B and endocentric class C. The other two classes cover the subcategories of exocentric compounds, here referred to as exocentric class A and exocentric class B. Endocentric class A compounds are compounds that correspond in meaning to the respective phrasal versions – see (20).

(20) Endocentric class A:

[AN]N = [AN]NP Rotwein = roter Wein ‘red wine’

This class, which includes the compound pair Grünglas ‘green glass’ and Weißglas ‘white glass’ from example (3), allows for anaphoric reference – see (21). semantic transparency and anaphoric islands 151

(21) Ich hab keinen Rotwein gekriegt, es gab nur noch weißen. ‘I have no red.wine received, there was only still white.’ i.e. I didn’t get any red wine, they only had white wine left.

Other examples for compounds of this class are Grüntee ‘green tea’ and Schwarztee ‘black tea’. The second subgroup of endocentric compounds, endocentric class B, still allows phrasal paraphrases, but the meaning of compound and corresponding phrase is not completely equivalent – see (22).

(22) Endocentric class B:

[AB]N ≈ [AB]NP Großstadt ≈ große Stadt ‘big city’

The meaning of the phrase große Stadt ‘big city’ is less specific than the meaning of the compound and can be used to refer to any large-sized city. In contrast, the compound Großstadt has two different idiosyncratic meanings. On the one hand, it is the technical term in Germany for any city with at least 100,000 inhabitants. On the other hand, it can be used for cities in the sense of ‘metropolis’, that is a large, bustling city. Despite the specialized meaning in this class, the corresponding patterns are acceptable – see (4), repeated here as (23) – where Großstadt contrasts with Kleinstadt, which exhibits the same two kinds of specialized meaning, i.e. it either refers to a town with between 5,000 and 20,000 inhabitants or to a town with a provincial feel to it.12

(23) Ich liebe Großstädte, in kleinen gehe ich ein. ‘I love big-towns, in small go I in’ [cf. ein-gehen ‘to perish’] i.e. I love big cities, I cannot exist in small cities.

The possibility of pragmatically unmarked anaphoric reference might be connected to the fact that for endocentric A as well as for endocentric B compounds the contribution of the adjective fully overlaps with its predicative usage. For class A compounds, although Rotwein is a specific kind of wine, it is also wine that is red, a feature perhaps even more obvious for the three common colour adjective + glas compounds, Weißglas ‘white glass’, Grünglas ‘green glass’ and Braunglas ‘brown glass’. These three compounds refer to the three kinds of coloured glass bottles relevant for the recycling schemes in Germany, and one encounters them when standing in front of the correspondingly labelled containers in order to get rid of one’s old bottles, where one typically checks the colour of one’s bottles before disposing of them in the corresponding containers. For endocentric class B Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

152 martin schäfer

compounds, the pattern still holds, i.e. a Kleinstadt is small, although the specific meanings mentioned above are lost. Endocentric class C compounds, finally, are those that are so opaque that the phrasal version does not correspond to the compound any more – see (24).

(24) Endocentric class C:

[AB]N ≠ [AB]NP Grünspecht ≠ grüner Specht ‘Green woodpecker’

That is, the green woodpecker is a member of the woodpecker family Picidae. Green woodpeckers all have green upper parts, paler yellowish underpants and a red crown, but the properties expressed by the adjective do not hold for the whole entity referred to by the head noun and the corresponding predications are false (i.e. a green woodpecker is NOT green). In contrast, the intuitive interpretation of the phrasal grüner Specht is intersective, its referent is a woodpecker and it is green. Anaphoric reference to the head is pragmatically heavily marked as illustrated in (6), repeated here as (25).

(25) #Mein Vater hat in seinem Garten schon mal einen Grünspecht gesehen, aber noch nie einen schwarzen. My father has in his garden already once a green-woodpecker seen, but so_far never a black. Intended: ‘My father once saw a green woodpecker in his garden, but he has never seen a black woodpecker.’

On its preferred reading, (25) is interpreted with anaphoric reference to the whole compound, that is to a black green woodpecker. For the two groups of exocentric compounds, Fahim (1977) distinguishes between those where the first part is true of the referent of the whole compound and those where this is not the case. Thus exocentric class A conforms to the pattern in (26).

(26) Exocentric class A:

[AB]N(x) → [A]N(x) Ein Dummkopf ist dumm. ‘A stupidhead is stupid’

As in (25), anaphoric reference into exocentric A class compounds is pragmatically marked, intuitively bordering on the ungrammatical – see (27), based on the pair Dummkopf ‘stupid head’– Schlaukopf ‘smart head’.13

(27) #In dieser Klasse gibt es reichlich Dummköpfe, aber zum Glück auch schlaue. In this class gives it abundantly stupidheads, but luckily also smart. semantic transparency and anaphoric islands 153

Intended: ‘This class has lots of boneheads, but, luckily, also some smart students.’

Exocentric class B compounds, finally, are those compounds where neither the first part nor the second part is a predicate of the referent of the whole – see (28).

(28) Exocentric class B:

[AB]N(x) NOT→ [A]N(x) Ein Rotkehlchen ist nicht rot. ‘A robin [red.throat] is not red.’

Thus the referent of the noun phrase ein Rotkehlchen ‘a robin’ in (28) is a bird with a red throat. It is not a red entity nor is it a throat. It is thus a prototypical instance of a possessive compound: the head, Kehlchen ‘throat’, is metonymically reinterpreted and stands for the whole bird, and the property expressed by the adjective is a property of the entity normally referred to by the reinterpreted head. As was the case for exocentric class A compounds, anaphoric reference is heavily marked – see (29), with the pair Braunkehlchen [lit. brown throat] ‘whinchat’– Rotkehlchen [lit. red throat] ‘robin’ .

(29) #Guck mal, ein Braunkehlchen und ein rotes! Look, a brown.throat and a red Intended: ‘Look, a whinchat and a robin!’

The paraphrase tests used to establish the five different classes are one way to operationalize the notion of semantic transparency. On this view, endocentric class A compounds are the most semantically transparent subclass of AN compounds, while exocentric class B compounds represent the least transparent subclass. The intuitive judgements of the possibility of anaphoric reference into these different classes of compounds support the idea that semantic transparency plays a key role. In the next section, we attempt to give empirical backing to these intuitions by looking at corpus data.

3.2 The data in the corpus The data so far was based solely on intuitive judgements. In order to give some empirical support to these intuitive judgements, I report here the result of an exploratory corpus study. I used the COSMAS IIweb corpus tool14 developed and maintained by the Institut für Deutsche Sprache (Mannheim), accessing all written corpora of the Deutsche Referenz Korpus (DeReKo)15 available through that system. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

154 martin schäfer

The main idea behind this exploratory study is quite simple: if there is anything to the intuitions reported in the previous sections, then we should find a reflection in the corpus. First of all, we should find the pattern of interest as such, i.e. occurrences of an AN compound with a following inflected adjective and a deleted nominal head. Secondly, there should be a higher relative number of tokens exhibiting this pattern for the endocentric class A compounds, and a lower relative number for those compound classes where the pattern was judged to be pragmatically deviant. Trying to find this kind of data in the corpus proved to be difficult. First, the corpus is not tagged for the internal structure of compounds, so that no search for AN compounds as such is possible. Secondly, the second element of the pattern, the occurrence of an inflected adjective followed by a zero element, provides no help, since, unsurprisingly, the zero element is not encoded and inflected adjectives occur in large numbers. The only reasonable strategy would be to search standard lists of AN compounds for same-headed pairs with a contrasting first adjectival element and then using these pairs as a basis to search for the patterns individually. While this involves a rather large-scale study, I present below the results of an exploratory corpus search for all the patterns discussed in the examples so far. The search pattern used was always similar; I illustrate it here for the pair Großstadt/Kleinstadt ‘big city/small city’. In order to capture both possible linearizations, two searches were carried out, one with the search pattern ‘Großst?dt+ /+s0 kleine*’ and one with the search pattern ‘Kleinst?dt+ /+s0 große*’.16 The results can easily be summarized: there were no hits for the pattern involving any of Weißglas/Grünglas ‘white glass/green glass’, Grüntee/Schwarztee ‘green tea/black tea’, Schwarzspecht/Grünspecht ‘black woodpecker/green woodpecker’, Dummkopf/Schlaukopf ‘stupidhead/smarthead’ and Rotkehlchen/Braunkehlchen ‘robin/whinchat’ as the first element. For the four remaining compounds, I obtained the results presented in Table 8.1. These results can partly be explained by the absolute frequencies of the corresponding compounds in the corpus (2.3 billion words) – see Table 8.2. The two members of the pair Weißglas/Grünglas occur eighty-six and

Table 8.1 Absolute occurrences of the anaphoric reference search pattern Pattern Number of occurrences Rotwein(e) . . . weiße(n/r) [Wein] 25 Weißwein(e) . . . rote(n/r) [Wein] 55 Großstadt/städte . . . kleine(n/re) [Stadt/Städte] 1 Kleinstadt/städte . . . große(n)/größere [Stadt/Städte] 2 semantic transparency and anaphoric islands 155

Table 8.2 Absolute frequencies of compounds in the corpus Rotwein ‘red wine’ 12,465 Weißwein ‘white wine’ 5,209 Weißglas ‘white glass’ 86 Grünglas ‘green glass’ 65 Grüntee ‘green tea’ 336 Schwarztee ‘black tea’ 328 Großstadt ‘big city’ 17,638 Kleinstadt ‘small city’ 12,276 Schwarzspecht ‘black woodpecker’ 304 Grünspecht ‘green woodpecker’ 319 Dummkopf ‘stupidhead’ 948 Schlaukopf ‘smarthead’ 76 Rotkehlchen ‘robin’ 873 Braunkehlchen ‘whinchat’ 281

sixty-five times, compared to Rotwein/Weißwein with 12,465 and 5,209, respectively. In fact, the absolute frequency for the compounds where the pattern does not occur are all relatively low, except for the pair Dummkopf/ Schlaukopf, which shows a high asymmetry with 948 to 76 occurrences. The absolute frequency of the Großstadt/Kleinstadt ‘big city/small city’ pair, 17,638 and 12,276, respectively, is the highest of the sample and clearly higher than that of white/red wine. Taking a closer look at the data, a few other aspects are noteworthy. First, the two instances of the ‘Kleinstadt/städte . . . große(n)/größere’ pattern both involve the comparative form of the second adjective, as in the example below.

(30) Erst mit der Erschließung des Umlandes durch Eisen- und Straßenbahn konnten Kleinstädte zu größeren wachsen, so auch Salzburg. (N97/ AUG.33561)17 ‘Only with the development of.the surroundings through trains and trams could small.cities to bigger grow, as also Salzburg.’ i.e. Not until the urban hinterland had been developed through trains and trams could small cities grow into bigger ones, as did Salzburg.

Here, the corresponding compound could not have been used (the phrase could, though). Similarly, the single example for the ‘Großstadt/städte . . . kleine(n/re)’ pattern contains multiple modification, again not realizable through a compound, see (31).

(31) Nein, nicht in einer Großstadt, in einer kleinen, überschaubaren, ohne Hektik und Trubel. (O95/JUL.69073) ‘No, not in a big city, in a small, manageable [one], without hustle and bustle. ’

Thus, although in all three cases the compounds in question are topical and the anaphoric usage is contrastive, that is the general conditions for anaphoric reference are fulfilled, we have, in addition, clear grammatical constraints that make the usage of the corresponding compound impossible. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

156 martin schäfer

This differs radically from the picture that presents itself when looking through the sentences involving wine as the head of a compound. In all but one instance, the compound could be used instead of the adjective + pro- form. A typical example is given in (32).

(32) Die viele Sonne ist gut für den Rotwein, schlecht für den Weißen. (NON07/ JUN.16950) ‘The large amount of sunshine is good for the red wine, bad for the white.’

And while the choice of the construction with a deleted head in these sentences can thus be seen as an instance of linguistic economy, it is the only available encoding in the sentences involving Stadt ‘city’ as the head of a compound, where the usage of the corresponding phrasal variant would lose the specific meaning characteristics of the compound. If it is true that we can thus distinguish between two different motivations for the usage of the pro-form anaphora, on the one hand grammatical necessity in the case of the city examples, on the other hand simple linguistic economy in the case of the wine examples, the difference between the sentences with compounds headed by Wein ‘wine’ and compounds headed by Tee ‘tea’ comes as a surprise. Looking at the number of absolute occurrences given above, one is led to believe that it is simply an effect of the low overall number of the two types of tea compounds. However, a closer look at the data reveals a fundamental difference between the two cases. Tea compounds co-occur frequently with full tea phrases, as in (33).

(33) Wie Schwarztee ist grüner Tee koffeinhaltig, . . . (HMP08/NOV.01318) ‘Like black tea is green tea caffeine-containing, . . .’ i.e. Like black tea, green tea contains caffeine . . .

Out of the seventeen instances that fit the general search pattern used for the detection of anaphoric reference, sixteen instances show this pattern. In contrast, this pattern never occurs for the wine examples, where we have 181 instances matching the search pattern, of which 79 show the anaphoric reference phenomena. Why might this be? The key seems to lie in the relation between the phrasal and the compound versions. As was mentioned in section 3.2, the defining characteristic of endocentric class A compounds is the full equivalence of the phrasal and the compound version. This is true for all four compounds. However, the absolute number of occurrences of the compound variants and the phrasal variants differ asymmetrically (see Table 8.3). Thus Rotwein is nineteen times more frequent than roter Wein and Weißwein is forty-nine times more frequent than its phrasal counterpart semantic transparency and anaphoric islands 157

Table 8.3 Asymmetry in the absolute frequency of phrasal and compound A N constructions Rotwein 12,465 roter Wein 668 Weißwein 5,209 weißer Wein 106 Grüntee 336 grüner Tee 1,082 Schwarztee 328 schwarzer Tee 549

weißer Wein, contrasting with the relation between grüner Tee and Grüntee, where the former is 3.2 times more frequent than the latter, and between schwarzer Tee and Schwarztee, where the former is 1.7 times as frequent as the latter. The picture that emerges is that the relative collocational strength of the phrasal tea constructions is far greater than that of the wine constructions. In other words, for the AN constructions with tea, the phrasal variant is more entrenched than the compound variant, whereas for the wine A N constructions, it is the other way around.18 The effect of this difference in collocational strength is that once we decide to use the phrasal AN construction to refer to black or green tea, we are forced to add the head, even if this head is easily anaphorically recoverable – see (33).

4 CONCLUSION AND OPEN ENDS

The aim of this chapter was to discuss the relationship between semantic transparency and anaphoric islands. In particular, it discussed the two competing analyses of the phenomena, reproduced the most compelling evidence in favour of the pragmatic account, and introduced German data through which a deeper understanding of the processes behind anaphora into compounds can be gained. Thus for English we already have data which shows that the first, modifying part of compounds as well as the second part, the head, can serve as antecedents for anaphora. This can easily be explained by the pragmatic account, whose insistence on the importance of semantic transparency and contrastive topicality is backed up by findings from psycholinguistics. The German data shows that while standard classifications of A N compounds follow the general tendencies predicted by the pragmatic account, we can identify other relevant factors by looking at corpus data. Thus, at least for compounds that are fully transparent, i.e. of the endocentric A class, the entrenchment of the phrasal variant relative to the compound variant plays a decisive role in opting for a construction involving anaphoric reference. And for compounds that are not fully transparent, starting with endocentric class B, we apparently need morphosyntactic constraints to force us into the usage of an anaphoric construction. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

158 martin schäfer

However, since we did not find any data in the corpus involving the other compound classes, there is still much work left to do. According to the pragmatic account, anaphoric reference should be possible in all cases, something which we do not find reflected in the data. This might ultimately be due to the relatively low frequency of the base constructions, and maybe only psycholinguistic tests will allow further insights into the detailed workings behind anaphoric reference into AN compounds.

NOTES

1. Note that Postal’s anaphoric islands are only terminologically similar to Ross’s (1967) island phenomena. 2. Besides outbound anaphora, Postal also discusses inbound anaphora. Harris (2006) provides a comprehensive discussion of inbound anaphora. 3. Note that this version of the Lexicalist Hypothesis is used by Anderson as an illustration of a maximally strong position. 4. Note that these criteria usually work the other way around, though: one-word-spellings usually indicate one-word status and stress on the left-most member of an AB construction usually indicates compound status. 5. Giegerich (2005: 579ff.) interprets this data pattern in a different way, in that he believes that it is actually the underlying second AN construction that is shown to be phrasal or compound-like, that is, for (11a), the availability of dental one shows us that dental appointment is phrasal. On this view, replacement by one itself is enough to show phrasal status, a test criterion also used by Bauer (1998: 76ff.) Technically, this is based not on the prohibition of outbound anaphoras into anaphoric islands, but to the prohibition of what Postal calls inbound anaphora, that is anaphoric elements that occur inside of words. In order to make his point, though, Giegerich would have to show that the antecedents in (11) both allow anaphoric access to their head. That is, if mental disorder is a compound and therefore an anaphoric island, its head disorder cannot serve as an antecedent in the first place. Note that Levi (1977: 332) uses A one constructions similar to those used by Giegerich for arguing that complex nominals do in fact allow inbound anaphora. 6. Note that it does not seem to be accidental that in two of the three examples in (14) the pronominal element refers back to the referent of a proper noun. Ten Hacken (1994: 76) points out that this occurs in two-thirds of the cases involving pronominal reference to non-heads in the corpus investigated by Ward et al. semantic transparency and anaphoric islands 159

7. This manuscript is not available to me. 8. (17) is Postal’s (59a–b) and (18) his (54a–b). (19) corresponds to (27a–b) in the appendix to Postal’s paper. 9. In reporting these experiments, Ward et al. always refer to the aforementioned manuscript McKoon et al. (1990). McKoon et al. (1993) seems to be the publication that this manuscript resulted in, as it contains discussion of all the experiments mentioned below. 10. A small example from native speaker judgements on English AN compounds illustrates this sensitivity to the anaphoric element itself: while the native speakers I asked all judged (a) as out, most thought (b) was OK. (a) Peter uses a blackboard, but I prefer the white ones. (b) Blackboards require more care than those with a white surface. However, the target of the anaphoric references is in both cases identical. 11. In Zwitserlood’s study, only partially opaque compounds with a transparent first constituent and an opaque second constituent were used. 12. Not surprisingly, there is also a technical term for towns with between 20,000 and 100,000 inhabitants: Mittelstadt ‘middle city’. However, this term is not used in everyday language. 13. One additional problem with this pair is that Schlaukopf ‘smart.head’ is often interpreted with the somewhat negative tinge also present in, for example, English smart alec. 14. COSMAS II (Corpus Search, Management and Analysis System), http://www.ids-mannheim.de/cosmas2/, © 1991–2010 Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Mannheim. 15. Das Deutsche Referenzkorpus DeReKo, http://www.ids-mannheim. de/kl/projekte/korpora/, am Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Mannheim. 16. The search syntax and the special characters in these two search patterns have the following functions: /+s0 requires the two other constraints to be matched in the same sentence, the question mark stands for any single character, allowing simultaneous search for the singular word forms and the plural forms, which require an umlaut. The + at the end of the compounds stands for zero or one more character, capturing thus all inflectional endings except the dative plural, the star stands for any number of further characters. 17. The short signatures after the examples from the DeReKo expand to the following full references: N97/AUG.33561 = Salzburger Nachrichten, 19.08.1997, Ressort: LOKALES; Erreichbarkeit ist der zentrale Punkt Seit Minister Einems. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

160 martin schäfer

O95/JUL.69073 = Neue Kronen-Zeitung, 15.07.1995, S. 7; Zum Schnuppern nach Baden. NON07/JUN.16950 = Niederösterreichische Nachrichten, 27.06.2007, S. 3; Mödlinger forscht an Klimazukunft HMP08/NOV.01318 = Hamburger Morgenpost, 13.11.2008, S. 27; Der Wundertrank Grüner Tee. 18. For the notion of entrenchment, see Langacker (2000b: 3). chapter 9 Semantic coindexation: evidence from Portuguese derivation and compounding

1 Alexandra Soares Rodrigues and Graça Rio-Torto Soares Rodrigues and Rio-Torto

he parallel between meaning construction in derivation and com- Tpounding has received little discussion. Some works such as Lieber (2004) and Fradin (2005) focus on it. However, more empirical data is needed to contribute to the understanding of how meaning construction works. Our contribution brings more data on the phenomena by comparing derivation and compounding in Portuguese. The aim of this article is to analyse the way meaning construction occurs in derivation and compounding. We try to answer the questions in (1).

(1) a. How do words formed by derivation and compounding get their meaning? b. What are the factors involved and what is the balance between them? c. Are compounding and derivation rules sensitive to the semantics of their bases in the same manner?

The analysis is focused on Portuguese deverbal nouns and adjectives (section 1) as well as on nominal compounds (section 2) formed by noun- noun [NN]N and noun-adjective [NA]N. We assume that the formation of meaning in the word is independent of syntax (see Lieber and Scalise 2007 regarding compounds), since there is a discrepancy between the meanings provided by syntactic arrangement and argument structure and the developed meanings of the coined word. Semantic coindexation is responsible for the construction of meaning in word formation. In our proposal, coindexation operates between semantic features of the constituents (affix and base or compound bases) and those of the ‘maximal semantic frame’ (Fillmore 1977a, 1977b; Langacker 1987a; Jackendoff 1997, 2002) associated with them. Coindexation is ruled by what we will call the maximal compatibility principle. According to our proposal, semantic coindexation between the involved features is Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

162 soares rodrigues and rio-torto

dependent on the degree of semantic similarity between them.2 This principle prevents chaotic linking between features, because it only allows the linkage of those that best fit semantically with each other. The semantic framework adopted here corresponds to a conceptualist version of semantic processing (Jackendoff 2002, 2007), according to which the meanings of words must conform to human categorization, to mental representations connected to perception and action and to the speaker’s experience with language and the world. Thus the meaning of complex words comes from the lexical units involved, as well as from other information sources, such as the referential and/or pragmatic (Jackendoff 1997, 2002, 2007).

1 DERIVATION

Underlying our perspective in recent research (e.g. Rodrigues 2008), we assume that meaning construction of derivation products, at the level of the lexicon, is not dependent on syntax. It depends on a purely semantic mechanism which is called ‘coindexation’.

1.1 Absence of syntactic factors in meaning construction in word formation Traditionally, deverbal derivations are seen as the result of either the projection of the argument structure of the verbal base, in the case of deverbal event nouns (e.g. Grimshaw 1990), or of one of the arguments of the base verb, in the case of deverbal agent nouns and adjectives (Rappaport Hovav and Levin 1992). This perspective has already been questioned by authors such as Hoekstra and van der Putten (1988) and Rodrigues (2008). As an example, let us consider agent nouns/adjectives such as colonizador (‘colonizer’). In this case, apparently, the argument structure of the verbal base creates the agent meaning of the noun. Without giving many details, the external argument of the verb colonizar (‘to colonize’) is topical- ized in the meaning of colonizador. The internal argument of colonizar is still available outside the noun – see (2).

(2) O colonizador do Peru The colonizer of.the Peru ‘The colonizer of Peru’

The problem arises when we apply this syntactic explanation to nouns and adjectives such as (3). semantic coindexation 163

(3) a. lambedorN (from lamber ‘to lick’), which, apart from the meaning of ‘licker’, also has the meaning of ‘syrup’

b. chovedorA ‘that makes rain’ c. suadorA/N ‘that makes sweat’, besides the more prototypical meaning of ‘that sweats’

The syntactic explanation does not fit with these deverbal nouns. The syntactic, the argument and the lexical-conceptual structures of the verbal bases of the nouns in (3) are given in (4).

(4) a. chover ‘to rain’: intransitive verb, expletive subject that corresponds to a syntactic function that is argumentally empty (no theta-role) b. suar ‘to sweat’: intransitive verb (unergative), external argument (internal cause [– volitional]) c. lamber ‘to lick’: transitive verb, external argument (external cause [+ volitional]) and internal argument (theme)

Table 9.1 gives an overview of these data with the structures of the nouns and adjectives. From the data shown in Table 9.1, we can see that chovedor, suador and lambedor display an agent meaning ‘external cause’. However, their verbal bases lack this external argument that would correspond to the one that appears in the argument structure of the nouns. Where does this ‘external cause’ meaning come from? In these cases, the ‘external cause’ meaning must come from a maximal semantic frame, which is not particular to any lexeme but available in conceptual structure in general.3 This maximal semantic frame also explains

Table 9.1 Contextualized comparison between the argument and the lexical- conceptual structures of verbs and their deverbal nouns Verb Noun/adjective Chover: Chovedor: Chove Substância chovedora Rains Substance that.makes.rain.fem (It rains) Suar: Suador: O João suou Exercício suador The John sweated exercise that.makes.sweat ‘John sweated’ Lamber: Lambedor: O João lambeu o xarope O João comprou um lambedor The John licked the syrup The John bought a that.makes.lick ‘John licked the syrup’ ‘John bought a syrup’ Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

164 soares rodrigues and rio-torto

deverbal nouns with ‘locative’ meanings that do not correspond to any argument of the argument structure of the verb base. This is the case of bramadeiro ‘place where deer join together when in rut’, from bramar ‘to bellow (deer)’; miradouro ‘viewpoint’, from the verb mirar ‘to watch’; and matadouro ‘slaughterhouse’, from the verb matar ‘to kill’. None of these verbs displays a locative argument in their argument structure. These are not marginal examples of deverbal nouns. In fact, many of them do not correspond to the argument structure of the base in what concerns meaning and in what concerns their proper argument structure capacity (Rodrigues 2008: 80–93). These examples show that the relation between the meaning of the deverbal nouns and the verbal base must be founded on fine-grained semantic structures.

1.2 Semantic coindexation We propose that meaning construction in word formation is sustained by the combination of semantic features of the base, the affix (if there is an affix involved, as is the case for the lexemes under analysis) and the maximal semantic frame. The mechanism that is responsible for the activation of those connections is coindexation. In contrast to Lieber (2004), we propose that coindexation is a purely semantic mechanism (Rodrigues 2008: 60–9). The reason we reject any kind of syntactic intervention in coindexation is based on the fact that there may be no relation between the arguments of the verb and the meaning of the deverbal noun, as we have seen in section 2.1. To understand coindexation, we must conceive of semantics as a domain structured in tiers (Jackendoff 2002). The components of these tiers of a lexeme are able to be dynamically linked to components of other tiers or of the same tiers of other lexemes (Rodrigues 2008: 60). It may be objected that a process of coindexation totally based on semantic structures would lead to an overgeneration of derivations. However, semantic coindexation is based on the degree of compatibility between the features of the base, the features of the affix and the features of the maximal semantic frame (Rodrigues 2008: 227–74). As an example, consider the affix -dor, which prototypically generates agent nouns. As Rodrigues (2008: 340–53) explains, the semantic feature of -dor [that has the function of] is very close to the meaning of the feature [agent] of the lexical-conceptual structure of a verb, but is not so close, for instance, to the feature [place]. Indeed, [that has the function of] alludes to something or someone that will bring about a given event. This is a meaning quite similar to [agent]. Semantically, due to the presence of an [active] feature, the degree of compatibility between [that has the function semantic coindexation 165

of] and [agent] is higher than the one between [that has the function of] and [place]. As observed in Rodrigues (2008), the most prototypical meanings and derivatives result from the coindexation of features that are semantically closer to each other. If the feature [that has the function of] of -dor coindexes with the agent feature of the lexical-semantic structure of the verbal base, the obtained meaning is ‘agent’, which is a prototypical meaning of -dor derivatives. This situation illustrates a process of maximal compatibility between the features of the suffix and the base. If the same feature coindexes with [place], the obtained meaning is ‘place’, which is far from being a prototypical meaning of -dor nouns. Due to this need for compatibility between the features, the overgeneration of derivations is avoided. The maximal compatibility between the features of the affix and those of the base represent the most prototypical derivatives/meanings of that paradigm (e.g. -dor nouns meaning ‘agent’, such as conquistador ‘conqueror’). A minimal compatibility between the features leads to the least representative derivatives of that paradigm (e.g. -dor nouns meaning ‘place’, such as toucador ‘dressing table’). The boundaries provided by minimal and maximal are dependent on the kinds of meanings (least and most prototypical) that the derivatives of each suffix display. In the interior of this scale there are many derivations, such as assador ‘dish where to put the food to be roasted’ and apontador ‘notebook’, which designate instruments that are used to accomplish an event, but that by themselves do not accomplish it. Following Plag (1999, 2003), we assume that affixes are provided with semantic features. An affix is not simply a formal operator of a word formation rule. This explains some kinds of constraint between affix and base, for instance why an affix occurs with one kind of verbal base (e.g. comiseraçãoN from comiserarV ‘to move to pity’) and not with other kinds of verbal base (e.g. *envelheceçãoN from envelhecerV ‘to become old’) (see envelhecimento vs. *comiseramento), although both affixes generate deverbal event nouns. Semantic features of the affix are not accessible when the affix is on its own. As a non-autonomous morpheme, semantic structures of the affix are only observable when the affix is integrated into the derived word. This is to say that the semantic contribution of the affix is placed in an implicit structure. To determine the semantic contribution of the affix we need to compare the derivatives of that affix both to each other and with the derivatives of other affixes that operate by the same rule. As an example, consider deverbal event nouns. Although they share the same verbal base and a general meaning ‘event of V’, the nouns reveal different semantics according to the affix. Let us compare event nouns from the verb andar ‘to walk’. The noun with the suffixnça - , [[anda]Vnça]N, means Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

166 soares rodrigues and rio-torto

‘adventure, journey’; the noun with -mento, [[anda]Vmento]N, means ‘speed or way of something going’; and the noun with -dura , [[anda]Vdura]N, ‘physical way of moving’. The differences between their meanings come from the coindexation of semantic features of each affix with semantic features of the base. The semantic features of the base belong to the event structure and to the lexical-conceptual structure. From the analysis of 8,414 deverbal nouns constructed with 23 affixes, Rodrigues (2008: 227–74) has determined the following event features available in the verbal bases:

• [±punctual] The event occurs at a particular point on the temporal line and not along that line (e.g. estalar ‘to click’). • [±durative] The event occurs along the temporal line (viver ‘to live’). • [±composed of individuals] This feature was presented by Lieber (2004: 136). It refers to an event that is symmetrically divided into parts repeated along the temporal line (saltitar ‘to hop’). • [±composed of different operations] The event (e.g. conduzir ‘to drive (a car)’) is composed of different subevents (such as ‘clutching’, ‘braking’, ‘changing direction with the steering wheel’, etc.). • [±point of departure] The event has a beginning. This feature permits us to distinguish durative verbs such as distar ‘to be distant from’, which is a state verb, from durative verbs such as caminhar ‘to walk’. Distar does not indicate an event with a clear temporal beginning. On the contrary, caminhar has an implicit beginning. This difference shows that event structure contains subcomponents and does not behave like an indivisible whole. • [±point of arrival] The event has an end point. This allows us to distinguish a verb such as construir ‘to build’ from a verb such as trabalhar ‘to work’. The former has a point of arrival while the latter does not. • [±telic] A telic verb presupposes that a change of state occurs, for instance estar ‘to be’ vs. cozinhar ‘to cook’. The latter is [+ telic] while the former is not. • [±perfect] The event is irreversible and not prolongable (e.g. matar ‘to kill’).

These features do not correspond to classes in the sense that each feature on its own does not characterize the event type of the verb. Each verb may have a set of features. Semantic coindexation does not operate with semantic boxes, but with subcomponents of those boxes. This assumption is based on the observation that there is no relation between the event class of the verbal base (e.g. Vendler’s classes: accomplishment, achievement, activity, state) and the selected suffix. For instance, some verbs of accom- semantic coindexation 167 plishment such as enrolar (‘to wrap’) select the affix -mento (enrolamento ‘event of V’) and so do some verbs of achievement such as salvar (‘to save’) (salvamento ‘event of V’), some verbs of activity such as respirar (‘to breathe’) (respiramento ‘event of V’) and even some verbs of state such as preceder (‘to precede’) (precedimento ‘event of V’). However, not all verbs of those classes select this suffix. We need to observe the features that characterize each event structure of each verb. Those features, and not the entire event structure as a whole, reveal themselves to be important not only to the selection of the suffix, but also to the determination of the meaning of the deverbal noun (Rodrigues 2008: 201–2). The verb relaxar ‘to relax’ contains features such as [durative], [telic] and [point of arrival], since they behave as accomplishment verbs. The event deverbal nouns from this verb are relaxamento and relaxação, respectively. Although both are deverbal event nouns, relaxamento presents different semantic shades in comparison with relaxação. Nouns with the affixmento - display a meaning of ‘state’ that co-occurs with the course of the event. Nouns with the affixção - have a meaning of ‘state’ that does not co-occur with the course of the event but occurs after or as a consequence of the point of arrival of the event. This can be explained if we assume that affixes have a semantic structure. The affixmento - contains the feature [process], whilst -ção is characterized by the feature [effectuation]. Note that these features are not included in the above list, since that list only shows semantic features of the verbal bases, not semantic features of the affixes delimited in Rodrigues (2008: 227–74). We will limit ourselves to the affixes shown here. The feature [effectuation] refers to an event that is presented as realized and completed. In contrast, the feature [process] refers to the course of the event and not its ending. It stresses the unfolding of the event and not its conclusion. Once again, we need to emphasize that semantic features of affixes become available to our explicit knowledge when we compare deverbal nouns with different affixes and the same verbal bases and deverbal nouns with the same affix and different verbal bases. Producing relaxamento uses the following procedures: the affix -mento has the feature [process]. This feature is maximally compatible with the feature [durative] and minimally compatible with the feature [point of arrival]. Thus -mento, or, specifically, its feature, will coindex with [durative] and not with [point of arrival]. In consequence, relaxamento means a state that co-occurs with the course of the event. In contrast, -ção has the feature [effectuation]. This feature is maximally compatible with the feature [point of arrival] and minimally compatible with the feature [durative]. Thus relaxação means a state that occurs after the end of the process, that is at the point of arrival (Rodrigues 2008: 291–315). Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

168 soares rodrigues and rio-torto

Table 9.2 Verbal bases and their deverbal nouns with affixes -dura, -ção and -mento Verbal bases Affix -dura Affix -ção Affix -mento serrar ‘to saw up’ serradura ‘sawdust’ serração ‘event of sawing; sawmill’ amolgar ‘to dent’ amolgadura ‘dent, amolgamento ‘event of depression’ denting’ pisar ‘to bruise’ pisadura ‘bruise’ pisamento ‘event of bruising’ abotoar ‘to button’ abotoadura ‘set of abotoação ‘event of buttons’ buttoning’

This difference between the semantic features of ção- and -mento explains why -mento attaches to durative verbs such as balancear ‘to swing’ and espigar ‘to ear (cereal)’. The feature [process] of this affix prefers the feature [durative] of these verbs. We find the nouns balanceamento, espiga- mento, but not *balanceação, *espigação. From this perspective, the maximal semantic compatibility principle explains why -mento attaches to -ec- and -esc- verbs and not to -iz- and -ific- verbs. Nouns such as envelhecimento ‘growing old’ from envelhecer ‘to grow old’ and amarelecimento ‘yellowing’ from amarelecer ‘to yellow’ are common. Nouns derived from these verbs with -ção are ungrammatical (*envelheceção; *amareleceção). This is because -mento selects verbs where the feature [durative] is foregrounded. The same factor explains why -mento is the affix that occurs with verbs such as abairrar ‘to divide into wards’ (abairramento) and arruar ‘to divide into streets’, which indicate the unbounded division of an object in infinite parts. Apart from these differences in the meaning of ‘event’ and the correlated consequences in the constraints between bases and affixes, semantic coindexation also reveals itself in the concrete meanings that the derivatives of each affix exhibit. This can be observed for the deverbal nouns in Table 9.2. All of the deverbal nouns presented in Table 9.2 have an event meaning related to their verbal bases. However, -dura nouns also have concrete meanings of ‘portion’, ‘residue’, ‘amounts’, ‘concrete result’, which are absent from the other deverbal nouns. Where do those concrete meanings come from? In the theory we propose here, the suffixdura - has the feature [referentiation]. Once again, this feature only comes to light indirectly when we observe the meanings of -dura nouns in comparison to the other event affixes derivatives. Relevant data are provided if we compare deverbal nouns of the same verb with different event affixes. What we observe in -dura nouns is that, besides the meaning of ‘event’, many of them manifest semantic coindexation 169

a concrete meaning that can be subsumed as ‘something concrete that results from the event’, ‘a physical result of the event’. This is specified as ‘residue’ (serradura ‘sawdust’, cevadura ‘remains of the bird that a bird of prey has fed on’) and/or ‘physical wound’ (pisadura ‘bruise’). This affix only attaches to verbs that possess a concrete meaning. This emphasizes the semantic compatibility between affix and base. Nevertheless, what explains the construction of these particular meanings is coindexation. All the verbal bases of these nouns possess the feature [telic], among others. The feature of the affix, which is [referentiation], indicates a segmentation and an identification of a certain event, detaching it from the continuum of realia. The semantic effect of this affix is not to provide an event shade of the event, i.e. [durative], [actualized], etc., but simply to identify it as a referent (Rodrigues 2008: 315–20). Therefore the feature [referentiation] is maximally compatible with the feature [telic] of the verbs. The segmentation and identification of the referent of [telic], operated by the feature of the affix, result in these peculiar concrete meanings.

1.3 Conclusions on derivation In relation to meaning construction in derivation, we have come to the following conclusions. First, meaning construction in derivation takes place in a phase where argument structure does not play a role. In this phase, lexical-conceptual structure and the ‘maximal semantic frame’ associated to each lexeme are considered. Their role consists of the coindexation of semantic features belonging to the lexical-conceptual structure of the base, or to a maximal semantic frame, which is subsumed in mental conceptual structures (Jackendoff 2002; Pustejovsky 1995a). Meaning construction in word formation does not occur at the level of argument structure. If the deverbal noun has an argument structure, it is the result of the combination of a series of factors (among them the kind of meaning of the noun and the affix that formed it).4 It is not inherited from the verbal base. Our second conclusion is that the mechanism that is responsible for meaning construction is coindexation. Coindexation operates between features of the affix, of the base and of the maximal semantic frame associated with it. Although strictly based on semantic parameters, coindexation is ruled by the maximal compatibility principle. This principle prevents chaotic linking between features, because it only allows the linkage of those that semantically best fit with each other. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

170 soares rodrigues and rio-torto

2 COMPOUNDING

A compound is a plurilexematic structure that is used as a holistic denomi- nation, that resists any internal alteration and that is characterized by denotational unity. This conceptualization is based on research carried out by Lieber and Scalise (2007), Rio-Torto and Ribeiro (2009, 2010) and Scalise and Bisetto (2009), and is supported by Scalise and Vogel’s (2010) cross-disciplinary approach to compounding applied to several languages studied by the Morbocom team (http://morbo.lingue.unibo.it/). Portuguese [NN]N and [NA]N compounds are conceived as morphological objects,5 whose components are linked by a modification relationship (Rio-Torto and Ribeiro 2009). As the internal structure of the compounds is fixed (determination, quantification, intensification are not allowed), the diversity of semantic relations they express cannot be explained syntactically, but semantically. The understanding of compounds is anchored on the assumption that there exists a semantic relation between the referents of the two concepts being combined (NN) or that one or more properties of the modifier constituent are attributed in some way to the head concept (NA).6 We will address here the questions of what the principles and the devices that govern this semantic coindexation are and how the emergence of idiomatic meanings should be explained. On the basis of the discussion in this section, we will claim that a theory of enriched meaning and processing (Jackendoff 1997) is necessary in cases where simple composition does not suffice.7 Semantic procedures, like coercion, reference transfer and figurative shifts, conceived in an enriched composition frame, are responsible for the conventionalized meaning of a word.

2.1 Some assumptions Compounding is associated with idiomaticity.8 There are indeed compounds whose meanings are compositional and transparent, but many compounds have an idiomatic meaning: a garbage man is a ‘man who handles garbage’, but a snow man is a ‘simulated man made of snow’. We assume that the meaning of a compound incorporates, even in a sophisticated, unpredictable and idiomatic fashion, the meanings of its components. Nevertheless, the meaning of a compound is not necessarily confined to the meanings of its parts and the rules by which they are combined. The maximal semantic frame of a compound includes all the features associated with it in a specific cultural universe, namely the features associated with the profiles, the roles and/or the proper functions of denotata, as well as the pragmatic purposes words can serve. semantic coindexation 171

We claim that idiomaticity is the result of forced meaning shifts with respect to the compositional one (Rio-Torto and Ribeiro 2010). Compositionality and idiomaticity are inversely related. However, as empirical data illustrate (see (6) below), sometimes earlier stages of semantic construction may display the underlying compositionality dissipated by idiomaticity (Rio-Torto and Ribeiro 2010).

2.2 Trends of idiomaticity Within a compound, the head and the modifier must be coindexed semantically in accordance with (a) the (maximal) information they convey and (b) the possible grammatical and LCS relationships linking them (Bisetto and Scalise 2005). When the final meaning does not include the compositional meanings of the constituents, other semantic devices must be managed. In order to guarantee the internal compatibility and plausibility of the whole, coercion procedures are activated. Metaphor, metonymy, referential shift and/or specialization are often activated for this task, and they are mainly responsible for the idiomaticity of the compounds, as (5) illustrates.

(5) a. [NN]N visita-relâmpago (lit. ‘visit-lightning’) b. [NN]N pontapé (lit. ‘fronting foot’) c. [NA]N saco azul (lit. ‘bag blue’)

(5a) denotes not a visit of lightning, but ‘a flying visit, an unexpected and brief one’: a metaphor is activated as the features [brief and unexpected] are transferred from the lightning to a visit. (5b) denotes a kick; a metonymy is activated, as the act is denominated by the ‘actor [foot]’.Usually, when figurative tools are activated, a reference transfer occurs, e.g. in (5c). Saco azul (lit. blue bag) denotes not a specific blue bag, but illicit funding. The older motivation – an (ancient) bag containing money from an unofficial source and lined with blue fabric – is lost. The metonymic meaning is not semantically compositional because the meaning of the whole is not computable from the meaning of the constituents. (5b–c) display a reference transfer from the denotation and ontological class of the head to those of the compound (foot > physical aggression; bag > funding). Their interpretation is opaque to native speakers if they have not previously encountered it. Semantic specialization between coindexed compound members can be sustained by polysemy. A polysemic adjective like civil adjusts its meaning in accordance with the LCS of the noun whose intension it circumscribes. The specific meaning of the adjective is delimited by the lexical-conceptual relation between N and A. (6) illustrates four different types of meaning that Portuguese [NA] nominal compounds with the adjective civil can have: Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

172 soares rodrigues and rio-torto

(6) a. event: [[guerra]N [civil]A]N ‘civil war’, [[casamento]N [civil]A]N ‘civil marriage’

b. state: [[estado]N[civil]A]N ‘marital status’ c. human institution: [[polícia]N [civil]A]N ‘civil police’ d. specialized professional domain: [[engenharia]N [civil]A]N ‘civil engineering’

The meaning of the adjective varies according to the meaning of the noun it modifies. The history of the entities highlights the semantic features focused in each case. A guerra civil ‘civil war’ is a war between organized groups within a single nation. The adjective means, in this context, ‘intra-national’, by opposition to international. A casamento civil is a secular marriage as opposed to a reli- gious one. Since the Middle Ages, civil has been used in contrast to ecclesiastic. In both cases the adjective modifies an eventive noun; nevertheless, the meanings displayed by the adjective are independent of the eventive class: they are correlated with the specific lexical meaning and profile of each noun. The Brazilian polícia civil ‘civil police’ denotes the investigative state police forces. In this case civil is opposite to ‘military’ (cf. polícia militar ‘military police’). The estado civil denotes the ‘marital status’, the legal standing of a person in regard to his/her marriage state. In Portuguese, the adjective civil covers, as a hyperonym, all the types of marital status: single, (un) married, divorced, widow(er). Engenharia civil ‘civil engineering’ is a hyponym of engenharia. The adjective presents a technical meaning, referring not only, as in the past, to non-military and/or non-ecclesiastic engineering, but also to a wide variety of subdomains, including all the classes of construction engineering and construction materials. This hyponym term opposes civil to electrical, biomedical, geological engineering. The semantic diversity and specialization of the adjective is correlated with the semantics of the noun it modifies. The history of the culture and of the society highlights the motivations of this variation.

2.3 [NN]N: semantic frames and world knowledge When two nouns form a compound, the meanings of both must be analysed in order to construct a plausible meaning. As a large variety of semantic relationships is possible between the nouns, a large frame of conceptualization and of reference is necessary to explain NN semantic profusion and diversity, namely when unexpected meanings emerge. But if a gap between the plausible meanings and the conventionalized one remains, then only a specialized source of information can provide the idiomatic meaning. semantic coindexation 173

2.3.1 Proposals A speaker uses compounds as memorized constructions whose holistic meaning is understandable, despite their degree of semantic idiomaticity. The speaker is able to use the word, without knowing how the idiomatic meaning has been built. However, the speaker must understand the idiomatic meaning of the word if he intends to use it. When the comprehension of the meaning is not straightforward, which happens when the meaning of the whole is not literal and compositional regarding the meaning of the parts, what are the means applied to understand the word? First of all, the speaker tends to perceive the meaning of each compound component. The semantics of each component is mentally constructed in accordance with the conceptual and the denotational representations associated with it. According to its ontological nature, each N is characterized by a cluster of semantic or thematic roles (Dowty 1989, 1991) that are connected with the LCS schemata associated with it and by the network of possible semantic relations the N can establish. A constellation of conceptual functions, like BE, DO, HAVE, SEEM, BEHAVE, CAUSE, which underlie LCS structures, profiles the semantics of a lexical item and, in consequence, the thematic relations it supplies. In order to bring plausibility and transparency to the semantic relationship built by the compound, the speaker takes into account all the features and scenarios – the more and the less prototypical – associated with each word and its denotational frame: if necessary, even the possible semantic features of each word are mapped for this demanding computation task. World knowledge and/or referential coercion can also be used as ways of reconciling the constraints from various sources. As Jackendoff (2002: 250) says, in order to determine the meaning of a newly encountered compound ‘one uses the Head Principle, plus the repertoire of possible semantic relations, plus a dose of pragmatics, to put together a meaning that makes sense in context’.9

2.3.2 Semantic roles and the ‘maximal semantic compatibility principle’ Let us consider some Portuguese [NN] compounds in order to describe how coindexation underlies their semantic processing. We begin with four NN compounds lexicalized in the 1990s and then we analyse two novel or possible compounds. Recent psycholinguistic research (Gagné and Shoben 1997; Gagné and Spalding 2006) emphasizes the relevance of compound interpretation based on thematic relations. Several sets of thematic roles have been Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

174 soares rodrigues and rio-torto

proposed.10 We adopt Rio-Torto and Ribeiro’s (2013) framework, with the thematic relations that are suitable for [[N[PN]]N, [NN]N, [NA]N Portuguese compounds. Here, four thematic relations are taken into account: container/recipient, goal, similarity and source. We claim that a dynamic framework of thematic roles is needed to explain their frequent intersections. The meaning of the nominal modifier N2 and that of the nominal head N1 must coarticulate and converge into an output compatible with human categorization, with human world knowledge and with human experience. Coindexation involves the literal, denotational, figurative meanings and uses coercion so that a plausible meaning emerges. This is illustrated in (7).

(7) [[bébé]N-[proveta]N]N ‘test-tube baby’

How should the typical characteristics associated with a baby be reconciled with a test-tube, in the interpretation of (7)? This container represents the place where fertilization takes place. In fact, (7) designates a baby conceived by in vitro fertilization. In comparison with other properties, containers do not represent salient features of a human being. But for specific types of human beings – for some foetuses – a container such as a test-tube denotes something fundamental in their conception: an artificial womb where fertilization of the ovum took place and where the human embryo developed before being transferred to the mother’s body. So, in this case the (artificial) place of fertilization replaces the biological container (the uterus) where conception typically occurs. World knowledge is here crucial for the recognition of the specific meaning of the word. This example shows to a higher degree the denotation coercion imposed on the semantic relationship between N1 and N2, as [container] is not an expected prototypical feature of N1 when it denotes a baby. As with several containers, two semantic roles are also involved here, because the artificial fertilization occurs by means of a test-tube and in its interior. Another example is (8).

(8) [[criança]N-[soldado]N]N ‘child soldier’

A child has no professional activity, and a soldier is a military professional. However, (8) refers to children that act as and become combatants. It is the goal, the telic function that is focused. Once again, coindexation is forced to select a non-typical and non-expected feature of N1. Otherwise, this compound could be understood as denominating a child pretending to be a combatant, which is not in accordance with the extralinguistic reality.11 A rather different type of example is (9). semantic coindexation 175

(9) [[homem]N-[rã]N]N lit. ‘man-frog’, i.e. frogman

In (9), prominence is given to the similarity to a frog in appearance and function.12 A homem-rã is a diver, a person who explores under water, especially equipped with breathing apparatus and weighted clothing. As the similarity involves the appearance and the function, two thematic dimensions are also merged. As a final example, consider (10).

(10) [[Retrato]N-[robot]N]N lit. ‘portrait-robot’, i.e. photofit picture

(10) refers to the product of a specialized method of combining photo- graphs of facial features, hair, etc., into a composite picture of a face. This method is used by the police to trace suspects from witnesses’ descriptions. Like a robot, that is an electro-mechanical machine that is supposed to function as a human being, the photofit picture is obtained by computer means in order to create a schematic and artificial sketch of a real being. Regarding its semantic role, robot represents the robotic device by which the picture is drawn and/or the (robot-like) schematicity of the product. The specialized meaning is neither available nor computable without technical knowledge. For those with sufficient background knowledge about the denotation of these four [NN]N compounds, their interpretation offers no difficulties. It is not the case for a child, when not yet exposed to them, or for a speaker of Portuguese as a foreign language, especially if there are no directly corresponding expressions in their native language. Let us now consider the novel compounds in (11).

(11) a. bébé-brinquedo lit. ‘baby-toy’ b. mãe-polícia lit. ‘mother-police’

The computation task of understanding novel compounds such as (11) highlights that (a) several possible semantic dimensions can be gathered for the understanding of the whole and that (b) the conventionalized meaning of each word is not necessarily reached without the help of the co(n)text and/or world knowledge. A bebé-brinquedo can be a bebé ‘baby’ used as a ‘toy’ by its brothers, or a bebé that evokes a toy because of their way of moving or playing, or even a toy, like a doll, imitating a real ‘baby’. A mãe- polícia can be a mãe ‘mother’ whose professional activity is a policewoman, but also a controlling and/or excessively protective mother. In both cases, more than one thematic role can be involved and the precise meaning of the compound results from the interaction between linguistic information and extralinguistic sources of knowledge. When a compound has several Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

176 soares rodrigues and rio-torto

readings, multiple semantic roles must be used to describe it. Conceived dynamically and in interaction with world knowledge, thematic relations can provide the compound with semantic plausibility.

2.4 Conclusions on compounding The semantic structure of each compound reflects the ‘maximal semantic frame’ associated with each of the constituents, as well as the plausible semantic and grammatical relations relying on them.13 Coindexation, in accordance with a semantic plausibility principle, assures the maximal compatibility between the meanings involved. The specific meaning of each compound is due to the semantic structure of both constituents, in articulation (a) with semantic/conceptual templates governing the relation between the components and (b) with referential, pragmatic or figurative constraints. The floating adjustments in the meaning of compounds are mainly governed by referential and/or pragmatic motivations. Figurative mechanisms provide semantic coherence when denotational or objective tools are overlooked. From a production point of view, a compound is a construction whose meaning is anchored, to a variable degree, to the meaning of its constituents. But referential and/or pragmatic reasons may lead to idiomaticity and opacity, and for this reason the interpretation is sometimes only weakly compositional. Due to the LCS frames associated with each compound member and due to the semantic features that result from their combination and by reference and plausibility needs, the range of semantic possibilities of the final meaning is quite broad, though not unlimited. A theory of lexical (de)composition must incorporate a textured set of dimensions and procedures that cut across lexico-conceptual representations, coindexation, referential coercion, semantic shifts and figurative devices of meaning production.

3 CONCLUSIONS

Are there radical differences between the semantic processing of derivations and compounds?

1. Derived words, as well as compounds, can present compositional and idiomatic meanings. In both cases the whole can display a compositional meaning or an idiomatic one, not computable from the meaning of the parts. semantic coindexation 177

2. In both cases semantic coindexation is responsible for the construction of the meaning, supported by the articulation between the semantics of the units and their maximal semantic frame. 3. In both cases the meaning of the whole respects semantic coindexation guidelines of maximal or minimal compatibility between the features of the lexical units involved and the most prototypical or least representative meanings and nouns of the paradigm. In both cases a straightforward compatibility leads to a transparent noun; the more complex the meaning construction is, the higher the idiomaticity. 4. Nevertheless, the set of LCS features associated with a lexeme and, a fortiori, with a relation between two lexemes is potentially wider than the set of features associated with a suffix. This difference opens up the universe of possible semantic and denotational codifications performed by a compound. So, due to the fact that compound constituents represent two LCS universes that articulate and enrich each other, the meaning structure in compounding tends to be freer than in derivation. However, the relation between the nouns is not totally free. By default, the meaning of a derived word is less unpredictable than the meaning of a compound.

We could relate this observation to Jackendoff’s (2010: 422–3) proposal that compounding is a relic of protolanguage, that is an architecture anterior to language that would contain semantics and phonology but no syntax. According to Jackendoff, compounding (but not derivation) displays some properties of a ‘protolinguistic’ fossil, namely a rudimentary grammatical structure that does not shape semantic interpretation. However, the alleged freedom of compound meaning is indeed constrained by the semantics of the units involved and by pragmatic and/or referential conditions of compatibility between them. The question arising then is: if semantics, as Jackendoff proposes, has a generative character, would that generative character be present in the semantics of protolanguage? Would protolanguage semantics already have the structural complexity of the semantics of fully developed language?

NOTES

1. The article is the result of close collaboration between the authors. For academic purposes, Rodrigues is responsible for section 1 and Rio-Torto for section 2. The remaining text is the joint responsibility of both authors. 2. Contrary to Lieber (2004), we propose that coindexation is strictly semantic and does not work with syntactic or argumental elements. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

178 soares rodrigues and rio-torto

The concept of compatibility we adopt is also different from the one proposed by Langacker (1987a), since his concept admits sentences and properties of whatever nature. 3. This ‘maximal semantic frame’ refers to a conceptual universe related to each lexeme (Langacker 1987a; Pustejovsky 1995a; Jackendoff 2002). 4. We do not say that the affix contains in itself the argument structure in the case of event deverbal nouns, or a specific argument in the case of agent deverbal nouns. We mean that the affix, because of its meaning, functions as a constraint on the development of argument structure in the deverbal product. This explains why deverbal nouns from the same verb end up with different argument structure solutions according to the affix that built them. For instance, apagão ‘power blackout’ does not have any argument structure, while apagamento ‘switching off; putting out’ does (from apagar ‘to switch off; to put out’). 5. Independently of their internal structure and of their gradual nature (from a more to a less phrasal level), compounds are conceived as lexical constructions (Booij 2009b) whose functioning is ruled by morpho-semantic (not syntactic) principles (Lieber and Scalise 2007). 6. For the classifying (bomba atómica ‘atomic bomb’) and qualifying (mau feitio ‘bad temper’) functions of Portuguese adjectives see Rio-Torto and Ribeiro (2009: 282–4). 7. Adapting Jackendoff’s (1997: 49) words about sentences, we suggest that the meaning of a compound ‘may contain, in addition to conceptual contents of its LCSs, other material that is not expressed lexically, but that must be present in conceptual structure either (i) in order to achieve well-formedness in the composition of the LCSs into conceptual structure (coercion, to use Pustejovsky’s term), or (ii) in order to satisfy the pragmatics of the discourse or extralinguistc content.’ 8. For an overview of the relations between compositionality and idiomaticity, see Cruse (2004: 68–77). 9. According to Baroni et al. (2007), the combinatorial history of a noun influences the interpretation of a novel phrase involving that noun. That is, people use the distributional knowledge of how nouns have previously been combined to interpret a novel combination. 10. Shamsfard and Mousavi (2008) work with seventeen roles: agent, experiencer, patient, theme, time, location, cause, source, destination, reason, topic, instrument, force, state, comparison, message and ben- eficiary. Jackendoff (2002: 250) announced a repertoire of twenty roles for English NN compounds. Jackendoff (2009, 2010) presents a system generating relations on the basis of a list of fourteen semantic roles. 11. Portuguese compounds are typically left-headed: this explains why a criança-soldado cannot denote a soldier that seems/behaves like a child. semantic coindexation 179

12. As Jackendoff (2010: 429) emphasizes, one of the procedures involved in combinatorial semantics of NN compounds is profiling or topicali- zation, according to which a feature is picked out and selected as the one to be referred to. We claim that the selected feature is present in the semantic frame of the units involved, and is the one that optimally fulfils the conditions of semantic compatibility between them. 13. Jackendoff (2002: 250) says that in compounding ‘the grammatical principle involved is simply one of concatenating two nouns into a bigger noun, and the semantic relation between them is determined by a combination of pragmatics and memorization’. Despite the apparent simplicity of grammatical relations of coordination, subordination or modification between the nouns of a compound, pragmatic, referential and/or conceptual information associated with each noun plays a major role in the construction of the conventionalized meaning of the whole. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

chapter 10 Deverbal nominalizations in English: an LMBM approach

Maria Bloch-Trojnar1

espite extensive research in the area, a comprehensive account Dof deverbal nominalizations remains a challenge due to the fact that category changing operations (transpositions) cannot be explained without addressing fundamental questions regarding the overall structure of the grammar and the interaction between components, the nature of the linguistic sign, the structure of the lexicon and the role of morphology. For almost fifty years, English deverbal nominalizations have served as a testing ground for various theoretical models, which with varying success attempted to accommodate their systematic as well as idiosyncratic properties.2 The main objective of this chapter is to test the predictive and explanatory potential of the framework of Lexeme Morpheme Base Morphology (henceforth LMBM) put forward by Beard (1995). As no theory evolves in a vacuum, I will also make reference to and comparison with accounts grounded in the lexicalist tradition (Malicka- Kleparska 1988; Cetnarowska 1993), Event Structure theory developed by Grimshaw (1990) and the Parallel Architecture advocated by Jackendoff (2002). The lexicalist analyses, which I regard as the point of departure for further considerations, do not adopt the ‘one affix – one rule approach’ of Aronoff (1976: 89) but rather subscribe to a categorial view of morphological processes whereby one derivational category may subsume more than one derivational type (Szymanek 1985, 1988). Word Formation Rules (WFRs) are viewed as generative mechanisms producing regular (also potential) forms and analytic devices, i.e. redundancy statements linking sets of forms which are formally and semantically related (Jackendoff 1975). The chapter is organized as follows. In section 1 I present the data with a view to pinpointing problems inherent in their analysis. Section 2 serves deverbal nominalizations in english 181

as a theoretical background in which basic tenets of LMBM are expli- cated. In section 3 I deploy the analytical tools of LMBM for an in-depth examination of the grammatical, semantic and formal aspect of deverbal noun formation in English. It will be argued throughout that the properties of action nominalizations in English call for an approach to morphology which is not sign-based. Paradoxically, an approach which separates form and meaning in complex words provides a more integrated account which strikes the balance between phonological and semantic issues and offers a deeper insight into mutual interactions betweengrammatical modules.

1 THE DATA AND INHERENT PROBLEMS

An account of the category of deverbal nominalizations which aspires to being called comprehensive must span all derivational types without arbitrarily excluding one or the other. English deverbal nominalizations are characterized by the following exponents: -ing, the so called Latinate suffixes: -(at)ion (e.g. celebration), -ment (e.g. development), -ance/-ence (e.g. acceptance), -age (e.g. leakage), -al (e.g. arrival), -ure (e.g. exposure), -y (e.g. delivery)3 and zero (e.g. kick).4 The suffixing - is frequently omitted from the scope of discussion and relegated to the limbo of inflection-derivation borderline cases (e.g. Szymanek 1989: 136–7). However, numerous arguments for distinguishing the regular -ing nominalization from the syntactically derived gerund can be found in, for instance, Chomsky (1970), Schachter (1976) and Malicka-Kleparska (1988: 83–94). In this chapter, focus is placed on those -ing forms which can fill the slot of the head of an NP, i.e. those which can be modified by determiners, adjectives, an of-phrase or a relative clause as in (1).5

(1) a. the annual gathering of the South Pacific Forum b. her endless nagging, which drove him away from home

The following subsections are devoted to the formal and semantic characteristics of deverbal nouns which defy a straightforward explanation. Section 1.1 addresses the question of productivity and the scope of application of particular exponents. It identifies theoretical problems which arise if we want to subsume all exponents under one WFR. Section 1.2 indicates the need for semantic distinctions which are more fine-grained than the traditional process/result dichotomy. It also points to a close link between semantics and countability. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

182 maria bloch-trojnar

1.1 Productive exponents and the scope of their application In terms of productivity and scope of application the relevant exponents cannot be placed on the same footing. In order to discover the categories relevant to the linguistic system and rules which are capable of generating an infinite number of grammatically well-formed words we must concentrate on productive morphological processes (Aronoff 1976, 1980; Bauer 2001, 2003; Plag 1999). Morphological rules are characterized by a cline of productivity with unproductive and fully productive as extremes, e.g. the suffixal - can rarely be used to form new words and the list of deverbal action nominalizations in the OED amounting to thirty-five items is unlikely to be expanded (Haspelmath 2002: 41). The number of derivatives cannot of course be regarded as a yardstick for productivity due to the fact that a high type frequency may merely be an indicator of past productivity. The suffix -ment is a case in point. Bauer (2001: 181) observes that the suffix ‘appears to have been productive between the mid-sixteenth century and the mid-nineteenth century’ and according to Haspelmath (2002: 109) only four twentieth-century neologisms with -ment are attested in the OED. Bauer (2001: 183) contends that in synchronic terms there are two ways of forming nominalizations in English: conversion and suffixation in -ion.6 Notably, Bauer (2001: 177–99) excludes -ing nominalizations from the scope of his analysis. Since it is based on a sample from the OED, it does not come as a surprise that -ing forms, being totally regular and predictable in formal and semantic terms, are not listed. Malicka-Kleparska (1988), in turn, concentrates solely on suffixed nominalizations, since in her view ‘conversions should be looked upon as a phenomenon with a different status than suffixal nominalisations’ (Malicka-Kleparska 1988: 12). She argues that -ing is a truly productive suffix, while the remaining suffixed nominalizations are mostly lexicalized and can only be described in terms of redundancy statements. This does not apply to nominalizations in -ment corresponding to be-, eN- verbs (e.g. bedevilment, bereavement, enforcement, embezzlement) and nominalizations with the suffix(A)tion - whose allomorphic variants appear regularly with verbs ending in -ize, -ate and -ify (e.g. privatization, evaluation, intensification) (Malicka-Kleparska 1988: 165). Malicka-Kleparska (1988) stresses the fact that the process of -ing suffixation is characterized by high generality since only two groups of verbs fall outside its scope.7 The first group includes various stative verbs such as those denoting relations and verbs of emotion and cognition, for instance belong, hold, believe, admire, love, know (Lees 1960: 66). Postpositional verbs such as abide by, depend on constitute the second (Marchand 1969: 249).8 There is a strong tendency for -ing to occur with transitive activity verbs (Malicka-Kleparska 1988: 103). As far as bases for conversion are concerned, deverbal nominalizations in english 183

Bauer (2001:181) points to morphologically simple verbs and phrasal verbs (e.g. jump, walk, think, check up). Adams (2001: 29) observes that bare nominals are derived predominantly from native items and occur mostly in complex predicates, in informal registers.9 According to Brinton (1998: 49), verbs denoting all situation types qualify as potential input to the rule of verb-to- noun conversion, i.e. verbs denoting states (e.g. love, hate, delight), activities (e.g. run, walk, chat), accomplishments (e.g. escape), achievements (e.g. collapse, defeat, round-up ) and semelfactives (e.g. bite, kiss, pinch). In sum, we can observe that three morphophonological operations are available, i.e. -ing, conversion and -ion (and its variants) added to verbs in -ize, -ate , -ify. There is a great deal of overlap in the scope of application of exponents which may lead to more than one derivative based on the same stem, as illustrated in (2).

(2) a. refusal – refusing, civilization – civilizing, equipment – equipping b. drawing – draw, launching – launch, looking up – look up c. movement – moving – move, reservation – reserving – reserve, commandment – commanding – command d. transferal/transference – transferring – transfer

Latinate bases primarily accept Latinate suffixes but also admit -ing, as in (2a). The suffixing - attaches to activity verbs, which are also input to conversion providing that the base verb is morphologically simple (prefer- ably native) or a phrasal verb, as in (2b). As a result doublets are the order of the day. There are also occasional triplets, as in (2c) or even quadruplets based on the same verb, as in (2d). High productivity (profitability) of morphological processes used for transpositional purposes is something to be expected (Bauer 2001: 208). However, the existence of diverse forms based on the same stem exhibiting an actional reading is bound to create problems for an analysis where the existence of one rule subsuming both suffixed and converted nominalizations is envisaged (see Cetnarowska 1993). The interaction between competing morphological processes may be twofold. In cases where constraints strictly delimit complementary scopes of application, affixation rules are unordered (parallel affixation) (Malicka-Kleparska 1985; Plag 1999). Another option is to order rules from the most to the least specific, the domain of application of one affix curtailing the domain of application of another (co-functional affixation). This approach is reflected in Szymanek’s (1985) disjunctive ordering and van Marle’s (1985, 1986) Domain Hypothesis. Ordering implies no doublets, let alone triplets. Lack of ordering requires complementary domains. Neither is satisfied if all nominalization processes are combined into one WFR. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

184 maria bloch-trojnar

The data also pose a problem for the mechanism of blocking (Aronoff 1976; van Marle 1986; Rainer 1988). In his discussion of the thief – stealer case, Bauer (1988: 66) argues that blocking prevents institutionalization of potential forms to the effect that they are not accepted into general use or listed in dictionaries. He regards -ing as the default nominalizing marker for freshly coined verbs such as Unseav – a verb formed by conversion from the acronym United Nations Special East Asian Volunteers (Bauer 2001: 90), as in (3).

(3) We wish to protest in the strongest terms against the Unseaving of the border between North and South Korea.

However, -ing is attested on native as well as Latinate bases and we encoun- ter pairs such as civilization/civilizing or equipping/equipment, i.e. there is no blocking effect.10 Malicka-Kleparska (1988: 165) admits that -ing forms may sound slightly clumsy but there are abundant examples to be found in the OED, such as those in (4a–b) and (4c–d) below.

(4) a. to attempt the civilization of the Australian aborigines b. the civilizing of the Highlands of Scotland . . . c. for the endowment and equipment of a chair of Anatomy d. the equipping of two such armaments

The occurrence of -ing alongside special cases, i.e. Latinate suffixes, means that it cannot be regarded merely as the general or elsewhere case, in the sense of van Marle (1985). Therefore, in Malicka-Kleparska’s analysis -ing affixation is granted the status of an independent rule, which does not interact with other affixation operations. It belongs to a separate block. If zero derivation is co-functional with Latinate suffixation, as argued by Cetnarowska (1993), we can explain the non-occurrence of bare nominalizations in the actional reading if there is a corresponding Latinate nominalization, e.g. reserve receives no actional interpretation due to the existence of reservation, as in (5a–b). Since -ing belongs to a separate block, reserving is generated independently of reservation and can be used in the actional reading, as in (5c).

(5) a. This guarantee ensures the reservation of your room after 7 p.m.11 b. *This guarantee ensures the reserve of your room after 7 p.m. c. the reserving of parking spaces12

With native verbs, we expect no blocking effects between ing- and zero derivatives and it should be possible for -ing forms to replace the zero deverbal nominalizations in english 185 derived nominalizations in the actional reading. We find doublets such as beating – beat, transferring – transfer, drawing – draw but they cannot be used interchangeably like forms in (4) above. The meanings of -ing and zero nominals are actional but not synonymous, as the opposition in (6) illustrates.

(6) a. I love you with every beat of my heart.13 b. *I love you with every beating of my heart.

It transpires that -ing is generated independently of Latinate nominals whereas bare nominals are co-functional with them. However, the relationship between -ing and zero derivatives is not the same as that between -ing and Latinate nominalizations.

1.2 Regular and lexicalized meanings Due to lexicalization, the meaning of action nouns, regardless of the derivational type they belong to, exhibits a tendency to gravitate towards denoting concrete referents (Marchand 1969: 303). Malicka-Kleparska (1988) perceives lexicalization as the process of incorporation of the most object-like thematic role of the verb into the meaning of a given nominalization while other thematic roles (if there are any left) are deleted. Notably, the lexicalized result reading is not always countable in the case of suffixed nominalizations, whereas lexicalized zero derivatives always are, as illustrated in Table 10.1. The actional meaning of suffixed nominals always goes hand in hand with uncountability, whereas the concrete reading may be associated with countable nouns. For every count noun there seems to be a corresponding non-count noun but not vice versa (Bloch-Trojnar 2007: 51–2). In Cobuild (2009), performance has two glosses associated with a count and a non-count noun, i.e. ‘a performance involves entertaining an audience by doing something such as singing, dancing or acting’ and ‘the performance of a task is the fact or action of doing it’. Nominals such as corrosion and condensation are listed only as non-count nouns.

Table 10.1 Countability distinctions in lexicalized deverbal nominals -ing Latinate suffixes Ø building(s) possession(s) cut(s) filling(s) in a tooth solution(s) find(s) warning(s) government(s) exhibit(s) stuffing condensation deposit(s) roofing disposal attendance Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

186 maria bloch-trojnar

Two more facts have not received due attention, namely a systematic difference in the meaning and grammatical category of -ing and zero derivatives and the ambiguity of Latinate nominalizations. Nominalizations in -ing are uncountable and interpreted as ‘action or process of V-ing’ (e.g. building, walking, transferring), whereas the nomen acti reading, i.e. ‘a single instance of V-ing’, is prevalent in countable zero derivatives (e.g. a look, a kick, a gasp) (Cetnarowska 1993: 112–13; Adams 2001: 28–9). Malicka- Kleparska (1988: 30) argues cogently that Latinate nominalizations can refer to actions in their entirety and their meaning is not restricted to the traditionally recognized process vs. result contrast. The examples in (7) come from Pustejovsky (1995a: 170), who also regards Latinate nominals as ambiguous between process, event and result readings.

(7) a. The house’s construction was finished in two months. (event) b. The construction was interrupted during the rains. (process) c. The construction is standing on the next street. (result)

To recapitulate, Latinate nominals denote a process, event and result and are non-count on an actional interpretation. Formations in -ing refer to processes and are uncountable, whereas zero derivatives refer to events and are countable. Suffixed nominalizations show variable countability in lexicalized senses.

2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This section is a résumé of the major tenets of LMBM. I will characterize the model of grammar developed by Beard (1995) and pay special attention to those aspects which differentiate it from other frameworks and are conducive to analysing our data, i.e. the modular structure of grammar, the realizational approach to morphology (the separation hypothesis) and the morpholexical status of nominal number.

2.1 Model of grammar LMBM advocates a strictly modular structure of grammar because of the ubiquitous lack of isomorphism between grammatical modules. Semantic classes, which are the reflection of conceptual structures in the cognitive system, do not map isomorphically onto grammatical categories. For example, the grammatical distinction between count and mass cuts across a wide range of semantic classes. The system of determination and quantification will not discriminate between dog and indication on the one deverbal nominalizations in english 187

hand and toast and disrespect on the other, even though they do not share a common aspect of meaning (Willim 2006: 31). There are numerous examples of misalignments between semantic and syntactic structures. For example, not all arguments at the level of Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS)14 will be realized as syntactic arguments of a predicate and vice versa. Jackendoff (2010: 16–17) explains that there may be verbs with supernumerary syntactic arguments which contribute nothing to the semantics, e.g. reflexive arguments of perjure oneself, avail oneself of X alongside synonymous verbs which feature in different syntactic configurations, e.g. replace X with Y, substitute Y for X. Such misalignments are also recognized in generative semantics. Pustejovsky (1995a: 63–4) argues that only true arguments are necessarily mapped onto/expressed as syntactic constituents (8a), whereas default arguments (8b) and shadow arguments (8c) are not.

(8) a. John arrived late. (true argument) b. John built a house out of bricks. (default argument) c. Mary buttered her toast with an expensive butter. (shadow argument)

Most conspicuous is the lack of isomorphism between lexical and grammatical categories and their phonological manifestation. One affix may express a whole range of grammatical and semantic functions (e.g. -er : agent noun, instrument noun, inhabitant noun, comparative adjective), and conversely one function may be expressed by several exponents (e.g. agent nouns in English: -er/or, -ant , -ee , -ist and Ø). Szymanek (1989: 108–19) stresses the fact that the lack of one-to- one correspondence between form and meaning in morphology received due attention in Slavic studies on word-formation but was ‘overlooked or neglected in most Western studies’. The English suffix -ing is one of at least eight co-functional affixes realizing nomina actionis, and it can be linked to a derivational function of subjective adjective and inflectional present participle. Polyfunctionality is rampant in affixes, whereas in lexemes it is an exception rather than the rule. In contradistinction to affixes which can be both synonymous and polysemous like -ing or -er in English, lexemes either have multiple meanings (polysemy) or share the same meaning (synonymy), i.e. the misalignment of form and meaning is relatively rare and unidirectional (Beard 1981: 105). Robert Beard can be regarded as the most articulate champion of the ‘separation hypothesis’, i.e. separating the functional-semantic and formal aspects of word coining. Similar views were voiced earlier by Slavic linguists such as Dokulil (1962), Grzegorczykowa (1979) or Grzegorczykowa and Puzynina (1979). In the generative thrust of research the first to Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

188 maria bloch-trojnar

consider this possibility was Jackendoff (1975). It is also argued for and implemented by Laskowski (1981), Szymanek (1985, 1988), Malicka- Kleparska (1985, 1988), Aronoff (1994) and Bloch-Trojnar (2006). Therefore, in LMBM there are strict boundaries between the LEXICON (the storehouse of lexemes), the GRAMMAR (structural relations of syntax and a set of morphological categories), the SEMANTIC MODULE and the MORPHOLOGICAL SPELLING COMPONENT (the component mapping grammatical function to phonology). Beard (1995: 381) envisages the interaction between components in the following way:

The only place in language, then, where semantic, grammatical, and phonological representations are directly related to each other, is the lexicon. The direct relation of these representations defines the lexeme. Elsewhere, at the syntactic, semantic, and phonological levels, information from one domain must be translated into the representations of any other domain which employs that information. Morphology does all the translating.

In other words, grammatical categories (derivational and inflectional ones) provide a link with semantics whereas affixation rules map grammatical functions to phonology.15 There is a rigid distinction between LEXEMES and MORPHEMES. All open classes are lexical and thus housed in the lexicon; all closed classes (including free morphemes) are grammatical and hence belong to the realm of the Morphological Spelling Component (MS-Component). In Beard’s model a lexeme is conceived of as a mutually implied triplet, p 4 g 4 r where p stands for phonological representation or matrix, g for grammatical representation or feature inventory and r for semantic representation or feature inventory. Lexical and syntactic rules are abstract operations which apply to the grammatical representation of a lexeme, i.e. to features such as +Singular, –Plural, +Feminine, –Masculine.16 Grammatical features (G-features) subsumed by inherent (morpho)lexical categories are internal to (morpho)syntactic inflectional categories. Affixation and other formal operations (prosodic variation, internal modification, Ø, etc.) are post-syntactic and take place in an autonomous Morphological Spelling Component. In this model no zero morphemes per se are recognized (Beard 1984: 53). We are dealing with a process (a derivational or inflectional one) without an overt phonological reflex which may contrast with a set of exponents used to mark the same function. Figure 10.1 graphically represents ‘how derived lexemes with directly related sound and meaning may be generated without any direct relation deverbal nominalizations in english 189

Lexeme Operations on Responsible lexemes grammatical component

R Semantic SEMANTICS operations

↕

G Lexical derivation LEXICON Inflectional SYNTAX derivation

P Spelling operations MS-COMPONENT Phonological PHONOLOGY operations Figure 10.1 Derivational and spelling operations in LMBM (Beard 1995: 49) between the rules of derivation and those of morphological spelling, or between the meanings and forms over which they operate’ (Beard 1995: 49).

2.2 The grammatical representation of the lexeme and transposition Beard’s classification of features as either morpholexical or morphosyntactic hinges on the result of the application of three tests: the peripheral affix test, the free analog test and the arbitrariness criterion.17 As for the cardinal verbal categories Beard’s findings converge with other classification systems, i.e. Verb Class18 and Transitivity are morpholexical features, whereas Modality, Mood, Aspect, Voice, Tense, Person and Agreement are morphosyntactic. However, the application of his tests leads to different results with respect to nouns. Number, Gender and Noun Class19 are morpholexical nominal categories, while Agreement and Case are inflectional. Number distinctions are encoded by the features [± Singular] and [± Plural]. Different value settings of these features correspond to various classes of nouns, as in Table 10.2.20

Table 10.2 +/− Singular and +/− Plural as operators +Singular –Singular +Plural COLLECTIVE PLURAL NOUNS –Plural COUNT NOUNS MASS NOUNS Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

190 maria bloch-trojnar

In Beard’s model all operations on number properties (including pluralization)21 are derivational. We can easily envisage feature value switches involved in pluralization and recategorization phenomena, which refer to a shift from a count noun to a mass noun as in (9a) and vice versa as in (9b).

(9) a. We had lamb for dinner. b. I’d like a coffee please.

In my analysis, number is regarded as a morpholexical feature since it is lexically determined whether a given noun is count, mass or pluralis tantum. However, I do not share Beard’s view that pluralization is always derivational (Bloch-Trojnar 2012a).22 In LMBM ‘the Lexicon may transpose any member of any major lexical class (N, V, A) to any other major lexical class by providing it only with the lexical G-features of the target class and neutralizing (but not deleting) the inherent G-features of the base’ (Beard 1995: 177).23

2.3 The lexicon and lexicalization Beard (1981, 1987) argues that the lexicon should be conceived of as two subcomponents: a functional subcomponent, which subsumes L-derivation rules (Lexical Extension Rules), and the storage, which contains noun, verb, adjective and adverb stems. Rules define L-derivations abstractly, i.e. without any reference to affixation.24 They produce lexemes with transparent meanings and are automatically applied to lexemes in lexical storage. There are also Lexical Stock Expansion Rules which provide new stems for the storage subcomponent rendering new names for objects, activities and qualities in the world. According to Beard (1987) ‘semantic drift’ affects stored items in both principled and random ways. Semantic irregularity may be the offshoot of evolution from primary transparent meanings (e.g. construction, painting) or an idiomatic meaning may be added to the output of a regular process (e.g. transmission ‘gearbox’).25 An affected item ‘disengages from the productive L-derivation rule which generates it’ (Beard 1987: 26) and enters the lexicon, which has two consequences. Firstly, the generation of another form is necessary to fulfil the original function. Thuswell- being was coined to replace wealth. Secondly, the stored item can serve as input to L-derivation. Thus hateful is no longer regarded as a derivative of hate, and hateful-ness, hateful-ly arise. When the meaning of a lexical derivate drifts, it attracts its form with it (e.g. holiday, ghastly) or at least isolates it from its derivational origin (e.g. awful, lovely). deverbal nominalizations in english 191

3 ANALYSIS IN THE FRAMEWORK OF LMBM

Figure 10.2 gives an overview of the representations of regular and lexicalized deverbal nominalizations from the vantage point of LMBM. The functional subcomponent of the lexicon generates abstract lexical items whose grammatical features must be interpreted by other grammatical modules. Section 3.1 is devoted to syntactic ramifications of verb to noun transposition. In section 3.2 an attempt is made to untie the Gordian knot of semantic interactions between regular and lexicalized senses. Section 3.3 deals with constraints governing the distribution of formal exponents.

VERB ± Transitive Verb Class (native/Latinate)

Transposition

Non-count NOUN Count NOUN Plural (Process) (Event)

0Transitive 0Transitive 0Transitive 0Verb Class 0Verb Class 0Verb Class –Sg +Sg –Sg –Pl –Pl +Pl Noun Class X, Y Noun Class Z Noun Class Z (native/Latinate) (native) civilizing civilization beat equipping equipment look observing observation swim destroying destruction dump describing description LEXICALIZATION beating building

RESULT/OBJECT RESULT/OBJECT

–Sg +Sg –Sg –Pl –Pl +Pl

equipment beat dump destruction civilization stuffing observation DERIVATION description building INFLECTION LEXICALIZATION

Figure 10.2 LMBM representation of deverbal nominalizations in English Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

192 maria bloch-trojnar

3.1 Grammatical interpretation of deverbal transpositions A nominalizing L-derivation rule provides the morpholexical features of substantives. As nouns in English do not bear morphological gender features, the only category that is available to grammatical processes of transposition is number and we expect two major subclasses of nouns, count nouns specified as [+Singular; –Plural] and non-count nouns [–Singular; –Plural]. The information of the native/Latinate character of the base is reflected by the division into noun classes. The syntactic structures with derived nominals resemble structures with morphologically simple nouns in all respects, i.e. they are preceded by appropriate determiners, adjectives, and followed by prepositional phrase complements. In regular nominalizing processes, the argument structure information of the verb is preserved but neutralized, which means that LCS participants of verbs can be realized in the complement and adjunct positions of a nominal phrase marker, but they are by no means obligatory (see Grimshaw 1990). Since nominal modifiers are generally optional we find suffixed and bare actional nominals with or without accompanying NPs and PPs, as illustrated in (10a–c) and (10d–f) respectively.26

(10) a. The enemy’s destruction of the city b. John’s proving of the theorem27 c. the change of the climate by man’s emission of greenhouse gases28 d. But it’s not the sex I miss so much – it’s the kissing. e. In hospital she’ll be under observation all the time. f. The climb took twenty minutes.

The operation of pluralization can only apply to verbal nominals specified as [+Singular; –Plural]. Count nouns as a rule may take plural morphology and co-occur with cardinal numbers and enumerative determiners, as in (11).29

(11) a. Can I have two guesses? b. I took several rides in his car

The picture presented above ties in with the widely held view that there is an analogy between count entities and events, on the one hand, and mass entities and activities on the other (see Mourelatos 1978; Langacker 1987b; Jackendoff 1991; Krifka 1992; Brinton 1998; Willim 2006; and the references therein). Brinton (1998) investigates the mapping of Aktionsart properties of a verb to a corresponding nominalization and argues that, unlike Latinate deverbal nominalizations in english 193 suffixes, -ing nominals and Ø-derivatives fail to preserve the Aktionsart of the verb. Whereas the -ing suffix ‘has the effect of converting the situation into an activity, of making the situation durative, atelic and dynamic’ (Brinton 1998: 48), conversion ‘is a means of converting the situation into an event (an accomplishment, achievement, or semelfactive) by adding the feature of telicity’ (Brinton 1998: 50).30 In the process of lexicalization the verbal features are deleted, nominals are viewed as non-derived objects and there is only a vague connection with the verb due to phonological shape. Non-count nouns may remain so (e.g. destruction), may acquire a referential meaning (e.g. stuffing) or may be turned into [+Singular; –Plural] nouns capable of pluralizing (e.g. description, filling (in a tooth)). Count nouns in non-actional lexicalized meanings will refer not to actions but to entities of some sort (e.g. permit, dump). The seemingly arbitrary mode of lexicalization of suffixed nominals as either countable or uncountable can partly be predicted from their aspectual characteristics (Brinton 1998: 47) in the sense that state and activity verbs give rise to mass nominalizations, as in (12a), whereas accomplishment, achievement and semelfactive verbs are lexicalized as countable, as in (12b).31

(12) a. the survival, a lot of guidance, some leakage, some resemblance, much astonishment b. a refusal, an arrangement, a lot of marriages, an entrance, an appearance, two dismissals, a few conquests

3.2 Semantic interpretation of deverbal nominalizations and the lexicon The complexity of linguistic reality is a natural corollary of the interaction between products of the functional subcomponent of the lexicon and listed lexicalized items. In the account developed here, productively formed nominalizations in -ing and zero derivatives are generated while the majority of Latinate nominalizations are listed. If Latinate nominalizations are listed, the generation of -ing forms as their replacements in actional senses becomes essential, hence doublets such as civilization and civilizing. There is some evidence to argue that Latinate nominalizations are gradually becoming isolated from their origin (they no longer have verbal features in their representation) because they can serve as input to further derivation. Relational adjectives in English are derived from Latinate nouns (e.g. industrial, atomic, cellular). Szymanek (1985, 1989: 213–25) notes that nomina actionis do not give rise to this category unless they have lexicalized senses (e.g. governmental, adaptational, Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

194 maria bloch-trojnar

motivational, transformational). Regular and lexicalized nominalizations behave in a different way with respect to further derivation. How many entries are there then? No formal difference distinguishes the regular and irregular uses of transmission. In the separationist model of LMBM we can argue that two different categories happen to have a homophonous realization. In the sense of ‘gearbox’, transmission is listed in the storage, whereas transmission ‘act/action of V-ing’ is generated by rule. We shall argue that Latinate nominalizations are logically polysemous items along the lines proposed by Pustejovsky (1995a).32 Pustejovsky (1995a) rejects the approach in which the lexicon has multiple listings of words annotated with separate meanings (Sense Enumerative Lexicon). Pustejovsky and Anick (1988) introduce the notion of a lexical conceptual paradigm (lcp), which allows a lexical item to be regarded as a metaentry. There are three senses available to an lcp constructed from two base types, as depicted in (13).

(13) process.result_lcp = {process.result, process, result}

Just like the noun construction in (7) above, the noun merger could allow reference to the entire event of the merging, in addition to a possible process or result interpretation (Pustejovsky 1995a: 93). Pustejovsky (1995a: 167–71) argues that only nominals which have the process and result reading can have the additional event interpretation. That is why -ing nominalizations as in (14) cannot be polysemous, because they are not interpreted as the result of an event.33

(14) The launching of the space shuttle occurred at 10.30.

To this we could add that there is a zero-derived noun based on the same verbal base which has the semantics to fill the remaining slots in the lcp. According to Cobuild (2009) the nominal launch has the event reading (the dot object) as in (15a) and the object reading as in (15b).

(15) a. This morning’s launch of the space shuttle Colombia has been delayed. b. The captain was on the deck of a launch, steadying the boat for the pilot.

Pustejovsky (1995a) does not consider zero derived nominals in any detail, but his observation with reference to the nominal purchase ties in with the interpretation proposed above. He notes that purchase behaves like a dot object which is logically polysemous between the event and the object involved in the transaction (Pustejovsky 1995a: 179). Thus -ing nominals (e.g. purchasing, pushing) refer to a process and contrast with deverbal nominalizations in english 195 bare nominals (e.g. purchase, push) which denote an event, as illustrated in (16).

(16) a. the purchasing of office supplies by State Agencies in Mississippi34 b. the purchase by India of howitzers from the Swedish firm of Bofors35 c. For hours there was pushing of the cart by Jones.36 d. Information is called up at the push of a button.

However, -ing nominals such as launching, purchasing, pushing should be contrasted with nominals such as painting or building. Since the latter display the result reading, the event interpretation should also be available, which immediately prevents an event interpretation of a bare deverbal noun, as seen in (17).37

(17) a. Brown’s painting of his daughter is taking a long time. b. Brown’s painting/*paint of his daughter took one evening. c. Brown’s paintings of his daughter

The situation is predictable in cases where, in addition to the -ing nominal, there is a Latinate nominalization and a zero derivative based on the same verbal stem. As expected, zero derivatives will not have an event interpretation since it is already rendered by lexically listed Latinate nominals, whereas an -ing nominal will be restricted to the process reading, as in (18).

(18) the formation/forming/*form of clouds from water vapour38

This generalization will not hold if the Latinate nominal has become totally isolated from its derivational source and shows no actional reading whatsoever, as in (19a). Products of regular processes will then fill the vacated slots of an lcp in question, as in (19b–d).

(19) a. The Ten Commandments b. a suite of tools for the commanding of planetary rovers c. the struggle for command of the air d. In computing, a command is an instruction that you give to a computer

In sum, lexicalization affects individual lexical items (not classes), which explains why all types of nominals regardless of the formal marker may show the result reading (building, civilization, launch). Actional readings are of two types: process and event. Since only nominals which display the result reading in addition to the process reading can be three-way Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

196 maria bloch-trojnar

ambiguous, this ambiguity characterizes listed Latinate nominalizations and a fraction of -ing nominals. It follows that nominals which denote events and results (zero derivatives) cannot refer to processes. With native roots a bare nominal and an -ing nominal are part of one lcp and show an aspectual contrast (launching ‘atelic’ – launch ‘telic’), whereas Latinate nominals block bare nominals in the event reading as long as their actional interpretation is possible.

3.3 Morphological spelling When the spelling operations begin to apply, the first operation can only modify the phonological base, since this is the only phonological representation available. The interpretation of the g, p and r features (see section 2.1) builds outwards from the base, responding to each feature or set of features that serve as conditions on its operations.39 A cluster of features with [–Singular; –Plural] is marked with -ing . If the base is a Latinate verbal stem one of the Latinate affixes is selected.40 A verbal root marked [+Singular; –Plural] receives no marking at all, unless we are dealing with a Latinate base.

4 CONCLUSION

The verb lexeme is subject to operations on its morpholexical features which produce a lexical conceptual paradigm of deverbal nominal forms with categories such as process, event and result. The first two are generated by regular WFRs (Lexical Extension Rules) whereas the latter category encompasses products of lexicalization phenomena (Lexical Expansion Rules). Process nominalizations are uncountable, whereas event nominalizations are countable when the base verb is native and uncountable when the base verb is Latinate. Three semantic categories are mapped onto three grammatical categories which in turn are mapped onto three types of MS-spelling operations. However, there is no neat one-to-one mapping between semantics, grammar and phonology. Suffixed nominalizations denote processes, in the event reading zero contrasts with Latinate suffixes. Idiosyncratic readings are observed in items with all formal exponents, as summarized in Table 10.3. On this view, morphology is interwoven with other components. In the words of Beard (1995: 379–80), it is ‘the glue which holds the various levels of language together. Grammatical functions map lexical classes and syntactic categories onto semantics. The MS-module maps grammatical functions to phonology.’ deverbal nominalizations in english 197

Table 10.3 An LMBM analysis of deverbal nominalizations in English SEMANTIC RULE TYPE FEATURES IN THE EXPONENT CATEGORIES GRAMMATICAL REPRESEN- TATION OF THE NOUN PROCESS [[V] +Latinate [–Singular; –Plural]] Latinate suffixes {process} [[V] –Singular; –Plural] -ing EVENT [[V] +Latinate [–Singular; –Plural]] Latinate suffixes

{process•result} LEXICAL EXTEN- SION RULES [[V] –Latinate [+Singular; –Plural]] no modification RESULT/ [+Latinate [–Singular; –Plural]], Latinate suffixes OBJECT [+Latinate [+Singular; –Plural]] {result} [–Latinate [+Singular; –Plural]] no modification

Listed items LEXICAL EXPAN- SION RULES [+Singular; –Plural] -ing

NOTES

1. I would like to thank Anna Malicka-Kleparska for comments on preliminary drafts of this article as well as the participants at the workshop ‘Meaning and Lexicalization of Word Formation’ in April 2010 in Budapest for valuable feedback. I am extremely grateful to the editors of the volume Pius ten Hacken and Claire Thomas, whose suggestions, both stylistic and substantive, were of immense help in articulating my ideas. 2. Various approaches to nominalization include Transformationalist, Lexicalist and Neo-transformationalist accounts, the Configurational Hypothesis and Event Structure theory. For a concise overview of the most important theoretical trends the reader is referred to Koptjevskaja-Tamm (1993) and Rozwadowska (1997). 3. Apart from these there are a number of isolated irregular verb – noun pairs such as complain – complaint, pursue – pursuit, fly – flight, grow – growth, laugh – laughter, sell – sale, lose – loss (Marchand 1969; Szymanek 1989; Adams 2001). 4. At this stage I leave unresolved the vexed question whether we are dealing here with the affixation of an unpronounced element or no affixation at all. In morphological theory, this phenomenon is referred to as zero derivation or conversion. In Slavic linguistics the term paradigmatic derivation is employed, whereas in cognitive linguistics it is regarded as semantic extension. The problems besetting various approaches and conclusions drawn by linguists of different persuasions are extensively discussed in Cetnarowska (1993: 14–19), Twardzisz (1997: 63–85) and especially Bauer and Valera (2005). Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

198 maria bloch-trojnar

5. Unless otherwise indicated, examples cited throughout this paper come from the following dictionaries: Collins Cobuild English Dictionary, Collins Cobuild Advanced Dictionary of English and The Oxford English Dictionary (OED). 6. The suffixing operation involves allomorphs, whose distribution is sensitive to the syntagmatic properties of the base (see Aronoff 1976: 95–105). The form -cation is restricted to bases ending in -ify (e.g. elec- trify – electrification). The allomorph -ation is selected if the base ends in -ize (e.g. globalize – globalization). The variant -ion is added predominantly to verbs ending in -ate (e.g. terminate – termination). 7. There is a general constraint precluding modal and auxiliary verbs as possible bases for any nominalizing operation (Wasow 1981: 308–9), hence they are not mentioned separately here. 8. Phrasal verbs are possible, yet infrequent (Chomsky 1970: 193; Palmer 1974: 218; Malicka-Kleparska 1988: 101–2), as in (i–ii) below. (i) The laying down of tools was unexpected. (ii) The cutting off of the electricity was a shock for us. 9. She considers cases like those in (iii–iv) below as unlikely but not impossible. (iii) have a consider (iv) give the patient an examine 10. Chomsky (1970: 215) regards (v) and (vi) as equivalent. (v) John’s refusal of the offer (vi) John’s refusing of the offer 11. http://www.etaphotel.com/gb/frequently-asked-questions/reservati on. html#reserver10 (accessed April 2010) 12. http://bloomingdaleneighborhood.blogspot.com/2010/02/ reserving-cleaned-street-parking-spaces.html (accessed March 2010) 13. Google returns almost one hundred thousand hits for this sentence. 14. A detailed discussion of the framework of Lexical Conceptual Semantics is offered in Jackendoff (1983, 1990). 15. Beard’s model (1995) in some respects converges with Jackendoff’s Parallel Architecture (2010). Jackendoff (2010) recognizes three independent generative components, i.e. phonology, syntax and semantics, ‘each with its own primitives and principles of organization’ and interface rules. He is not explicit about the role of morphology in his model. Commenting on the separation of morphological rules (M-rules) and semantic rules (S-rules) proposed in his (1975) paper, Jackendoff (2010: 57) says that ‘this separation of M-rules and S-rules dissolves the lockstep of phonology, syntax and semantics and quietly begins to lay the groundwork for the Parallel Architecture. Restated in terms of the Parallel Architecture, the M-rules are (morpho)phonology-to- deverbal nominalizations in english 199

(morpho)syntax interface rules, and the S-rules are (morpho)-syntax- to-semantics interface rules.’ Beard introduces an autonomous level of morphological categories (as does Aronoff 1994), i.e. grammatical functions which interpret semantic functions algorithmically. The two models also diverge as far as the status of morphemes is concerned. Despite its obvious drawbacks in handling non-concatenative mechanisms, Jackendoff adopts an analytical rather than procedural treatment of regular morphology, and morphemes are placed in the lexicon as long-term memory associations of phonological, syntactic and semantic information (Jackendoff 2010: 19). In Beard’s model, morphemes belong to grammar. They are not determinants of meaning but merely clues which signal a relationship. 16. Aronoff (1984) pointed out that there seem to be no lexical rules of the type V S N, where any verb of any lexical (sub)category is trans- formed into a noun of any lexical (sub)category. Instead, verbs serve as bases for the derivation of, for instance, subjective, instrumental or feminine nouns, but not nouns capable of fulfilling all those functions simultaneously. It is features which define the categories, rather than the N, V, A labels (see Beard 1988: 35). 17. For a detailed discussion the reader is referred to Beard (1995: 102–54). 18. Verb Classes determine stems and are more or less arbitrary groupings of words associated with different sets of inflections. 19. For Beard gender is synonymous with natural gender and as such is a morpholexical feature of sexed beings. Natural gender is kept distinct from grammatical gender, which in Beard is referred to as ‘Noun Class’. 20. The two features [±Singular] and [±Plural] in the grammatical representation of nouns (Beard 1982) seem to map directly onto the features ±b(ounded) and ±i(nternal structure) at the level of LCS (Jackendoff 1991). A more detailed presentation of the interaction between lexical- conceptual semantics of nouns and linguistic countability is offered in Bloch-Trojnar (2012a). 21. Beard (1982, 1995: 111–15) is not the sole advocate of the possible lexeme status of nominal plurals (see Tiersma 1982; Dimmendaal 1987). According to Corbett (1999: 10) the interaction of number with the Animacy hierarchy has the result that ‘the status of number as an inflectional category is much less straightforward than generally imagined. [. . .] It really is not a simple inflectional feature (+/–plural) ready to have a role in syntax.’ 22. According to Corbett (2000) in English, subject noun phrases and predicate verbs (in the present tense) have a singular-plural system, and normally they match by agreement. For the class of nouns where Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

200 maria bloch-trojnar

number contrast is present, its role in contextual inflection is regular. However, it is only the count nouns that are involved in the number system, whereas non-count nouns fall outside. Agreement should not be conceived of as one-to- one copying since mismatches demonstrate that the system of the controller is substantially different from that of the target. Therefore what we call inflection and what derivation is not a universal feature of categories or values but rather a matter of para- metric choices of which paradigmatic oppositions are grammaticalized. 23. In LMBM, lexical derivation (L-derivation) subsumes transposition, feature value switches and functional and expressive derivation. 24. The two subcomponents correspond to the Conditional and Permanent Lexicons of Allen (1978) and Malicka-Kleparska (1985). 25. In the automotive sense transmission cannot have evolved slowly from the primary, transparent meaning ‘process of transmitting’. Carstairs- McCarthy (1992: 185) explains that ‘there is nothing in either the derivation itself or our experience of the world, which might tell us that it relates to the transmission of power from the engine to the wheels in cars, rather than (say) the transmission of a message from the speaker to the hearer in a telephone conversation (whereby transmission might mean “handset”), or the transmission of an inherited characteristic from one generation to another (whereby transmission might mean “gene”).’ Thus the application of this term to a particular referent is the result of a conscious choice of a speaker and its subsequent institutionalization. 26. The distinction into Complex event and Simple event/result nominals introduced by Grimshaw (1990) and emphasized in the ‘event structure’ and ‘structure theory’ of nominalizations (Alexiadou and Grimshaw 2008) cannot be maintained. Alexiadou (2009) points to the need for the dissociation of the presence of Argument Structure (AS) from verbalizing morphology and the optionality of the licensing of AS in the nominal system. This, however, is tantamount to undermin- ing one of the cornerstones of the syntacticocentric morpheme-based approach to deverbal nominals. For a more detailed discussion of these issues see Bloch-Trojnar (2011). Also see Soares Rodrigues and Rio- Torto (this volume). 27. Examples (10a–b) come from Chomsky (1970). 28. http://www.astralweb.co.uk/smart-meters-glossary.html (accessed February 2010). Admittedly, structures in which bare nominals occur with NPs and PPs corresponding to arguments of the base verb are hard to come by and additionally may seem artificial, awkward or marked. Rozwadowska (1997: 13) notes that ‘nominalizations are structures that are rare in everyday conversation, especially those with a full array of deverbal nominalizations in english 201

satellites’. According to Herbst (1988: 297) nominal phrases laden with PPs and infinitival clauses are heavy and stylistically awkward. Hence, in spoken language they are avoided and replaced with their sentential analogues. Stylistic considerations, however, do not offer a satisfactory explanation as to why suffixed nominals such as those in (10a–b) above show a greater propensity to take modifying phrases. It can be argued that the reluctance of bare nominals to occur with satellite NPs and PPs has to do with their aspectual characteristics and the presence of suffixed nominals based on the same root (Bloch-Trojnar 2011). 29. Examples in (11) come from Cetnarowska (1993: 43). 30. For a critical evaluation of approaches which insist on direct relationships between aspectuality, countability and morphological marking in action nominalizations see Bloch-Trojnar (2012b). 31. The examples in (12) are taken from Brinton (1998: 47). 32. For a more detailed exposition of Pustejovsky’s approach the reader is referred to Thomas (this volume). 33. The suffixed Latinate nominalizations can be replaced by -ing formations only in the regular actional sense. No such replacement is possible in the lexicalized sense, e.g. the ancient civilizations/*civilizings (Malicka-Kleparska 1988: 165). 34. http://www.procurement.msstate.edu/officesupplies.pdf (accessed April 2010). 35. Example taken from Cetnarowska (1993: 71). 36. This example comes from Mourelatos (1978: 427), who regards the -ing nominal as a lexical means of marking process (activity) predication. It is ‘mass-quantified’ and does not have a terminus or closure, which defines event predications. 37. The examples in (17) are modelled on Quirk et al. (1985: 1290–1), who distinguish a number of intermediate stages between the count noun some paintings of Brown’s and the participle in a finite verb phrase Brown is painting his daughter. 38. Google returns about 576,000 hits for the phrase the formation of clouds and about 16,800 for the forming of clouds (June 2013). The phrase the form of clouds is widespread, but it does not have an actional interpretation. 39. The choice of exponents may depend on the phonological, morphological, syntactic or semantic properties of the base. Importantly, conditions on affixation are ‘absolutely irrelevant in the determination of the derivative’s meaning’ (Beard 1995: 51). 40. The block of affixation rules along the lines proposed by Malicka- Kleparska (1988) should be understood as a morphomic function (Aronoff 1994), a function providing nominal forms of verbal stems Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

202 maria bloch-trojnar

with the lexical diacritic [+Latinate]. The feature [+Latinate] triggers the application of affixation rules which, as Malicka-Kleparska (1988) demonstrates, depend on various structural properties of the base, e.g. the base for -(a)tion terminates in -ize, -ify, -ate or requires an intransitive base, -ment attaches to be-, eN- verbs and is attached to transitive bases. Derivatives with -al and -ance/ence have to be ordered first and lexically marked. The choice of the most productive exponents (-ing and zero) depends on a variety of factors, number marking being just one of them (Bloch-Trojnar 2012b). chapter 11 Degrees of lexicalization in Ancient

Greek deverbal nounsLexicalization in Ancient Greek deverbal nouns

Germana Olga Civilleri

he aim of this chapter is to show lexicalization phenomena in deverbal Tnouns (DNs) as processes that make their compositional semantics opaque. I use the label of DNs to refer to morphological nominalizations, i.e. nominalizations produced by applying morphological means to a verbal base, as in (1a), in opposition to syntactic nominalizations, as in (1b).

(1) a. destruction of the city. b. destroying the city.

It will be shown how such phenomena lie at different points on the lexicalization scale. In order to do that, it is necessary to start with those nouns which have compositional semantics by identifying the specific semantic value which is normally associated with certain morphological schemas, i.e. their core meaning. Once we make this core meaning clear, the lexicalized meanings displayed by some nouns can be explained on the basis of their relationship to it. In general, such a relationship is motivated by metonymic and metaphoric shifts. Thanks to the rich articulation of its morphological level, Ancient Greek (AG) is a particularly interesting language in which to study derivation rules: I analyse the formation of AG DNs by trying to associate a semantic content to the patterns of morphological derivation. My corpus will be composed of the Homeric poems which represent the beginnings of Greek literature (see also Civilleri, submitted). In order to find the data within this corpus, the computer query system Diogenes (Heslin 1999–2007) was used for browsing the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG 2001). Using this computer query system gives us many benefits, since it includes morphological search tools and the well-known Liddell and Scott Greek–English Lexicon (Liddell and Scott [1843] 1992). Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

204 germana olga civilleri

1 DNs IN ANCIENT GREEK: MORPHOLOGICAL STRATEGIES

The two main strategies for the derivation of nouns from verbal1 stems in AG are suffixation and apophony. The former is the most common among world languages (see Malkiel 1978; Kerleroux 1996; Naumann and Vogel 2000), probably thanks to its iconic character (see Dressler 1985). Suffixes, indeed, represent ‘formal expansions of simpler form’ (Naumann and Vogel 2000: 932) and, by adding phonetic content, they also carry semantic information, as the examples in (2) show (Lehrer 2002: 525).

(2) a. Noun/Adjective + -ize ‘to make/cause’. b. modernize X ‘to make X modern’. c. winterize X ‘to get X ready for winter’.

Hence, it is more likely that suffixes have an intrinsically clear semantics that modifies the value of the verbal stem. Not every suffix has a clear inherent meaning, but there is an internal gradation in the semantic potential of each suffix. We can represent such a condition by means of a continuum, as in Figure 11.1. At one extreme, we find the suffixes with inherent lexical meaning (I call them semantically full suffixes), and at the other extreme, we have the suffixes with no inherent meaning (semantically abstract suffixes).2 I bracketed argument structure in Figure 11.1 because this feature does not describe the whole category of nouns with semantically full suffixes. Such nominals may or may not have argument structure. In any case arguments in nominals – at least in AG nominals – are never obligatory. The semantic value of the suffixσι - (ς) [-si(s)]3 is illustrated in (3).

(3) ἀνά- βα- σις aná- basis up go proc.f:nom.sg. ‘going up’

Semantically Semantically full suffixes abstract suffixes

-sis, -mis -ia -mis -mone

more productive, less productive, resulting more verbal, nouns are nearer to fully (argument structure) referential nouns

Figure 11.1 Continuum of the semantic values of AG suffixes lexicalization in ancient greek deverbal nouns 205

Here the suffixsis - , which has a process meaning (perhaps similar to the English suffix -tion), is added to the prefixed verbal stem, marking the category status of the DN and giving it a process meaning. The prefix aná- is added to the verbal stem before suffixation: in fact, it is a so-called preverb, typically affixed to verbal forms (see among others Booij and Van Kemenade 2003 for such a terminology). It is an interesting question whether the value of the preverb in verbs is the same as their value in DNs. Several works claim that the main value of the AG preverb is to make atelic predicates telic (see Cuzzolin 1995; Romagno 2004; Pompei 2010). As far as -sis nominals are concerned, they are not only marked by the [+ durative]/ [+ process] feature but on the whole they seem to be [− telic] too, because the event is not described as concluded in time. On one hand the higher frequency of preverbed -sis DNs in comparison with non-preverbed corresponding forms is quite remarkable, e.g. ἀνάβασις [aná-basis], πρόβασις [pró-basis], ἔκβασις [ék-basis] versus the simple form βάσις [básis] which does not occur in the Homeric corpus, but appears in texts from later stages of the language. On the other hand, the [+ durative] and [− telic] value of suffixes like -sis is the most prominent feature in the derivation of the noun, so the possible telic value of the verbal theme gets lost.4 As far as verbal bases undergoing such a procedure are concerned, we can reconstruct the historical track in (4).

(4) simple verbal base (atelic) > 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). Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

206 germana olga civilleri

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

The suffixμό - (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 il nuotare5 (Italian) ‘destruction’ ‘(the) swimming’ b. nuotata (Italian) ‘swim’ c. sorso bracciata (Italian) ‘sip’ ‘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 suffixessis - 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).

(7) δύνᾰ- μις dýna- mis to be able f.:nom.sg. ‘power’. 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.

(8) λόγ- oς lóg- os say m:nom.sg. ‘word, speech’

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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 original 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- σις amphí- basis around go proc.f:nom.sg. ‘surrounding’ Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 suffixmós - 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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 δεσμὸς allá sphōe dólos kaì desmòs but pron:3pl.acc. snare:nom.sg. and imprisonment:nom.sg.

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

(19) χαλεπὸς δέ ἑ δεσμὸς chalepòs dé he desmòs grievous:nom.sg. 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 technēenteś 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 ἔην χύσις ἤλιθα phýllōn gàr éēn chýsis ēlithá leaf:gen.pl. indeed be.impf:3sg. pile:nom.sg. 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 [psychē]́ ‘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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

216 germana olga civilleri

courage soul, spirit *perturbed breath life mind heart movement temper anger

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- μός bō- mós go def.proc.m:nom.sg. ‘altar’

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- μός pota- mós ‘river’

(28) ὀφθαλ- μός ophthal- mós ‘eye’

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 [ophthēnai]́ (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 suffixmós - (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- τύς edē- týs eat abstr.proc.f:nom.sg. ‘meat, food’

(30) κλει- τύς klei- týs incline abstr.proc.f:nom.sg. ‘slope’

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 καὶ ἐδητύος autàr epeì pósios kaì edētýos but when drink:gen.sg. 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 ἐδητύος plēsámenos d’ ára thymòn edētýos fillpart.aor.:nom.sg. ptcl. then heart:acc.sg. meat:gen.sg. ἠδὲ ποτῆτος (Od. 17.603) ēdè potētos.́ 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 tēǹ brōsin]́ ‘means tēǹ brōsin’)́ is not decisive. Neither is the gloss by the later grammarian Aesychius (Lexicon 465.1 τροφή, βρῶσις [trofé, brōsis]).́ 20 The grammarians in fact explain the word by using a synonym, βρῶσις [brōsis],́ 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 κλειτὺν ἀναβὰς Od. 5.470 es kleitỳn anabàs to 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 orōn]́ ‘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

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 amphibias edētýs desmós kleitýs chýsi s thymós Transparent Lexicalized forms forms Figure 11.3 Continuum between transparent and lexicalized forms Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 oversimplifica- tion. 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 suffixma - (see Chantraine [1933] 1979: 284–5). On the other hand the suffix -týs is recessive. The productivity degree of the suffixmós - 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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] ‘phi- losopher’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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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

he aim of this chapter is to examine the factors involved in Modern TGreek 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 brieflysummarizes 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 [zit- janjá], ‘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] γιορτ(ή) [jortí] ‘to celebrate’ ‘celebration, saint’s day’ b. ονομάζω [onomázo] όνομ(α) [ónoma] ‘to denominate’ ‘name’ c. ωριμάζω [orimázo] ώριμ(ος) [órimos] ‘to mature’ ‘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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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

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% Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 σκουριά skurjázo skurjá ‘to rust’ ‘rust’ the meaning of denominal and deadjectival verbs 231

b. ρυτιδιάζω ρυτίδα ritiδjázo ritíδa ‘to wrinkle’ ‘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 λεκές lecjázo lecés ‘to stain’ ‘stain’

Furthermore, -ιάζω derivatives can also express the meaning ‘put into x’ (locative). Some examples are given in (6).

(6) a. τσουβαλιάζω τσουβάλι tsuvaljázo tsuváli ‘to bundle into a sack’ ‘sack’ b. μπουντρουμιάζω μπουντρούμι budrumjázo budrúmi ‘to put into a dungeon’ ‘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). Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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). Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 inter- play 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 identi- fiability 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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

10 (18) ξεδοντιάζω[−learned] [kseδondjázo] ‘to take one’s teeth out’ (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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 formali- zation 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’ μαύρος [mávros] ‘black’ b. πιθηκίζω [pithicízo] ‘to imitate πίθηκος [píthikos] ‘ape’ ape’s behaviour’ c. φυλακίζω [filacízo] ‘to jail’ φυλακή [filací] ‘jail’ d. σφουγγαρίζω [sfugarízo] ‘to sponge/ σφουγγάρι [sfugári] ‘sponge’ to mop’

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’ λάδι [ládi] ‘oil’ b. μαλακώνω [malakóno] ‘to soften’ μαλακός [malakós] ‘soft’ c. καρφώνω [karfóno] ‘to nail’ 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 χοντρός [xondrós] ‘fat, thick’ thicken’ b. λιπαίνω [lipéno] ‘to lubricate, fertilize’ 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 -ίζω -(ι)άζω -ώνω -εύω -αίνω -άρω -ποιώ cause to become x ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ ¸ become x/be provided with x passive 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 ¸ 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

242 angeliki efthymiou

Table 12.3 Verb forming processes Verbs in Raw data Scrutinized data -ίζω 3,507 650 -(ι)άζω 2,260 313 -ώνω 2,106 508 -εύω 1,207 325 -άρω 547 150 -ποιώ 252 200 -αίνω 687 113

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 suffixίζω - , -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 [kon- serváro/ 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-affixπ - οιώ is not included in this study. Moreover, -άζω and -ιάζω were analysed as variants of the same suffix. Consequently, theιάζω - 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.) (n.) (n.) (v.) (adv.) (v.) (v.) (n.) (v.) (v.) 12% 11.1% 9.6% 9.5% 8% 5.6% 5.6% 4.9% 3.9% 2.5%

Table 12.5 Type frequency in printed school MG -ικός -α -ση -ία -μα -ίζω -ώνω -εύω -άζω -ιάζω (adj.) (adv.) (n.) (n.) (n.) (v.) (v.) (v.) (v.) (v.) 13.1% 11.3% 10.6% 8.4% 6.6% 5.9% 5% 3.8% 1.3% 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’ Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 suffixιάζω - 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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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

his chapter examines one of the many interesting aspects of the often Toverlooked 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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

Phonological Syntactic Conceptual Formation Rules Formation Rules Formation Rules

Interfaces to Interfaces to Phonological Syntactic Conceptual hearing and perception Structure Structure Structure vocalisation and action

Interface Interface Rules 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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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] ‡ THING CAUSE , [EVENT] 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 granu- larity. 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 cool (8) a. hot cool

b. hot cool hot 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 origi- nated 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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])])])])] Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 Experiencer Base IN/ON Thing Spatial 6 Experiencer Base IN Thing Spatial

4 Experiencer Base ATIdent Property Identificational 5 Experiencer Base ATIdent Property Identificational 2 Base Experiencer IN/ON Thing Spatial 3 Base Experiencer AROUND Thing 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 embouteiller ‘put in bottle’ bouteille ‘bottle’ b. Type 2 empoisonner ‘put poison in’ poison ‘poison’ c. Type 3 encadrer ‘surround with frame’ cadre ‘frame’ d. Type 4 embouler ‘make into a ball’ boule ‘ball’ e. Type 5 embrunir ‘make (more) brown’ brun ‘brown’ f. Type 6 enfermer ‘shut in’ 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 embotellar ‘put in bottle’ botella ‘bottle’ b. Type 2 empapelar ‘put paper on’ papel ‘paper’ c. Type 3 enmarcar ‘surround with frame’ marco ‘frame’ d. Type 4 enviudar ‘make into a widow(er)’ viudo/a ‘widow(er)’ e. Type 5 enrojecer ‘make red, redden’ rojo ‘red’ f. Type 6 encerrar ‘shut in’ cerrar ‘shut’

(24) shows examples of Portuguese correlates.

(24) a. Type 1 engarrafar ‘put in bottle’ garrafa ‘bottle’ b. Type 2 envenenar ‘put poison in’ veneno ‘poison’ c. Type 3 emoldurar ‘surround with frame’ moldura ‘frame’ d. Type 4 enviuvar ‘make into a widow(er)’ viuvo/a ‘widow(er)’ e. Type 5 emagrecer ‘make thin’ magro ‘thin’ f. Type 6 encerrar ‘shut in’ 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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’ lune ‘moon’ b. Type 5 assouplir ‘make softer, soften’ 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’ cuchillo ‘knife’ b. Type 3 acordonar ‘surround with cord, cordon off’ cordón ‘cord’ c. Type 5 ablandar ‘make softer, soften’ 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’ bagunça ‘mess’ b. Type 5 amolecer ‘make softer, soften’ 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, Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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). Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

chapter 14 Semantics of diminutivization: evidence from Russian

Renáta Panocová

revious cross-linguistic research into diminutivization and augmen- Ptativization, 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 extralinguistic 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 sta- tivity (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 + – rohovatiet’ (‘keratinize’) MAT – 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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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→ flower DIM → 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 MOD +DIM

+HUM –HUM

+APPEL –APPEL +CONCR –CONCR Nadja : Nadeňka

+EFF –EFF +RES –RES +‘HUM’ +TEMP –TEMP kotenok : godik : jumorok : kitten DIM year DIM humour DIM

+CONCR –CONCR +AFF –AFF +INS –INS +POS –POS stoljarik : muzykantik : ogorodnichek : nozhichek : dolinka : joiner DIM musician DIM gardener DIM knife DIM valley DIM

+ADH –ADH +MAT –MAT +CONT –CONT butylochka : golovka : bottle DIM head DIM

+HAB +LOC –LOC –HAB +ORIG –ORIG +LOC –LOC brjuchanchik: nemchishka: vnuchonok: druzhok govjadinka : bumahka : shkolka: rubashechka: man with a German DIM grandson DIM friend DIM beef DIM paper DIM school DIM shirt DIM big belly DIM Figure 14.2 Denominal diminutive nouns in Russian Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 +EFFстоляр : 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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 –ERG

+HUM –HUM +STA –STA

+AGN +INS +LOC +REZ –REZ meshalka : gostinica : risunok : instruktazh : meshalochka : gostinichka : risunochek : instruktazhik : stirrer : stirrer hotel : hotel DIM drawing : drawing instructing : DIM DIM instructing DIM

+OFF –OFF rabotnik : lgun : lgunishka : rabotnichek : liar : liar DIM worker : worker 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: *rych- litelnichek (‘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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 +LOC tolstjak : tolstjachok : svetlica : svetlichka : fat man : fat man DIM 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 -и к : -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: Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 Russian Transliteration of Gloss of R. base of R. base diminutive R. diminutive Ваня Vanja Ванюшка Vanjushka – Марфа Marfa Марфушкa Marfushka – Вася Vasja Васенька Vaseňka – Надя Nadja Наденька Nadeňka – MOD +DIM +HUM –APPEL столяр stoljar столярик stoljarik joiner сапожник sapozhnik сапожничек sapozhnichek shoemaker MOD +DIM +HUM +APPEL +EFF +CONCR музыкант muzykant музыкантик muzykantik musician помощник pomoshchnik помощничек pomoshchnichek helper ремонтник remontnik ремонтничек remontnichek repairer MOD +DIM +HUM +APPEL +EFF –CONCR рыбак rybak рыбачок rybachok fisherman моряк morjak морячок morjachok sailor милиционер milicioner милиционерчик milicionerchik policeman гусляр gusljar гуслярик gusljarik violinist MOD +DIM +HUM +APPEL –EFF +AFF китаец kitajec китайчонок kitajchonok Chinese американка amerikanka американочка amerikanochka American woman немец nemec немчишка nemchishka German француз francuz французик francuzik Frenchman земляк zemljak землячок zemljachok fellow countryman MOD +DIM +HUM +APPEL –EFF –AFF +ADH +LOC мама mama маменька mameňka mother папа papa папенька papeňka father внук vnuk внучонок vnuchonok grandson сестра sestra сестрица sestrica sister тётя teta тётенька teteňka aunt комсомолка komsomolka комсомолочка komsomolochka member of Komsomol (woman) MOD +DIM +HUM +APPEL –EFF –AFF +ADH –LOC горбун gorbun горбунчик gorbunchik hunchback пузан puzan пузанчик puzanchik man with a big belly губан guban губанчик gubanchik man with big lips лобан loban лобанчик lobanchik man with high forehead брюхан brjuchan брюханчик brjuchanchik man with a big belly MOD +DIM +HUM +APPEL –EFF –AFF –ADH +HAB Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

282 renáta panocová

Table 14.1 (continued) Russian base Transliteration Russian Transliteration of Gloss of R. base of R. base diminutive R. diminutive друг drug дружок druzhok friend дружочек druzhochek господин gospodin господинчик gospodinchik gentleman хозяин xozjain хозяйчик xozjajchik master MOD +DIM +HUM +APPEL –EFF –AFF –ADH –HAB юмор jumor юморoк jumorok humour теория teorija теорийка teorijka theory смерть smerť смертушка smertushka death правда pravda правдочка pravdochka truth забава zabava забавка zabavka fun MOD +DIM –HUM –CONCR –TEMP год god годик godik year день deň денёк denek day вечер vecher вечерок vecherok evening ночь noch ночка nochka night ноченька nocheňka утро utro утречко utrechko morning понедельник ponedeľnik понедельничек ponedeľnichek Monday зима zima зимушка zimushka winter MOD +DIM –HUM –CONCR +TEMP змея zmeja змейка zmejka snake собака sobaka собачка sobachka dog ёж jezh ёжонок jezhonok hedgehog заяц zajac зайчик zajchik hare червяк chervjak червячок chervjachok worm телёнок telenok телёночек telenochek calf котенок kotenok котеночек kotenochek kitten жеребёнок zherebenok жеребёночек zherebenochek foal MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR –‘HUM’ долина dolina долинка dolinka valley долиночка dolinochka долинушка dolinushka низина nizina низинка nizinka lowland вершина vershina вершинка vershinka top середина seredina серединка seredinka centre MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR –RES +POS нож nozh ножичек nozhichek knife вилка vilka вилочка vilochka fork ложка lozhka ложечка lozhechka spoon ключ kljuch ключик kljuchik key игла igla иголка igolka needle дробовик drobovik дробовичок drobovichok rifle MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR +RES +INS semantics of diminutivization 283

Table 14.1 (continued) Russian base Transliteration Russian Transliteration of Gloss of R. base of R. base diminutive R. diminutive телятина teljatina телятинка teljatinka veal говядина govjadina говядинка govjadinka beef meat медвежатина medvezhatina медвежатинка medvezhatinka bear meat MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR +RES –INS +MAT +ORIG бумага bumaga бумажка bumazhka paper золото zoloto золотишко zolotishko gold серебро serebro серебришко serebrishko silver сукнo sukno суконце sukonce cloth MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR +RES –INS +MAT –ORIG школа shkola школка shkolka school университет universitet университетик universitetik university кино kino киношка kinoshka cinema театр teatr театрик teatrik theater библиотека biblioteka библиотечка bibliotechka library аптека apteka аптечка aptechka chemist’s квартира kvartira квартирка kvartirka flat город gorod городок gorodok town MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR +RES –INS –MAT +LOC кольцо koľco колечко kolechko ring стол stol столик stolik table салфетка salfetka салфеточка salfetochka napkin окнo okno оконце okonce window рубашка rubashka рубашечка rubashechka shirt брюки brjuki брючки brujchki trousers MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR +RES –INS –MAT –LOC графин grafin графинчик grafinchik carafe бутылка butylka бутылочка butylochka bottle банка banka баночка banochka tin ваза vaza вазочка vazochka vase кружка kruzhka кружечка kruzhechka jug чашка chashka чашечка chashechka cup MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR –RES –POS +CONT голова golova головка golovka head головушка golovushka жила zhila жилка zhilka vein жилочка zhilochka рука ruka ручка ruchka ruchonochka hand ручоночка MOD +DIM –HUM +CONCR –RES –POS –CONT Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

284 renáta panocová

Table 14.2 Deverbal diminutive nouns in Russian Russian base Transliteration Russian Transliteration of Gloss of R. base of R. base diminutive R. diminutive купец kupec купчишка kupchishka merchant писатель pisateľ писателишка pisatelishka writer Пастух pastux пастушок Pastushok shepherd работник rabotnik работничек Rabotnichek worker MOD +DIM +ERG +HUM +AGN +OFF Лгун lgun лгунишка lgunishka liar ассистент assistent ассистентик assistentik assistant Бездельник bezdeľnik бездельничек bezdeľnichek lazybone защитник zashchitnik защитничек zashchitnichek defender Крикун Krikun крикунишка krikunishka crybaby or sb who shouts хвастун xvastun хвастунишка xvastunishka sb who boasts эмигрант emigrant эмигрантик emigrantik emigrant MOD +DIM +ERG +HUM +AGN –OFF мешалка meshalka мешалочка meshalochka stirrer пилка pilka пилочка pilochka nail file самовар samovar самоварик samovarik device traditionally used to heat and boil water for tea зажигалка zazhigalka зажигалочка zazhigalochka cigarette lighter MOD +DIM –ERG –HUM +INS Спальня spaľnja спальнюшка spaľnjushka bedroom Гостиница gostinica Гостиничка gostinichka hotel Колыбель kolybeľ колыбелькa kolybeľka cradle MOD +DIM –ERG +STA +LOC Подарок Podarok Подарочек podarochek gift Рисунок risunok Рисуночек risunochek drawing Отпечаток otpechatok отпечаточек otpechatochek imprint Кипяток Kipjatok кипяточек kipjatochek boiling/hot water MOD +DIM –ERG –STA +REZ инструктаж instruktazh инструктажик instruktazhik instructing массаж massazh массажик massazhik massage просьба prosba просьбочка prosbochka plea MOD +DIM –ERG –STA –REZ semantics of diminutivization 285

Table 14.3 Deadjectival diminutive nouns in Russian Russian base Transliteration Russian Transliteration of Gloss of R. base of R. base diminutive R. diminutive толстяк tolstjak толстячок tolstjachok fat person бедняга bednjaga бедняжка bednjazhka poor person милуша milusha милушка milushka darling простак prostak простачок prostachok simple person ленивец lenivec ленивчик lenivchik lazybones дурак durak дурачок durachok fool старик starik старичок starichok old man MOD +DIM +HUM +QUAL больница boľnica больничка boľnichka hospital светлица svetlica светличка svetlichka light room темница temnica темничка temnichka dungeon MOD +DIM –HUM +QUAL +LOC

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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 moder- nidad (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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 com- plexes: 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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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)Mor phosyntactic 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 clas- siques. 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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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. Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 Right- hand 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). Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

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 Bauer, Laurie Adams, Valerie, 183, 186, 197n3 1983, 68, 78 Alexiadou, Artemis 1988, 139n9, 184 2004 (and Anagnostopoulou), 245n5 1990, 104 2006 (et al.), 231 1997, 266 2008 (and Grimshaw), 200n26, 209, 1998, 123, 158n5 224n21 2001, 80, 182–4, 241 2009, 200n26 2003, 46, 182 Anagnosopoulou, Elena see Alexiadou, 2004, 2005 (and Valera), 197n4 2006 Beard, Robert, 180–202 Allen, Margaret Reece, 85, 200n24 1981, 187, 190 Amiot, Dany, 103 1982, 199n20, 199n21 Anastassiadis-Symeonidis, Anna, 226, 228, 1984, 188 236 1987, 190 Anderson, Stephen, 46, 143, 158n3 1988, 27n6, 199n16 Anick, Peter see Pustejovsky, 1988 1995, 12–14, 25, 180, 186–90, 196, 198n15, Arntz, Reiner, 11, 91, 92 199n17, 199n21, 201n39 Aronoff, Mark 1998, 104 1976, 180, 182, 184, 198n6 Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette, 5 1980, 182 Benveniste 1984, 199n16 1948/1975, 206, 211, 214 1992, 103 1966, 108 1994, 188, 199n15, 201n40 Berman, Ruth A., 122; see also Clark, 2001 (and Cho), 246n14 Eve V. 2005 (and Fudeman), 207, 208 Bielec, Dana, 90 Bisetto, Antonietta, 119n6, 171; see also Baayen, Harald, 241; see also Plag, 1999; Scalise, 2009 Schreuder Bloch, Bernard, 6–7, 14–15 Baker, Raymond see Bannister Bloch-Trojnar, Maria, 25, 180–202, 286 Bale, Alan see Barner 2006, 12, 188 Bannister, Arthur, 91 2007, 185 Barbaresi, Lavinia Merlini see Dressler 1994 2011, 200n26, 201n28 Barner, David, 17 2012a, 190, 199n20 Baroni, Marco 2012b, 201n30, 202n40 2002 (et al.), 106 Bloomfield, Leonard, 6–9, 27n5, 123, 2007 (et al.), 178n9 138n1 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

310 semantics of word formation and lexicalization

Bolinger, Dwight Corbin, Danielle 1967, 131 1987, 23, 33, 42, 215, 246n9 1975, 102 1992, 105 Booij, Geert Corum, Claudia, 145 2003 (and van Kemenade), 205 Craigie, William A., 10 2005, 46 Croft, William 2007, 138n7 1990/2003, 213, 223n18 2009a, 136 1991, 222n1 2009b, 104, 178n5 2000, 139n12 Bosch, Peter, 147–8 Cruse, Alan D. Bratus, B. V., 270 1986, 104 Brinton, Laurel J. 2004, 178n8 1998, 183, 192–3, 201n31 Culicover, Peter W., 43n3, 265n13 2005 (and Traugott), 45, 50, 51, 65 Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, 205 Brooks, Patricia J. see Kempe Cysouw, Michael, 105 Browne, Wayles, 145 Bruno, Carla, 214 Dahl, Östen, 131, 135 Bücking, Sebastian, 127, 138n2 Dal’, Vladimir Ivanovič, 271 Budin, Gerhard see Wright Dalton-Puffer, Christine see Plag, 1999 Busa, Federica see Johnston Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, 104 Bybee, Joan, 219 Dimmendaal, Gerrit J., 199n21 Dokulil, Miloš, 11–12, 39, 187, 269, 272, 275 Cabré, M. Teresa, 5, 92 Downing, Pamela, 39, 102, 108–12, 122, 136 Cadiot, Pierre, 119n9 Dowty, David R., 173 Carlson, Greg, 246n14 Draskau, Jennifer see Picht Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew D., 12–13, 103, Dressler, Wolfgang U. 200n25 1985, 204 Cetnarowska, Bożena, 180, 183–4, 186, 1994 (and Barbaresi), 236, 266, 274 197n4, 201n29, 201n35 2006, 83–4, 119n2 Chantraine, Pierre, 216–17, 221 Drodz, L., 67 Charitonidis, Chariton 2005, 245n5, 246n13 Efthymiou, Angeliki, 26, 225–46, 286 2011, 231 1999, 226, 234–6 Cho, Sungeun see Aronoff, 2001 2001, 236, 246n9 Chomsky, Noam, 7–10, 20 2002, 236, 246n9 1957, 9 2010 (et al.), 228–9, 241–3 1964, 9, 31 2011a, 225–6, 230–1, 237–41 1965, 7–9 2011b, 236 1968 (and Halle), 249 2012a (et al.), 243, 246n16 1970, 9, 31–2, 181, 198n8, 198n10, 200n27 2012b (et al.), 245n3 1980, 7–8 2013, 236 1981, 13–14 Eisenberg, Peter, 132 1986, 249 Embick, David, 16, 18 2000, 16 Encyclopedia Britannica, 91 Civilleri, Germana Olga, 26, 203–24, 286 Engel, Ulrich, 91 2009, 222n6 Eriksson, Olof, 106 2010, 222n8 Evola, Vito, 223n10 2012, 211, 221, 222n2, 222n4, 222n8 submitted, 203 Fahim Elsayed, Mohammed Salah, 150, 152 Clark, Eve V., 108; see also Berman Fedorova, Olga see Kempe Claudi, Ulrike see Heine Felber, Helmut, 67–8 Cobuild, 185, 194, 198n5 Fillmore, Charles J., 161 Collins English Dictionary, 36, 40, 85, 86 Fliatouras, Asimakis see Anastassiadis- Corbett, Greville G., 199n21, 199n22 Symeonidis, 2003 author index 311

Forse, Jessica, 26, 247–65, 287 Halle, Morris, 15–18; see also Chomsky, 1968 Fradin, Bernard Hankamer, Jorge, 142 2003, 104–5, 119n3 Harley, Heidi, 15–18 2005, 161 Harris, Alice C., 158n2 2009, 102 Harris, Zellig S., 7 Fragaki, Georgia see Efthymiou, 2012 Haspelmath, Martin Fruyt, Michèle, 208 1992, 104 Fudeman, Kirsten see Aronoff, 2005 2002, 103, 182 Havou, Eleni see Efthymiou, 2010 Gaeta, Livio Heine, Bernd, 219 2002, 220 Herbst, Thomas, 201n28 2003 (and Ricca), 242 Heslin, Peter, 203 2009 (and Ricca), 136 Heyvaert, Liesbet, 14 Gagné, Christina L. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., 208, 219 1997 (and Shoben), 108–12, 116–17, 173 Hockett, Charles F. 2006 (and Spalding), 109–10, 115, 119n2, 1942, 8 173 1958, 18 Gavanozi, Vaso see Efthymiou, 2010 Hoekstra, Teun, 162 Gibson, Martha see Libben, 2003 Homer, 26, 203–24, 223n19 Giegerich, Heinz J. Honeybone, Patrick, 5 2004, 123 Horecký, Ján, 26–7, 267–80 2005, 142, 144, 146, 158n5 1973, 276 2006, 123 1974, 270, 275 Givón, Talmy, 220 1980, 268, 279 Gottfurcht, Carolyn, 232, 237–8, 241, 243, 1983, 12, 267, 279 246n12 1994, 267–8, 270–1, 274–5, 279 Grandi, Nicola, 266 Hünnemeyer, Friederike see Heine Greenbaum, Sidney see Quirk Grimshaw, Jane, 162, 180, 192, 200n26, INS, 227 223n11; see also Alexiadou, 2008 Isabelle, Pierre, 108 Gross, Gaston, 222n1 Gruber, Jeffrey S., 257 Jackendoff, Ray, 9, 20–1, 28–44, 110–13, Grzega, Joachim, 11, 39 247–65 Grzegorczykowa, Renata, 88, 187 1975, 9, 21, 32–3, 63, 180, 188, 198n15 Guevara, Emiliano, 135; see also Baroni, 2007 1983, 20, 28–9, 92, 198n14, 227, 237, Gunkel, Lutz, 130–1, 135 246n12, 248, 251, 257, 265n9 1990, 20, 28, 198n14, 227, 237, 246n12, Habert, Benoît, 114 248, 250–1, 257, 264n4 ten Hacken, Pius, 1–27, 28–44, 83–101, 249, 1991, 192, 199n20 287 1997, 29–30, 161–2, 170, 178n7 1994, 35, 43n8, 84–5, 138n2, 138n4, 2002, 20–1, 23, 28–35, 39, 42, 43n4, 44n8, 139n11, 158n6 51–2, 62–3, 104, 161–2, 164, 169, 173, 1999, 84–5 178n3, 178n10, 179n13, 180, 248–9 2003a, 35, 94 2007, 162, 251, 264n4 2003b, 35, 94, 138n4 2008, 37 2007, 7, 20, 36, 249 2009, 21–2, 24, 28, 34, 42, 51–2, 55, 103–4, 2008, 11 108–12, 118, 119n7, 119n8, 178n10, 2009a, 8, 10 247 2009b, 43n6 2010, 21, 23, 32, 34, 37–8, 41–2, 51–4, 2010a, 84 101n1, 135, 138n4, 177, 178n10, 2010b, 40, 42, 43n7, 89 179n12, 187, 198n15 2010c, 11 see also Culicover 2011 (and Panocová), 7 Jacobs, Joachim, 132 Hajičová, Eva, 4 Jacquemin, Christian see Habert Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

312 semantics of word formation and lexicalization

Jakobson, Roman Levi, Judith N 1959, 208 1975, 108 1960, 4 1977, 145–6, 158n5 Jarema, Gonia, 108, 116 1978, 9–10, 85, 87, 91, 108–9 Jespersen, Otto Levin, Beth, 247; see also Rappoport Hovav 1922, 108 Li, Charles, 108 1942, 137n1 Libben, Gary Johnson, Mark see Lakoff, 1980 2003 (et al.), 149 Johnston, Michael, 118 2006, 104 Josefsson, Gunlög, 102 Liddell, Henry George, 203, 212 Joseph, John, 1 Lieber, Rochelle Junczys-Dowmunt, Marcin, 106 1980, 252 1983, 19 Kačmárová, Alena, 269 1993, 253 Kallas, Krystyna, 90 2004, 19–20, 22, 23, 45–51, 54–5, 57, 63–5, Kastovsky, Dieter, 46, 50, 62, 136 65n1, 108, 161, 164, 166, 177n2, 237, Kazazis, Kostas, 245n2 245n1 van Kemenade, Jaap see Booij, 2003 2007 (and Scalise), 161, 170, 178n5 Kempe, Vera, 266 2009, 45, 47, 50 Kerleroux, Françoise, 204 2009 (and Štekauer), 83–4 Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria 2010, 242–3 1993, 197n2 Lönnrot, Elias, 23, 69–81 2009, 139n13 Luraghi, Silvia, 210 Koskenniemi, Kimmo, 43n5 Lyons, John, 103 Krifka, Manfred, 192 Kuryłowicz, Jerzy, 207 McEnery, Tony, 119n4 Kwiatek, Ewelina, 24, 83–101, 287 McKoon, Gail, 147, 148–9, 159n9; see also 2013, 91 Ward Maienborn, Claudia, 138n5 Labov, William, 11 Mail, Noor, 41 Lahav, Ran, 124, 128 Malicka-Kleparska, Anna, 197n1 Lakoff, George 1985, 183, 188, 200n24 1972 (and Ross), 145 1988, 180–2, 184–6, 188, 198n8, 201n33, 1980 (and Johnson), 68, 208, 201n40 223n10 Malkiel, Yakov, 204 1987, 208 Marantz, Alec, 16–17; see also Halle Lang, Friedrich, 5 Marchand Langacker, Ronald W. 1960, 253–5, 260, 265n15 1987a, 14–15, 161, 178n2, 178n3 1969, 102, 182, 185, 197n3 1987b, 192, 220 Markos, Angelos see Efthymiou, 2012 1991, 14 van Marle, Jaap, 183–4 2000a, 25 Matiasek, Johannes see Baroni, 2002 2000b, 160n18 Matthews, Peter H. 2008, 14–15 1972, 223 Lapata, Maria, 118 1993, 5–6 Laskowski, Roman, 188 2005, 274 Leech, Geoffrey see Quirk Mayer, Felix see Arntz Lees, Robert B., 8–9, 182 Meillet, Antoine, 211 Lehmann, Christian Mela-Athanasopoulou, Elizabeth, 240 1989, 219 Millikan, Ruth, 111 2002, 208, 219, 223n9 Mironova, Natalija see Kempe 2004, 208, 219 Mohr, W. see Müller Lehrer, Adrienne, 204, 208 Mondini, Sara see Semenza, Carlo Lesselingue, Chrystèle, 105 Motsch, Wolfgang, 135, 138n6 author index 313

Mourelatos, Alexander, 192, 201n6 Puzynina, Jadwiga see Grzegorczykowa, Mousavi, Maryan Sadr see Shamsfard 1979, 1999 Müller, L. P., 41 Müller-Bollhagen, Elgin see Ortner Quirk, Randolph, 201n37 Murray, August Taber see Homer Rainer, Franz Namer, Fiammetta, 103, 118n1 1988, 184 Naumann, Bernd, 204, 208 1992 (and Varela), 103 Newmeyer, Frederick J., 8 Rappaport Hovav, Malka, 162; see also Levin Nicoladis, Elena, 90–1, 108, 112, 118 Ratcliff, Roger see McKoon Noailly, Michèle, 119n3 Raymond, Stanley see Bannister Noyer, Rolf, see Embick; Harley, 2003 Ricca, Davide see Gaeta, 2003, 2009 Nyman, Martti, 245n2 Rijkhoff, Jan, 130 Rio-Torto, Graça, 25, 161–79, 288 O’Brien, Peter see Mail 2009 (and Ribeiro), 170, 178n6 OED 2010 (and Ribeiro), 170–1 1989/2011, 40, 182, 184, 198n5, 253–4, 2013 (and Ribeiro), 174 264n5, 264n6 Rodrigues, Alexandra, 162–9 2002, 72–3, 75, 78, 82n1 Romagno, Domenica, 205 Onions, C. T. see Craigie Rosch, Eleanor, 11 Ortner, Lorelies, 138n6 Rommens, P. M. see Müller Rosenbach, Annette, 131 Palmer, Frank R., 198n8 Rosenberg, Maria, 24, 102–20, 288 Panagiotidis, Phoevos, 17 2007, 108 Pang, Geordi, see Mail Ross, John, 158n1; see also Lakoff, 1972 Panocová, Renáta, 26–7, 266–85, 287; see also Rozwadowska, Bożena, 197n2, 200n28 ten Hacken, 2011 Ryder, Mary, 104 Partee, Barbara, 131 Rytting, C. Anton, 230, 245n2 Paul, Waltraud, 142, 144, 146 Pearson, Jennifer, 5, 10 Sag, Ivan see Hankamer Petropoulou, Evanthia, 95 Sager, Juan, 10, 67–8, 81 Picht, Heribert, 67; see also Arntz Sandra, Dominiek see Libben, 2003 Pirrelli, Vito see Baroni, 2007 Saussure, Ferdinand de, 1–4, 7–8, 13–14, 20, Pitkänen-Heikkilä, Kaarina, 23–4, 66–82, 67, 247, 267 287–8 Scalise, Sergio 2005, 70 1986, 104 2008, 66, 68–9 2009 (and Bisetto), 170 Plag, Ingo 2010 (and Vogel), 170 1998, 51 see also Bisetto; Guevara; Lieber, 2007 1999, 165, 182–3, 227, 237, 241–3, Schachter, Paul, 181 245n1 Schäfer, Florian see Alexiadou, 2006 1999 et al., 246n17 Schäfer, Martin, 25, 84, 137, 138n3, 140–60, 2003, 46, 165 288 Pompei, Anna, 205 Schiller, Anne, 106 Postal, Paul, 25, 126, 140–2, 145, 147–8, Schlücker, Barbara, 24–5, 84, 121–39, 288–9 158n1, 158n2, 158n5, 159n8 Schreuder, Robert, 116 Privitera, Aurelio see Homer (Omero) Schwarze, Christoph, 208, 219 Pustejovsky, James Schwyzer, Eduard, 211 1988 (and Anick), 194 Scott, Robert see Liddell 1991, 58–60, 178n7 Seibicke, W. see Drodz 1995a, 21–2, 23, 25–6, 55–65, 118, 169, Selkirk, Elisabeth O., 15, 19, 104, 108, 143, 178n3, 186–7, 194 252 1995b, 59–60 Semenza, Carlo, 104, 119n2 van der Putten, Frans see Hoekstra Setatos, Michalis, 245n2 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

314 semantics of word formation and lexicalization

Shamsfard, Mehrnoush, 178n10 Trips, Carola, 246n14 Shoben, Edward J., 109; see also Gagné, 1997 Trommelen, Mieke, 252 Simone, Raffaele Trost, Harald see Baroni, 2002 2000, 213 Trubetzkoy, Nikolaj S., 3, 5 2003, 206, 211 Twardzisz, Piotr, 197 Simoska, Silvana, 138n6 Simpson, J. M. Y., 3 UDC Consortium, 91 Soares Rodrigues, Alexandra, 25, 161–79, Ullmann, Stephen, 67 289 Uriagereka, Juan, 36 Spalding, Thomas L. see Gagné, 2006 Sproat, Richard, 43; see also McKoon, Valera, Salvador see Bauer, 2005 Ward Varela, Soledad see Rainer, 1992 SSA, 71–3, 75–6 Vendler, Zeno, 166 Stearn, William T., 69, 81, 82n1 Vendryes, Joseph see Meillet Štekauer, Pavol Vinogradov, Viktor V., 270 1998, 12 Vogel, Irene see Scalise, 2010 2005a, 82 Vogel, Petra M. see Naumann 2005b, 11, 102, 268 Volek, Bronislava, 274 see also Lieber, 2009 Stengers, Isabelle see Bensaude-Vincent Wälchli, Bernhard see Cysouw Stump, Gregory T., 15 Warburton, Irene, 245n2 Suffner, J. see Müller Ward, Gregory, 25, 145–50, 158n6, 159n9; Svartvik, Jan see Quirk see also McKoon Švedova, Natalija Ju, 270 Wasow, Thomas, 198n7 Sweetser, Eve, 124 Watt, William C., 145, 147 Szymanek, Bogdan Wenda, K. see Müller 1985, 180, 183, 188, 193 Whitney, William Dwight, 5 1988, 12, 180, 188 Wierzbicka, Anna, 234 1989, 181, 187, 193, 197n3 Wiese, Richard, 35 2010, 88–90, 94, 96 Williams, Edwin 1981, 104, 252 Talmy, Leonard, 53, 61 2007, 17 Taylor, John R., 208 see Di Sciullo; Grimshaw, 1993 Tegelberg, Elisabeth, 105 Willim, Ewa, 187, 192 Temmerman, Rita, 11 Wray, Alison, 88 Thèses, 4–5, 11 Wright, Sue-Ellen, 10 Thomas, Claire, 1–27, 45–65, 201n32, 208, Wüster, Eugen 289 1931, 5 Thomas, George, 74 1979, 67 Tic Douloureux, P. R. N., 145 Tiersma, Peter M., 199n21 Xiao, Richard see McEnery TLG, 203, 218 Tono, Yukio see McEnery Yoon, Yeo Bom see Libben, 2003 Townsend, Charles E., 270 Trager, George L. see Bloch Zifonun, Gisela see Gunkel, 2009, 2011 Traugott, Elizabeth C. see Brinton, 2005 Zimmer, Karl E., 122 Triandafyllidis, Manolis, 227 Zonneveld, Wim see Trommelen Tribout, Delphine, 232, 239 Zwitserlood, Pienie, 149, 159n11 Subject index

abbreviations, 94, 96 chosen terms, 71–2 accepted terms, 71 classifying modification, 130–2, 134 action modality, 111–12 co-composition, 57 adherence, 274–5 coercion, 21–2, 89, 170, 174 affector, 274 Cognitive Grammar (Langacker), 14, 25, 26, affix, 17, 19, 52, 165, 167–9, 187, 204, 270 220 affixation, 13, 33–5 collocation, 60 affixoid, 237, 245n3 competence, 7, 30, 41, 256 agent nouns, 162–5 complete semantic definition (CSD), 27, 267, agreement, 199n22 268–9, 274, 276 Aktionsart, 192–3 complex event, 49 allomorphs, 198n6, 227, 229, 247, 270 compositionality, 46, 124, 170–1, 176, 203, analogy, 80, 81 209–21 anaphoric island, 25, 86, 126, 140–60 compounding, 8, 9, 15, 17, 24, 25, 33, 35, Ancient Greek, 26, 71, 73, 95, 203–24 83–91, 93–101, 103–20, 121–39, 140–60, antecedent, 25, 86 170–7 apophony, 207 concepts, 10, 24, 84, 90, 131, 134, 135 appellative, 274 conceptual category, 12 arbitrariness, 3, 67 conceptual structure (Jackendoff), 23, 26, 28, argument structure, 56–7, 162–4, 169, 204, 51, 53–4, 65, 110–11, 187, 247–65 209–10 construction morphology (Booij), 104 attributive modification, 122 conversion, 54, 182–5, 186, 193–6, 197n4 availability (disponibilité), 33, 37, 42–3 copulative compounds, 35 corpora, 10, 24, 25, 26, 91–3, 103, 105–6, back formation, 32, 73 114, 153–8, 157–8, 228, 271 bahuvrihi compounds, 138n7 correspondence record, 92–3 blocking, 184–5 COSMAS II, 153 body (Lieber), 19, 47, 50 countability, 185, 186, 190, 192, 209 borrowing, 11, 39, 68, 69, 93–4, 96, 97–8, 101 created terms, 72–81 botany, 23, 66–82 definition, 11, 12, 24, 83–5, 103–5, 121–39, calque, 74 170 cartography, 92–101 deictic compounds, 39, 136 causative, 225, 239, 244 derivation, 25–6, 35–7, 39, 70, 162–9, 176–7, chemistry, 4, 67 180–246, 247–65 Chinese, 144–5 Deutsches Referenz Korpus (DeReKo), 153 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

316 semantics of word formation and lexicalization

diachronic linguistics, 2–3, 4, 45, 46, 51, 65 iconicity, 207, 236 diacritic feature, 37–8 identificational field, 257–9 dictionary, 226, 242; see also Oxford English idiom, 17, 18, 30 Dictionary idiomaticity, 170–2, 173, 176 diminutive, 27, 266–7 inbound anaphora, 158n5 discourse model, 148–9 inchoative, 226 Distributed Morphology (DM), 15–18 inflection, 6, 13–14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 33–4, 123, dotted type, 57 189, 191 DP hypothesis, 43n3 Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS), 153 Dutch, 149 institutionalization, 200n25 integration, 127, 132 effector, 274 intersective modification, 127 empty element, 141 ISO/TC37, 5 entrenchment (Langacker), 25, 157 Italian, 26, 69, 234 ergativity, 276 etymology, 82, 227, 234, 252–3, 261 katharevousa, 228–9 European Parliament, 24, 105–6 evaluative meaning see pejorative L-derivation, 13, 190, 192–3, 196–7 connotation land surveying, 24, 91–101 evaluative morphology see diminutive langue, 3, 4, 7 event nouns, 165–9 Latin, 68–82, 95, 260 event structure, 56–7, 166–7, 200n26, 210, Latinate suffixes, 183–4, 186, 196–7 214–15 learned vocabulary, 26, 227, 228–30, 233–4, exocentric compounds, 88–9, 152–3 243–5 lexeme, 103, 188 Finnish, 23, 66–82 Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology formant, 267 (LMBM), 12–14, 25–6, 180, 186–90 formulaic expression, 88 lexical conceptual paradigm (lcp), 58, 60, French, 24, 26, 53–4, 61–2, 69, 102–3, 105–8, 194–6 112–20, 247, 253–4, 260–4, 265n8 lexical-conceptual structure (LCS), 163, 169, frequency, 219 171, 173, 176, 178n7, 187, 192, 199n20, full-entry theory, 9, 32–3 237–9 function word, 17, 30–1 lexical cycle, 213 lexical entry, 8, 30–1, 51–2 gender, 275 lexical extension rules see L-derivation generative lexicon (Pustejovsky), 21–2, 23, lexical inheritance structure, 56, 58–9 25, 55–65 Lexical Integrity Hypothesis, 143–4 generative semantics, 8, 9, 14, 25, 87 lexicalist hypothesis, 9, 15, 31–2, 42, 142–3 genitive, 89, 91, 96, 100, 210, 214–15; see also lexicalization, 7, 23, 26, 45–65, 102, 104–5, Saxon genitive 125, 131, 185, 190, 191, 195–6, 203–24; geodetic surveying, 92–101 see also semantic specialization German, 24, 25, 121–39, 141–2, 147–8, lexicalization scale, 203 149–58 lexicology, 67 gerund, 181 lexicon, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 21, 29–31, 104, glide formation, 227, 230 190, 248–9, 253–4 GPS see satellite positioning system Linguistic Wars, 8, 20 grammaticalization, 219 linking elements, 88, 90–1, 108 Greek see Ancient Greek, Modern Greek loan shift, 74 loan translation, 72, 74, 75, 79, 96, 99, 101 head, 103–5, 115–16, 129, 130, 132, 144–5, Logical Form (LF), 16 150–2, 252 logical polysemy, 56, 60, 194 homonym, 6, 19 hypocoristics, 274 Mandarin see Chinese hyponymy, 59, 130; see also subconcepts materiality, 276 subject index 317 maximal compatibility principle, 161, 165, pragmatics, 25, 146–8, 157–8, 244 168–9, 173–6 Prague School, 3–5, 12 maximal semantic frame, 163–4, 169, 170, predication, 222n1 176 prefixes, 252–64 metaphor, 39, 67, 68, 71–2, 73, 75, 78, 81, preverb, 205 171, 203, 208, 213, 215, 276 priming, 62–3, 65 metonymy, 39, 67, 71–2, 138n7, 153, 171, privative features, 38, 48 203, 208, 213–17 process-result alternation, 47–50, 55–65, Modern Greek, 26, 225–46 167–9, 186, 194–6, 206 modificational type, 12, 269, 272, 275 processing, 104–5 morpheme, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 17, 21, 188 productivity, 4, 23, 26, 31–44, 102, 104–5, morpholexical features, 189–90 112, 118, 121, 182–5, 207, 226, 229–30, morphological family, 116–17 241–5 Morphological Spelling Component profitability (rentabilité), 33, 42–3, 183 (LMBM), 188 pro-form, 140–60 morphome, 201n40 projective conclusion space, 59, 64 motivation, 67–8 projective inheritance, 59 multi-word units, 30 pronoun see pro-form mutational type, 12, 269 Proper Function (PF), 111–12 proper names, 39, 94, 136, 274 named language, 8, 36 protolanguage, 33–4, 177 naming, 4–5, 10–12, 38–43, 66–82, 139n9 prototype, 11, 15, 84 neoclassical word formation, 68, 78, 95–6, psycholinguistics, 148–9, 157–8, 173 99–100, 101, 118n1 nominalization, 25, 180–6, 191–7, 203–24 qualia structure, 22, 56–7, 59 non-referentiality, 135 nouniness, 206, 220, 222n6 Real Academia Española (RAE), 260 number, 189–90, 192 recoverably deletable predicates (RDPs), 9, 91 onomasiological approach, 10–12, 23, 26–7, recursion, 93–4, 272 39, 67, 91, 102, 263, 267–80 redundancy rules, 8, 9, 21, 32–3, 35, 180–1, onomasiological base, ~ mark, 11, 267–9, 182 270 regularity, 7, 8, 9, 21, 33, 42–3 ontological class, 48 relational adjectives, 86–7, 89–90, 94, 96, 99, opacity, 147, 149, 152, 176, 203, 220 100, 125, 131, 193–4 outbound anaphora, 140 rewrite rules, 8, 9, 15 Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 10, 253–4 right-headedness, 15, 252 rule ordering, 183 paradigm, 15, 44n8 Romanian, 69 Parallel Architecture (PA), 20–1, 23, 25, Russian, 27, 266–7, 269–85 26, 28–44, 51–5, 104, 110–11, 198n15, Russian National Corpus, 271 248–9 parole, 3, 7 S-structure, 13, 16 partial modification, 127 satellite positioning system, 92–101 patterns of lexicalization, 54 Saxon genitive, 86, 87, 94 pejorative connotation, 26, 226, 231–7, 244 selective binding, 57 performance, 7, 30, 41, 256 semantic coindexation, 161–2, 164–9, 171–2, Phonetic Form (PF), 16 173–4, 176 phrasal constituents, 24 semantic drift, 190 phrasal verbs, 182–3 semantic specialization, 122, 124, 128, 131, Polish, 24, 88–101 171–2 polysemy, 19, 22, 48, 55–6, 63, 171–2, 208–9, semantic transparency, 147–9, 153, 170, 203, 213 220 Portuguese, 25, 26, 161–79, 247, 260–4 semiproductivity, 23, 37–8, 42–3 Andy Jarvis:Users:AndysiMac:Public:ANDY'S IMAC JOBS:14335 - EUP - TEN HACKEN:TEN HACKEN 9780748689606 PRINT

318 semantics of word formation and lexicalization

Sense Enumerative Lexicon (SEL), 21, 56, telicity, 205 194 term extraction, 92 separation hypothesis, 187–8 terminology, 4–5, 10–11, 23–4, 66–82, sign (Saussure), 3, 13, 14, 247, 267 91–101, 151 Simpler Syntax Hypothesis, 43n3 thematic roles, 173–6 skeleton (Lieber), 19, 47–50 tiers (PA), 164, 251 Slovak, 268–9, 271, 275, 279 topicality, 147–9, 157 Spanish, 26, 69, 247, 260–4 translation, 24, 92–3, 105–8, 114 specialized vocabulary, 11 transposition, 12, 180, 189–90, 191–3, 269 speech community, 7, 14, 24 Trésor de la Langue Française (TLF), 260, stage-level predicates, 241 263 standardization, 5, 10–11 Turkish, 234 stimulus-response model, 6, 7 Two-Level Morphology, 43n5 stress, 88, 123, 132, 143 type coercion, 22, 57 subconcept, 133–4, 137 type constructor, 60 suffixation see affix surveying see land surveying Uniform Theta Assignment Hypothesis Swedish, 24, 69–74, 76–82, 102–3, 105–8, (UTAH), 43n3 112–20 symbolic unit, 14 Variable R condition, 85 synapsies, 108 verbiness, 206, 210, 211 syntax, 8, 121–39 synthetic compounds, 88 zero-derivation see conversion