1 / 23

THE DIACHRONY OF DERIVATION Muriel Norde

THE DIACHRONY OF DERIVATION Muriel Norde. AIMS. To contribute to a better understanding of the derivation – inflection interface by discussing the origins of derivational and inflectional morphology To examine the implications of the diachronic findings for grammaticalization theory. OUTLINE.

jethro
Download Presentation

THE DIACHRONY OF DERIVATION Muriel Norde

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE DIACHRONY OF DERIVATION Muriel Norde

  2. AIMS • To contribute to a better understanding of the derivation – inflection interface by discussing the origins of derivational and inflectional morphology • To examine the implications of the diachronic findings for grammaticalization theory

  3. OUTLINE • Derivation vs. inflection: synchronic observations • The origins and development of derivational and inflectional morphology • Transitions from derivation to inflection and vice versa • Theoretical discussion

  4. SYNCHRONIC OBSERVATIONS • Obligatoriness • Lexicon vs. syntax • The ability to change word-class • Cumulative exponence

  5. DERIVATION VS. INFLECTION • obligatoriness • derivation: ; inflection:  the duckling was swimming the duck was swimming *the duckling was swim (but: femine suffix may be (semantically) obligatory: the lioness / *lion gave birth to two cubs)

  6. DERIVATION VS. INFLECTION • part of syntax • derivation: ; inflection:  The prince is lazy / Prinsen är lat The princess is lazy / Prinsessan är lat The princes are lazy / Prinsarna är lata (Subj-V concord) / (N-Adj concord) (but: feminine derivational suffixes may affect concord) la lionne / *lion est grande de boerin / *boer (/ vrouw) d’r klompen)

  7. DERIVATION VS. INFLECTION • The ability to change word-class • derivation: ; inflection:  beauty (N) > beautiful (Adj) great (Adj) > greatness (N) (but: some inflectional suffixes may change word-class The singVingADJ detective Hon sjunger vackerADJtADV ‘She sings beautifully’ (-t = NEUT.SG)

  8. DERIVATION VS. INFLECTION • Cumulative exponence (portmanteau morphemes) • derivation:; inflection:  IE nominal suffixes, e.g. Lat. –us in servus: simultaneous realizations of gender, number and case (but: feminine derivational suffixes may be cumulative: vend-re vend-eur vend-euse V V-AGENT V-AGENT-FEMALE)

  9. CONCLUSION • Fuzzy boundaries • Derivation and inflection form a continuum (Dalton-Puffer 1996): lexical > derivational-lexical (e.g. lovely)> derivational-grammatical (e.g. patiently) > inflectional (Booij 2002): lexical > derivational > inherently inflectional (e.g. participle suffixes) > contextual inflectional

  10. DIACHRONY: GRAMMATICALIZATION • “Grammaticalization consists in the increase of the range of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to a grammatical or from a less grammatical to a more grammatical status.” (Kuryłowicz 1975 [1965] • “[…] an evolution whereby linguistic units lose in semantic complexity, pragmatic significance, syntactic freedom, and phonetic substance […]”(Heine & Reh 1984

  11. DIACHRONY: CLINES • The cline of grammaticality content item > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix mot (N) > mot (P) ‘meeting’ > ‘against’ hin > in > -in DEMONSTRATIVE > CLITIC > DEFINITE SUFFIX • The cline of lexicality part of phrase > part of compound > derivational affix manz lik > man(z)lik > manlig ‘a man’s body’ > ‘man’s body’ > ‘masculine’

  12. OTHER ORIGINS • Not all grammatical change is grammaticalization! • inflectional suffixes: e.g. rebracketing OSw. æple – æple – æple-na ‘apple – apples - the apples’ (PL suffix –ø) MoSw. äpple – äpple-n – äpplen-a (PL suffix –n) • derivational suffixes: e.g. clitics

  13. WHERE DO THEY GO? Derivational affixes • fossilize • PGmc –m to derive agent nouns from verbs: bloem ‘flower’, storm ‘storm’, helm‘helmet’ (cf. MoDu verbs bloeien ‘to bloom’, storen ‘to disturb’, helen ‘(older): ‘to cover’) • lexicalize • Fascism and other isms • Juices and ades (< Lemonade) • degrammaticalize • Du tig ‘umpteen’ (< -tig ‘ty’ as in twintig ’20’ etc.) • become inflectional

  14. WHERE DO THEY GO? Inflectional affixes: • become –ø • most nominal and verbal suffixes in English • fossilize (hardly) • Du schoen(< PL of schoe ‘shoe’) • degrammaticalize • Eng / ContScand enclitic s-genitive • do not lexicalize • become derivational

  15. FROM DERIVATION TO INFLECTION • Proto-Scand *sik ‘self’ > enclitic sk > Old Norse derivational –st > MoScand inflectional –s(t) • Evidence for derivational status, e.g. word-class changing st-verbs in ON, e.g. V fyrnast ‘age, become older’ < Adj forn ‘old’ • English adverbial –ly (productive and obligatory)

  16. FROM INFLECTION TO DERIVATION • Old Swedish MASK.SG.NOM –er > Modern Swedish nominalization suffix, e.g. en dummer ‘a stupid person’ • Old Swedish NEUT.PL.NOM/ACC –on > “berry-name suffix” as in hallon ‘raspberry’) > count noun derivation suffix, e.g. päron ‘pear’ • Swedish NEUT.SG –t > adverbial –t : examples of derived adverbs without adjectival counterpart, e.g. enbart ‘only’ (*enbar) RARE

  17. THEORETICAL ISSUES • Derivational affixes: grammaticalization or lexicalization (= creation of new lexemes)? • Pro-lexicalization: new items are added to the lexicon • but: derived item as a whole is added, not derivational suffix itself • Pro-grammaticalization: derivational afffixes have many characteristics of grammaticalized items • notable exception: they do not become part of a paradigm

  18. THEORETICAL ISSUES • Grammaticalization properties (Heine / Kuteva 2002) and Swedish –lig (e.g. ljuvlig ‘lovely) < lik ‘body’ • 1: Desemanticization or semantic bleaching  loss of (concrete) meaning:  • meaning ‘body’ is lost • 2: Extension or context generalization  use in new contexts:  • -lig can derive Adj from V: tro ‘believe’ > trolig ‘conceivable’ • 3: Decategorialization  loss of morphosyntactic properties (e.g. inflection):  • 4: Erosion or phonetic reduction  loss of phonetic substance: 

  19. THEORETICAL ISSUES • Possible solution to reconcile opposite views: derivational affix is grammaticalized item which itself is involved in a lexicalization process • Himmelmann 2004: lexicalization is a process sui generis

  20. THEORETICAL ISSUES • If derivational affixes and inflectional affixes develop along different clines, how can they form a continuum?

  21. THEORETICAL ISSUES • Extended cline of lexicality: phrase > compound > derivation affix > inherent inflection affix > inflection affix

  22. CONCLUSIONS • Instead of describing grammatical change in terms of clines, it is better to describe their subchanges • Instead of universal pathways, it is better to speak of tendencies • Inflectional affixes may have different origins • There are no “end-points” in grammatical change

  23. MORE INFO • This presentation and more: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~norde/downloadables.htm (coming soon)

More Related