Cover not available
Article published In:
The Wealth and Breadth of Construction-Based Research
Edited by Timothy Colleman, Frank Brisard, Astrid De Wit, Renata Enghels, Nikos Koutsoukos, Tanja Mortelmans and María Sol Sansiñena
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34] 2020
► pp. 332–344

Iconicity and word-formation

An examination of Adj+ie/y nominalisations through a Bidirectional Conceptualisation Model

| IPU New Zealand, Tertiary Institute
| University of Alicante

This article aims to encourage a discussion of how evaluative morphemes conform to the principles of iconicity and Construction Grammar through the examination of English Adj+ie/y nominalisations (e.g. brownie, softie). Our analysis of the Adj+ie/y paradigm investigates conceptual processes that employ these evaluative morphological forms. We propose a Bidirectional Conceptualisation Model (BCM) to demonstrate a templatic correlation between iconic morphological components and evaluative connotations, by means of which the suffix -ie/y is employed to instantiate a specific iconic value of the [[x-]A ie/y]N construction. The BCM incorporates the Diminution: Pejoration ↔ Endearment scale, which accounts for the semantic duality of appreciative and depreciative values realised by the morphological concept of diminution. The results of the study support the idea that superficially different functions realised by one and the same morphological form are related through interaction of Idealised Cognitive Models.

Keywords: iconicity, Adj+ie/y nominalisations, construction schema, diminution, pejoration
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Iconicity in word formation
  • 3.The Adj+ie/y units used in the study
  • 4.The bidirectional conceptualisation model
  • 5.Iconicity as expressed by the BCM
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 28 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00057.tar
References
Abelin, Åsa
1999 Studies in Sound Symbolism. Göteborg: Göteborg University.Google Scholar
Audring, Jenny, Geert Booij, and Ray Jackendoff
2017 “Menscheln, Kibbelen, Sparkle. Verbal Diminutives between Grammar and Lexicon.” Linguistics in the Netherlands 341: 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Augustyn, Rafał, and Agata Gniecka
2011 “Irony Behind Diminutives: A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis of Popular Technical Terms.” Lubelskie Materaly Neofilologiczne 351: 31–49.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber, and Ingo Plag
2015 The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Besedina, Natalia
2012 “Evaluation through Morphology: A Cognitive Perspective.” Proceedings of CLA Meeting 11: 177–192.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert
2010 Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2019 “The Role of Schemas in Construction Morphology.” Word Structure 121: 385–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, Mario
2015 “On Iconicity in Word-Formation: The Case of Embellished Clippings in English “Down Under” and Their Counterparts in Other Languages.” In Dimenzije Značenja, ed. by Branimir Belaj, 63–83. Zagreb: Zagrebačka Slavistička Škola.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1985 “Diagrammatic Iconicity in Stem-Inflection Relations.” In Iconicity in Syntax, ed. by John Haiman, 11–47. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Damián E. Blasi, Gary Lupyan, Morten H. Christiansen, and Padraic Monaghan
2015 “Arbitrariness, Iconicity, and Systematicity in Language.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 191: 603–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Marianne Kilani-Schoch
2016 “Natural Morphology.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, ed. by Andrew Hippisley, and Gregory T. Stump, 356–389. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner
2008 The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
1985 Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höder, Steffen
2019 “Phonological Schematicity in Multilingual Constructions: A Diasystematic Perspective on Lexical Form.” Word Structure 121: 334–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Körtvélyessy, Lívia
2011 “A Cross-Linguistic Research into Phonetic Research.” Lexis: Journal in English Lexicology 61: 28–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koutsoukos, Nikos, Kristel Van Goethem, and Hendrik De Smet
2018 “Asymmetries, Mismatches and Construction Grammar. An Introduction.” Constructions and Frames 10(2): 123–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MWD11: Merriam-Webster Dictionary online
11th edition, Merriam-Webster, Inc. [URL] [Accessed 03 July, 2020].
OED3: Oxford English Dictionary
3rd edition, Oxford University Press. [URL] [Accessed 27 June, 2020].
Sánchez Fajardo, José A., and Elizaveta Tarasova
2020 “Of brownie girls and Aussie families: A New Look at Morphosemantic Paradigmaticity in Adj+ie/y Nominalisations.” In Paradigmatic Relations in Derivational Morphology, ed. by Jesús Fernández-Domínguez, Alexandra Bagasheva, and Cristina Lara-Clares, 184–210. Amsterdam: Brill.Google Scholar
Santibáñez-Sáenz, Francisco
1999 “Conceptual Interaction and Spanish Diminutives.” Cuadernos de Investigation Filologica 251: 173–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Klaus P.
2003 Diminutives in English. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich
2007 “Word-Formation”. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuyckens, 650–675. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy
2007 “Iconicity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, and Hubert Cuyckens, 394–418. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waugh, Linda, and Madeleine Newfield
1995 “Iconicity in the Lexicon and its Relevance to the Theory of Morphology.” In Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes: The Human Dimension, ed. by Marge E. Landsberg, 189–222. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1992 Semantics, Culture and Cognition: Universal Human Cognition in Culture Specific Configurations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar