Chapter published in:
Category Change from a Constructional Perspective
Edited by Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé and Gudrun Vanderbauwhede
[Constructional Approaches to Language 20] 2018
► pp. 47–90

Derivation without category change

A network-based analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch

| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Dutch derivational morphology is rich in intensifying prefixoids, i.e. morphemes that occur as independent lexemes but have an intensifying meaning when bound to adjectives or adverbs. A specific variant of these are diminutive prefixoid constructions such as bloedjeserieus (blood-dim-serious) ‘very serious’ or kletsjenat (splash-dim-wet) ‘very wet’. Unlike the regular derivational diminutive however, the diminutive morpheme lacks the ability to change category when added to a prefixoid, and its primary function is a pragmatic one of either emphasis or downtoning. In this paper, we will discuss the formal and semantic-pragmatic properties of the diminutive prefixoid construction, based on an empirical study into its synchronic distribution, as well as explore how prefixoid constructions may be organised in a constructional network.
Keywords: prefixoids, diminutives, derivation, degree modifiers, constructional networks
Published online: 22 March 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20.03nor
References

References

Ascoop, K., & Leuschner, T.
(2006)  Affixoidhungrig? Skitbra! Comparing affixoids in German and Swedish. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 59(3), 241–252.Google Scholar
Baayen, H.
(2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling, & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 900–919). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakema, P., & Geeraerts, D.
(2000) Diminution and augmentation. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann, & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation (pp. 1045–1052). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Banga, A.
(2012) Function follows form: The linking element in Dutch and related languages. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Booij, G.
(2005) The grammar of words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Morphology in construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 255–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G., & Hüning, M.
(2014) Affixoids and constructional idioms. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 77–106). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Usage-based theory and examplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haas, W. de, & Trommelen, M.
(1993)  Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands: Een overzicht van de woordvorming. The Hague: SDU.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2015) From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, J.
(2012) Elative compounds in Dutch: Properties and developments. In G. Oebel (Ed.), Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachenvergleich (pp. 97–142). Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
Hudson, R.
(2007) Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hüning, M., & Booij, G.
(2014) From compounding to derivation: The emergence of derivational affixes through ‘constructionalization’. Folia Linguistica, 48(2), 579–604. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P.
(2013) The limits of (construction) grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 32–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klara, L.
(2012)  Steinreich ist saucool: Adjektivische Steigerungsbildungen des Gegenwartsdeutschen. In G. Oebel (Ed.), Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachenvergleich (pp. 143–170). Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
Knooihuizen, R., & Strik, O.
(2014) Relative productivity potentials of Dutch verbal inflection patterns. Folia Linguistica Historica, 35(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Leuschner, T.
(2010)  Ausnahmepianist Fettgeschreckt-inbleich! Deutsche, niederländische und schwedische präfixoide im Spannungsfeld von Genealogie, Kreativität und Norm. In A. Dammel, S. Kürschner, & D. Nübling (Eds.), Kontrastive germanistische Linguistik (pp. 863–892). Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Majtényi, M.
(2012) The productivity of the prefix über- in English and Hungarian: A cross-linguistic, corpus-based study. Argumentum, 8, 244–261.Google Scholar
Meibauer, J.
(2013) Expressive compounds in German. Word Structure, 6(1), 21–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C.
(2013) Bekje-af, knettertjegek en dolletjesgelukkig: The use and development of intensifying diminutive compounds in Dutch within the framework of Construction Morphology. MA thesis, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Norde, M.
(2009) Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) On parents and peers in constructional networks. Paper presented at Coglingdays 2014, Ghent University. Retrieved from https://​www​.academia​.edu​/9873697​/On​_parents​_and​_peers​_in​_constructional​_networks
Norde, M., & Trousdale, G.
(2016) Exaptation from the perspective of construction morphology. In M. Norde, & F. Van de Velde (Eds.), Exaptation and language change (pp. 163–195). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norde, M., & Van Goethem, K.
(2014) Bleaching, productivity and debonding of prefixoids: A corpus-based analysis of ‘giant’ in German and Swedish. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 37(2), 256–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Emancipatie van affixen en affixoïden: degrammaticalisatie of lexicalisatie? Nederlandse taalkunde, 20(1), 109–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oostdijk, N.
(2000) Het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 5(3), 280–284.Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F.
(2016) Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reker, S.
(1996) Dikke woorden: Bikkelhaard, bragelvet, strontdeurnat en hun soortgenoten in het Gronings en verwante talen. Bedum: Profiel.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, J.
(2008) Layers, levels and contexts in Functional Discourse Grammar. In D. García Velasco, & J. Rijkhoff (Eds.), The noun phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar (pp. 63–115). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Schäfer, R., & Bildhauer, F.
(2012) Building large corpora from the Web using a new efficient tool chain. In N. Calzolari et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12) (pp. 486–493). Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F.
(2011) Left-peripheral expansion of the English NP. English Language and Linguistics, 15(2), 387–415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K.
(2008)  Oud-leerling versus ancien élève: A comparative study of adjectives grammaticalizing into prefixes in Dutch and French. Morphology, 18, 27–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014)  Reuze bedankt, het was echt top! Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar ‘loskoppeling’ van samenstellingscomponenten. Internationale Neerlandistiek, 52(1), 27–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K., & De Smet, H.
(2014) How nouns turn into adjectives: The emergence of new adjectives in French, English and Dutch through debonding processes. Languages in Contrast, 14(2), 251–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K., & Hiligsmann, P.
(2014) When two paths converge: Debonding and clipping of Dutch reuze . Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 26(1), 31–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K., & Hüning, M.
(2015) From noun to evaluative adjective: Conversion or debonding? Dutch top and its equivalents in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 27(4), 366–409. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Audring, Jenny
2019. Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure 12:3 ► pp. 274 ff. Crossref logo
Budts, Sara & Peter Petré
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 318 ff. Crossref logo
Diessel, Holger
2020. A Dynamic Network Approach to the Study of Syntax. Frontiers in Psychology 11 Crossref logo
Norde, Muriel & Sarah Sippach
2019. Nerdalicious scientainment: A network analysis of English libfixes. Word Structure 12:3 ► pp. 353 ff. Crossref logo
Norde, Muriel & Kristel Van Goethem
2018.  In The Construction of Words [Studies in Morphology, 4], ► pp. 475 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 june 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.