Cover not available
Part of
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. 229–262

Chapter 9
Evaluative morphology in German, Dutch and Swedish

Constructional Networks and the Loci of Change

The separation or ‘debonding’ of prefixoids in informal language use in Germanic and the question whether spelling reflects re-categorization of such compound members as adjectives have recently been attracting increased attention among linguists. This contribution focuses on category changes involving lexical items with an evaluative function, both bound (prefixoids, loan prefixes) and unbound (bare nouns), that give rise to defective adjectives in German, Dutch and Swedish. This occurs via two loci of change: the non-head position in nominal and adjectival compounds and the predicative position in sentence constructions. The diverse items serving as ‘evaluatives’ are unified by one abstract schema for ‘evaluative compounds’ across these languages which is paradigmatically related to other, free uses of such items.
Keywords: compounding, evaluative morphology, prefixoids, loan prefixes, Germanic
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical preliminaries
    • 2.1Sources of adjectival evaluatives
    • 2.2Evaluative prefixoids
    • 2.3Affixoids in construction morphology
    • 2.4Abstract subschemata for evaluative compounds
  • 3.Evaluatives in German, Dutch and Swedish
    • 3.1Denominal evaluatives and nouns
      • 3.1.1Distributional properties
      • 3.1.2Compound vs. noun phrase: Evidence from spelling
      • 3.1.3Predicative position
      • 3.1.4Inflection
      • 3.1.5Adverbial use
    • 3.2Intensification of adjectives and adverbs
    • 3.3Evaluative ‘loan prefixes’
  • 4.Constructional networks
    • 4.1Paradigmatic relationships
    • 4.2Source constructions and formal variation
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20.09bat
References (49)
References
Altmann, H. (2011). Prüfungswissen Wortbildung. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, J. K. (1998). Deutsche Jugendsprache: Untersuchungen zu ihren Strukturen und Funktionen. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Battefeld, M., Leuschner, T., & Rawoens, G. (2016). Konstruktionsmorphologie – echt top? Neue Perspektiven auf den kategorialen Status einer entlehnten Wortbildungseinheit. In E. Hentschel (Ed.), Wortbildung im Deutschen: Aktuelle Perspektiven. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1997). Evaluative morphology: In search of universals. Studies in Language, 21(3), 533–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, J. (2009). The predicative as a source of grammatical variation. In A. Dufter, J. Fleischer, G. Seiler (Eds.), Describing and modeling variation in grammar (pp. 99–116). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. 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
Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53, 810–842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elsen, H. (2009). Affixoide: Nur was benannt wird, kann auch verstanden werden. Deutsche Sprache, 37, 316–333.Google Scholar
Fleischer, W., & Barz, I. (2012). Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache (4th ed.). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, W. H. (1980). ‘BLOOD-HOT’, ‘STONE-GOOD’: A preliminary report on adjective-specific intensifiers in Dutch. Leuvense Bijdragen, 69, 445–472.Google Scholar
Gaeta, L. (2014). On decategorization and its relevance in German. In R. Simone, & F. Masini (Eds.), Word classes: Nature, typology and representations (pp. 227–242). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grzega, J. (2004). Ein Spítzenpolitiker ist nicht immer ein Spítzen-Polítiker. Muttersprache, 4, 321–332.Google Scholar
Habermann, M. (2015). Grammaticalization in German word-formation. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (HSK 40.3). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen/Deurne: Nijhoff, Plantyn.Google Scholar
Hentschel, E. (1998). Die Emphase des Schreckens: Furchtbar nett und schrecklich freundlich . In T. Harden (Ed.), Particulae Particularum: Fest zum 60. Geburtstag von Harald Weydt (pp. 119–132). Tübingen: Narr.Google 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
Hüning, M., & Booij, G. (2014). From compounding to derivation: The emergence of derivational affixes through ‘constructionalization’. Folia Linguistica, 48(2), 579–604. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klara, L. (2009). Ist steinreich auch steinreich? Adjektivische Steigerungskomposita des Gegenwartsdeutschen und ihre Akzentuierung (Doctorial dissertation). LMU München: Fakultät für Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaften.Google Scholar
(2012). Steinreich ist saucool: Adjektivische Steigerungsbildungen des Gegenwartsdeutschen. In G. Oebel (Ed.), Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachvergleich (pp. 143–170). Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
Kunkel-Razum, K., Münzberg, F. et al. (Eds.). (2009). Duden. Die Grammatik. (7th, fully revised ed.). Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/Zürich: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Lauwers, P. (2014). Between adjective and noun: Category/function mismatch, constructional overrides and coercion. In R. Simone, & F. Masini (Eds.), Word classes: Nature, typology and representations (pp. 203–226). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.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/Zürich/New York: Olms.Google Scholar
Lundbladh, C. -E. (2002). Prefixlika förleder. In Det Svenska ordförrådets utveckling 1800–2000. Instiutionen för svenska språket, Göteborgs universitet [[URL]].
Meibauer, J. (2013). Expressive compounds in German. Word Structure, 6, 21–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Motsch, W. (1996). Affixoide: Sammelbezeichnung für Wortbildungsphänomene oder linguistische Kategorie? Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 33, 160–168.Google Scholar
Norde, M. (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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, 256–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Emancipatie van affixen en affixoïden: Degrammaticalisatie of lexicalisatie? Nederlandse Taalkunde, 20(1), 109–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pittner, K., & Berman, J. (2006). video ist echt schrott aber single ist hammer. Jugendsprachliche Nomen-Adjektiv-Konversion in der Prädikativposition. Deutsche Sprache, 3, 233–250.Google Scholar
Ruf, B. (1996). Augmentativbildungen mit Lehnpräfixen: Eine Untersuchung zur Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar
Schäfer, R. (2015). Processing and querying large web corpora with the COW14 architecture. In Proceedings of Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora (CMLC-3). Lancaster.Google Scholar
Schäfer, R., & Bildhauer, F. (2012). Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2010) (pp. 486–493). Valletta, Malta: European language resources distribution agency.Google Scholar
Scherer, C. (2012). Vom Reisezentrum zum Reise Zentrum: Variation in der Schreibung von N+N-Komposita. In L. Gaeta, & B. Schlücker (Eds.), Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache: Strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte (pp. 57–81). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlücker, B. (2014). Grammatik im Lexikon: Adjektiv-Nomen-Verbindungen im Deutschen und Niederländischen. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, G. D. (1990). Super- und top-: Ein Vergleich von zwei im Deutschen heute produktiven Lehnpräfixen. Muttersprache, 100, 204–210.Google Scholar
Sigurd, B. (1983). Om jätte-, kalas- och andra förstärkningsprefix. Språkvård, 2, 7–16.Google Scholar
Stevens, C. M. (2005). Revisiting the affixoid debate: On the grammaticalization of the word. In T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, & S. De Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen (pp. 71–83). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S., & Andersson, E. (1999). Svenska Akademiens Grammatik. (2nd Volume). Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Thorell, O. (1981). Svensk ordbildningslära. Stockholm: Esselte.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2013). Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language, 37(3), 491–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G., & Norde, M. (2013). Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences, 36, 32–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F., De Smet, H., & Ghesquière, L. (2013). On multiple source constructions in language change. Studies in Language, 37(3), 473–489. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Reuze bedankt, het was echt top! Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar ‘loskoppeling’ van samenstellingscomponenten. Internationale Neerlandistiek, 52(1), 27–46. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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), 365–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Van Goethem, Kristel & Muriel Norde
2020. Extravagant “fake” morphemes in Dutch. Morphological productivity, semantic profiles and categorical flexibility. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16:3 ► pp. 425 ff. DOI logo
Hartmann, Stefan
2019. Compound worlds and metaphor landscapes: Affixoids, allostructions, and higher-order generalizations. Word Structure 12:3 ► pp. 297 ff. DOI logo
Norde, Muriel & Kristel Van Goethem
2018. Debonding and Clipping of Prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or Constructional Change?. In The Construction of Words [Studies in Morphology, 4], ► pp. 475 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. 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.