Cover not available
Part of
Constructions in Spanish
Edited by Inga Hennecke and Evelyn Wiesinger
[Constructional Approaches to Language 34] 2023
► pp. 28–56

Chapter 2
Collection nouns as a derivational category in Spanish

Analysing the productivity of collective suffixes on the basis of ad hoc constructs

| University of Bielefeld
The paper examines the productivity of a constructional schema of collectivity in Spanish. We analyse nonce-formations derived from typical collective suffixes and classify their meanings. The analysis reveals that the derivation of collection nouns in Spanish is productive, mostly represented by the suffixes ‑erío and ‑amen. A comparison to French and Italian data further reveals a continuum of productivity of this schema in Romance languages. In Italian, it has various subordinated constructions instantiated by the suffixes ‑ame, ‑ume and ‑aglia, with French only being represented by the suffix ‑aille. The study reveals a detailed picture not only of the functional distribution of each suffix and language, but also the functional links between different forms, i.e. suffixes, and functions. The analysis implies that an onomasiological examination of collective nouns in Romance is not only fruitful, but indispensable.
Keywords: collective nouns, morphological productivity, nonce-formation, nominal aspectuality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Collection nouns as a derivational category in Spanish: State of the art
  • 3.Empirical analysis of collective ad hoc constructs in Spanish
    • 3.1Methodology
    • 3.2Results
      • 3.2.1The predominantly non-collective suffixes
      • 3.2.2The predominantly collective suffixes
      • 3.2.3General tendencies
  • 4.Digression: Collective ad hoc constructs in French and Italian
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.34.02kle
References (42)
References
Baayen, R. H. (1993). On frequency, transparency, and productivity. In G. Booij, & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992 (pp. 181–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baldinger, K. (1950). Kollektivsuffixe und Kollektivbegriff: Ein Beitrag zur Bedeutungslehre im Französischen mit Berücksichtigung der Mundarten. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (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
(2015). Word-formation in construction grammar. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-Formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe. Vol. 4 (pp. 188–202). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Construction morphology. In A. Hippisley, & G. Stump (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology (pp. 424–448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosque, I. (1999). El nombre común. In I. Bosque, & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp. 3–76). Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dębowiak, P. (2014). La formation diminutive dans les langues romanes. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DECH=Corominas, J. (Ed.) (2012). Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico: Ed. on CD-ROM. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
DRAE = Real Academia Española (Ed.) (2014). Diccionario de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Flaux, N. (1999). À propos des noms collectifs. Revue de linguistique romane, 63(251–252), 471–502.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grossmann, M. (2004). Nomi collettivi. In M. Grossmann, & F. Rainer (Eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano (pp. 244–252). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2003). The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches (pp. 211–243). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2008). Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals. In T. Biberauer (Ed.), Linguistik aktuell: Vol. 132. The limits of syntactic variation (pp. 75–107). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Joosten, F. (2006). Why club and lingerie do not belong together: A plea for redefining collective nouns. In G. Kleiber, C. Schnedecker, & A. Theissen (Eds.), Bibliothèque de l’Information Grammaticale: Vol. 59. La relation partie-tout (pp. 73–88). Louvain/Paris/Dudley: Peeters.Google Scholar
(2010). Collective nouns, aggregate nouns, and superordinates: When ‘part of’ and ‘kind of’ meet. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 33(1), 25–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleineberg, D. (2022). The expression of “collectivity” in Romance languages: An empirical analysis on nominal aspectuality with focus on French. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lammert, M. (2010). Sémantique et cognition: Les noms collectifs. Genf: Droz.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luján, E. (2010). Semantic maps and word formation: Agents, instruments, and related semantic roles. Linguistic Discovery, 8(1), 162–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, C. (2017). Building and interpreting ad hoc categories: A linguistic analysis. In J. Blochowiak, C. Grisot, S. Durrleman, & C. Laenzlinger (Eds.), Formal models in the study of language: Applications in interdisciplinary contexts (pp. 297–326). Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meisterfeld, R. (1998). Numerus und Nominalaspekt: Eine Studie zur romanischen Apprehension. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaux, C. (1992). The collectives in French: A linguistic investigation. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 26(1), 99–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mihatsch, W. (2015). Collectives. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-Formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe. Vol. 4 (pp. 1183–1195). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
MM=Moliner, M. (Ed.). (1998). Diccionario de uso del español. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Poletto, C., & Penello, N. (2006). Propagazione di suffissi derivazionali nel linguaggio giovanile. In G. Marcato (Ed.), Giovani, lingue e dialetti (pp. 73–80). Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Ponce de León, R. (2016). Análisis morfológico, semántico y lexicográfico del sufijo ‑erío en el español de México. Thesaurus, 58, 30–52.Google Scholar
Rainer, F. (1993). Spanische Wortbildungslehre. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018a). La descendencia colectiva, aumentativa e intensiva del sufijo latino ‑aria en las lenguas románicas. VERBA, 45, 225–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). Patterns and niches in diachronic word formation: The fate of the suffix ‑men from Latin to Romance. Morphology, 28, 397–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Real Academia Española, & Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española. (2009). Nueva gramática de la lengua española: Morfología, Sintaxis I. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, J. (2002). The noun phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santiago Lacuesta, R., & Bustos Gisbert, E. (1999). La derivación nominal. In I. Bosque, & V. Demonte (Eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp. 4505–4594). Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Stark, E. (2008). Typological correlations in nominal determination in Romance. In H. Høeg Müller, & A. Klinge (Eds.), Essays on nominal determination: From morphology to discourse management (pp. 45–63). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
TLFi = ATILF – CNRS, & Université de Lorraine (Eds.). Trésor de la langue française informatisé, [URL].
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zing=Zingarelli, N. (Ed.). (2007). Lo Zingarelli. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar