Cover not available
Article published In:
Issues in Diachronic Construction Morphology
Edited by Muriel Norde and Graeme Trousdale
[Constructions and Frames 15:2] 2023
► pp. 211–233

The development of heterosemous inflection and derivation

Norwegian abundance plurals and distributive adjectives

ORCID logo | University of Bergen

In Norwegian, the noun vis ‘manner’ is commonly used to head compounds. It is the historical source of several suffixes: derivational suffixes in adverbs and adjectives and an inflectional suffix on measure nouns. Thus, compounding has given rise to both derivation and inflection. These developments are analysed and compared with respect to how they affect the network of constructions, with a focus on differences between derivation and inflection. The main difference is that links of similarity and contrast have been centrally involved in the development of inflection, but not of derivation.

Keywords: adjective, adverb, analogy, grammaticalization, measure noun, paradigm, reanalysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The earliest adverbial constructions
  • 3.Inflectional constructions
    • 3.1Abundance adverbials
    • 3.2Postnominal modifiers
    • 3.3Pseudopartitive constructions
    • 3.4Inflectional paradigms
    • 3.5Summary on inflectional constructions
  • 4.Derivational constructions
    • 4.1Distributive adverbials
    • 4.2Prenominal modifiers
    • 4.3Derivational paradigms?
    • 4.4Summary on derivational constructions
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 January 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00073.kin
References
Barðdal, J., & Gildea, S.
(2015) Diachronic Construction Grammar. Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 1–49). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.
(2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G.
(2000) Number. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2019) The grammar network. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G.
(2020) Paradigms lost – paradigms regained. Paradigms as hyper-constructions. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 277–315). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elsner, D.
(2015) Adverbial morphology in German. Formations with -weise/-erweise . In K. Pittner, D. Elsner, & F. Barteld (Eds.), Adverbs. Functional and diachronic aspects (pp. 101–132). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enger, H.-O., & Conzett, P.
(2016) Morfologi [Morphology]. In H. Sandøy (Ed.), Norsk språkhistorie [Norwegian language history], vol. 11: Mønster [Patterns] (pp. 213–315). Novus.Google Scholar
Enger, H.-O., & Nesset, T.
(2011) Constraints on diachronic development: the Animacy Hierarchy and the Relevance Constraint. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 64 1, 193–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fjeld, R. V., Nøklestad, A., & Hagen, K.
(2020) Leksikografisk bokmålskorpus (LBK) – bakgrunn og bruk [The Lexicographic Corpus of Bokmål Norwegian – background and use]. In J. B. Johannessen & K. Hagen (Eds.), Leksikografi og korpus [Lexicography and corpus], Oslo Studies in Language, 11 1, 47–59.Google Scholar
Hansen, Aa
(1933) Sætningen og dens led i moderne dansk [The sentence and its constituents in modern Danish]. Nyt Nordisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Hathout, N., & Namer, F.
(2019) Paradigms in word formation: what are we up to? Morphology, 29 1, 153–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinn, T.
(1998) Drøssevis av forsømte avleiingar: ord på -vis [Heaps of neglected derivatives: words in -vis ]. Nordica Bergensia, 19 1, 101–126.Google Scholar
(2001) Pseudopartitives in Norwegian. University of Bergen PhD dissertation.
(2005) Ord på -vis i moderne norsk: samansetningar, avleiingar – og bøyingsformer? [Words in -vis in modern Norwegian: compounds, derivatives – and inflectional forms?] Maal og Minne, 97 1, 45–78.Google Scholar
(2007) Den historiske utviklinga til ord på -vis . [The historical development of words in -vis ]. Maal og Minne, 99 1, 9–28 and 158–186.Google Scholar
Leino, J.
(2022) Formalizing paradigms in Construction Grammar. In G. Diewald & K. Politt (Eds.), Paradigms regained: Theoretical and empirical arguments for the reassessment of the notion of paradigm (pp. 37–65). Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, F.
(1991) Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language, 67 1, 475–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, F., & Audring, J.
(2018) Construction Morphology. In J. Audring & F. Masini (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory (pp. 365–389). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norde, M.
(2005) Adverb och adjektiv på -vis i svenskan [Adverbs and adjectives in -vis in Swedish]. Svenskans beskrivning, 27 1, 233–245.Google Scholar
Norde, M., & Morris, C.
(2018) Derivation without category change. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp. 47–91). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Opdahl, L.
(2003) The suffix -wise: Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty? In K. Aijmer & B. Olinder (Eds.), Proceedings from the 8th Nordic Conference of English Studies (pp. 59–70). Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P.
(2014) Derivational paradigms. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology (pp. 354–369). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, G. T.
(1998) Inflection. In A. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 13–43). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tiisala, S.
(1990)  Naturligtvis – från ord till suffix. [ Naturligtvis – from word to suffix]. Svenskans beskrivning, 17 1, 357–366.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, T.
to appear). Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks: Two sides of the same coin? Constructions and Frames.
Van de Velde, F.
(2004) Exaptatie en subjectificatie in de Nederlandse adverbiale morfologie [Exaptation and subjectification in Dutch adverbial morphology]. Handelingen – Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse maatschappij voor taal- en letterkunde en geschiedenis, 58 1, 105–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar