Article published in:
Morphology and Meaning: Selected papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012
Edited by Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Hans Christian Luschützky and Wolfgang U. Dressler
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 327] 2014
► pp. 71–96

Between word formation and meaning change

| University of Tübingen

In diachronic lexicology, word formation (henceforth: WF) is generally treated as one of three strictly distinct types of processes of lexical innovation, the two others being meaning change (MCh) and borrowing. A unitary theoretical framework based on Construction Grammer and integrating different types of lexical innovation will show that, from an onomasiological point of view, WF and MCh in particular are only two ways of switching from a construction 1 expressing a concept C1 to a formally and semantically related construction 2 expressing a concept C2. From this perspective it is not surprising to find multiple combination, intertwining and interaction between MCh and WF: WF and MCh as subsequent steps in chains of diachronic change; WF and MCh as designative alternatives in lexical innovation; WF and MCh as components of the phenomena of lexical ellipsis and folk-etymology; MCh governing the diachronic evolution of already existing WF devices; MCh creating new WF devices.

Published online: 27 February 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.327.05koc
References
Bauer, Laurie & Salvador Valera
eds. 2005 Approaches to Conversion / Zero Derivation. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald
eds. 2008 Constructions and Language Change. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blank, Andreas
1997a Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997b “Outlines of a Cognitive Approach to Word-Formation”. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists ed. by Bernard Caron, paper No. 0239. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
2003 “Words and Concepts in Time: Towards Diachronic Cognitive Onomasiology”. Words in Time: Diachronic Semantics from Different Points of View ed. by Regine Eckardt, Klaus von Heusinder & Christoph Schwarze, 37–65. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “Cambio semantico e formazione delle parole”. La formazione delle parole in italiano ed. by Maria Grossmann & Franz Rainer, 23–30. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert, Christian Lehman, Joachim Mugdan & Stavros Skopetas
eds. 2000 2004 Morphologie/Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. 2 vols. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert
2010 Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2005 Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corbin, Danielle
1987 Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. 2 vols. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio
1968 “Les structures lexématiques”. Probleme der Semantik ed. by Wilhelm Theodor Elwert, 3–16. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Croft, William & David Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DELI = Manlio Cortelazzo
& Michele A. Cortelazzo ed 1999 Il nuovo etimologico. DELI – Dizionario etimologico della lingua italiana. 2nd ed. Bologna Zanichelli.
Detges, Ulrich
1998 “Echt die Wahrheit sagen: Überlegungen zur Grammatikalisierung von Adverbmarkern”. Philologie im Netz 4.1–29.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Richard Waltereit
2002 “Grammaticalization vs. Reanalysis: A Semantic-Pragmatic Account of Functional Change in Grammar”. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21.151–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DHLF = Alain Rey
ed. 1992. Dictionnaire historique de la langue française. 2 vols. Paris: Dictionnaires le Robert.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2008 “Konstruktionen in der diachronen Sprachwissenschaft”, Fischer et al. , eds. 2008–2011, vol. I, 79–103.Google Scholar
Don, Jan, Mieke Trommelen & Wim Zonneveld
2000 “Conversion and Category Indeterminacy”. Booij et al. , eds. 2000, vol. I, 943–952.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green
2006 Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fill, Alwin
2004 “Remotivation and Reinterpretation”. Booij et al. , eds. 2004, vol. II, 1615–1625.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J
1988 “The Mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’”. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14.35–55.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor
1988 “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of let alone”. Language 64.501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin & Anatol Stefanowitsch
2008 “Konstruktionsgrammatik: Ein Überblick”. Fischer et al. , eds. 2008–11, vol. I, 3–17.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin, Anatol Stefanowitsch, Alexander Lesch & Alexander Ziem
eds. 2008 2011 Konstruktionsgrammatik 3 vols Tübingen Stauffenburg
Fleischer, Wolfgang
2000 “Die Klassifikation von Wortbildungsprozessen”. Booij et al. , eds. 2000, vol. I, 886–897.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman
2004 “Construction Grammar: A Thumbnail Sketch”. Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective ed. by Mirjam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman, 11–86. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gévaudan, Paul
2007 Typologie des lexikalischen Wandels: Bedeutungswandel, Wortbildung und Entlehnung am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Gévaudan, Paul & Peter Koch
2010 “Sémantique cognitive et changement lexical”. Grandes voies et chemins de traverse de la sémantique cognitive ed. by Jacques François, 103–145. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele Eva
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2003 “Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language”. Trends in Cognitive Science 7.219–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grossmann, Maria & Franz Rainer
eds. 2004 La formazione delle parole in italiano. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Grzega, Joachim
2004 Bezeichnungswandel: Wie, Warum, Wozu? Ein Beitrag zur englischen und allgemeinen Onomasiologie. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd
2002 “On the Role of Context in Grammaticalization”. New Reflections on Grammaticalization ed. by Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald, 83–101. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2011 “Was ist Konstruktionswandel?”. Fischer et al. , eds. 2011, vol. III, 59–75.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jacob
2000 “Compositionality of Meaning”. Booij et al. , eds. 2000, vol. I, 851–857.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
2003 Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter
1982 Wortbildung und Semantik. Düsseldorf: Schwann-Bagel.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter
1999 “Tree and fruit: A cognitive-onomasiological approach”. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 28:2.331–347.Google Scholar
2000 “Pour une approche cognitive du changement sémantique lexical: aspect onomasiologique”. Théories contemporaines du changement sémantique ed. by Jacques François, 75–95. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
2001a “Bedeutungswandel und Bezeichnungswandel: Von der kognitiven Semasiologie zur kognitiven Onomasiologie Metonymy”. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 121.7–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001b “Lexical Typology from a Cognitive and Linguistic Point of View”. Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook/Ein internationales Handbuch/Manuel international. 2 vols ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible, vol. II, 1142–1178. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2004 “Diachronic Onomasiology and Semantic Reconstruction”. Lexical Data and Universals of Semantic Change ed. by Wiltrud Mihatsch & Reinhild Steinberg, 79–106. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2005 “Taxinomie et relations associatives”. Sens et Références/Sinn und Referenz: Mélanges Georges Kleiber/Festschrift für Georges Kleiber ed. by Adolfo Murguía, 159–191. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
2012a “Es gibt keine Konstruktionsbedeutung ohne Bedeutungswandel. Valenz – Konstruktion – Diachronie”. Ki bien voldreit raisun entendre: Mélanges en l’honneur du 70e anniversaire de Frankwalt Möhren ed. by Stephen Dörr & Thomas Städtler, 147–174. Strasbourg: Éditions de linguistique et de philologie.Google Scholar
2012b “The Pervasiveness of Contiguity and Metonymy in Semantic Change”. Current Methods in Historical Semantics ed. by Kathryn Allan & Justyna Robinson, 259–311. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lipka, Leonhard
1994 “Wortbildung, Metapher und Metonymie: Prozesse, Resultate und ihre Beschreibung”. Wortbildungslehre ed. by Bruno Staib, 1–15. Münster: Lit.Google Scholar
2002 English Lexicology. Lexical Structure, Word Semantics & Word-formation. 3rd edition. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin
2008 “Lexical Nonsense and Morphological Sense: On the Real Importance of ‘Folk Etymology’ and Related Phenomena for Historical Linguists”. Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory. The Rosendal Papers ed. by Thórhallur Eythórsson, 307–328. Amsterdam & Philadelpha: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, Hans
1969 The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. 2nd edition. München: H. C. Beck.Google Scholar
Mutz, Katrin
2000 Die italienischen Modifikationssuffixe: Synchronie und Diachronie. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Naumann, Bernd & Petra M. Vogel
2000 “Derivation”. Booij et al. , eds. 2000, vol. I, 929–943.Google Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary. CD-ROM version 3.00
. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2002.Google Scholar
Olschansky, Heike
1996 Volksetymologie. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panagl, Oswald
2005 “Volksetymologie und Verwandtes”. Lexikologie. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen ed. by Alan D. Cruse, Franz Hundsnurscher, Michael Job & Peter Rolf Lutzeier, 2 vols, 1346–1352. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rainer, Franz
1993 Spanische Wortbildungslehre. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Semantic Change in Word Formation”. Linguistics 43.415–441. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sablayrolles, Jean-François
2000 La néologie en français contemporain. Examen du concept et analyse de productions néologiques récentes. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Sauer, Hans
2004 “Lexicalization and Demotivation”. Booij et al. , eds. 2004, vol. II, 1625–1636.Google Scholar
Tournier, Jean
1985 Introduction descriptive à la lexicogénétique de l’anglais contemporain. Paris: Nathan; Genève: Slatkine.Google Scholar
1991 Structures lexicales de l’anglais. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2003 “Constructions in Grammaticalization”. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, Stephen
1964 Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vogel, Petra M
1996 Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel: Zu Konversion und verwandten Erscheinungen im Deutschen und in anderen Sprachen. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, David P
1996 “Natural Tendencies of Semantic Change and the Search for Cognates”. The Comparative Method Reviewed ed. by Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross, 264–304. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zwanenburg, Wiecher
2000 “Correspondence between Formal and Semantic Relations”. Booij et al. , eds. 2000, vol. I, 840–850.Google Scholar