Article published in:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 21:1 (2021) ► pp. 138–161

Denominal verb formationin English and Modern Greek

| F.R.S.-FNRS | Université catholique de Louvain , Belgium
Cross-linguistically, there are different patterns for denominal verb formation and languages show preferences for certain patterns (cf. McIntyre, 2015). In this paper, I focus on denominal verb formation in English and Modern Greek. The analyzed data come from the TenTen corpora (Sketch Engine, Kilgariff et al., 2014). The first aim is to quantify the use of the patterns of denominal verb formations in both languages. The results of the analysis corroborate the findings of previous analyses, such as the strong preference for conversion for denominal verb formation in English and for suffixation in Modern Greek. However, the present paper aims to go a step further. The second aim is to discuss why English and Modern Greek show these preferences. I propose that the preferences can be explained if we correlate the parameters of inflectional marking, word order/configurationality, system of lexical category assignment and boundary permeability.
Keywords: denominals, affixation, conversion, inflection, English/Modern Greek
Published online: 18 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.19020.kou
References

References

Aronoff, M.
1976 Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. and Plag, I.
2013 The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. and Valera, S.
(eds) 2005 Approaches to Conversion and/or zero-derivation. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Berg, T.
2014 Boundary Permeability: A Parameter for Linguistic Typology. Linguistic Typology, 18(3): 489–531. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bisetto, A. and Melloni, C.
2008 Parasynthetic Compounding. Rivista Lingue e Linguaggio 2: 233–260.Google Scholar
Bram, B.
2011 Major Total Conversion in English: The Question of Directionality. PhD Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
Charitonidis, C.
2005 Verb Derivation in Modern Greek: Alternation Classes, Conceptual Structures, Semantic Fields. Frankfurt am Main: PeterLang.Google Scholar
2011 Making Verbs Happen: Interviews on Greek Verb Endings. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. and Clark, H. H.
1979 When Nouns Surface as Verbs. Language 55(4): 767–811. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Darby, J.
2015 The Processing of Conversion in English: Morphological Complexity and Underspecification. PhD Thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Díaz-Negrillo, A. and Fernández-Alcaina, C.
(eds) 2018 Conversion: Limits, Interpretations. Thematic issue of Word Structure 11(2).Google Scholar
Dixon, R. W.
2014 Making New Words. Morphological Derivation in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Efthymiou, A.
2011 The Semantics of Verb Forming Suffixes in Modern Greek. Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Symposium of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Thessaloniki, Greece 3–5 April 2009 174–184.Google Scholar
2014 Is there a Meaning Hierarchy in Verb-Forming Suffixation? Evidence from English and Modern Greek. Rivista di Linguistica 26(2): 99–122.Google Scholar
2015 Modern Greek Parasynthetic Verbs: A Hierarchical Relationship between Prefixes and Suffixes. In Affix Ordering across Languages and Frameworks, S. Manova (ed), 82–107. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 Ο σχηματισμός των ρημάτων στη νέα ελληνική γλώσσα [Verb Derivation in Modern Greek]. Αθήνα: Επίκεντρο.Google Scholar
Efthymiou, A., Fragaki, G. and Markos, A.
2012 Productivity of Verb-Forming Suffixes in Modern Greek: A Corpus-Based Study. Morphology 22(4): 515–543. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, L.
2013 Affix Ordering and Conversion: Looking for the Place of zero. Lingue e Linguaggio XII(2): 145–170.Google Scholar
Gast, V.
2014 Verb-Noun Compounds in English and German. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 56(3): 269–282.Google Scholar
Giannoulopoulou, G.
2015 Morphological Contrasts between Modern Greek and Italian. The Case of Compounding. Special Issue of Languages in Contrast 15(1): 65–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gottfurcht, C.
2008 Denominal Verb Formation in English. PhD Thesis, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Haas, F.
2017 Motivating an English-German Contrast in Word Formation. Languages in Contrast 17(2): 183–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haselow, A.
2011 Typological Changes in the Lexicon. Analytic Tendencies in English Noun Formation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K., Rijkhoff, J. and Siewierska, A.
2004 Parts-of-Speech Systems and Word Order. Journal of Linguistics 40: 527–570. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ježek, E. and Ramat, P.
2009 On Parts-of-Speech Transcategorization. Folia Linguistica 43(2): 391–416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kilgariff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P. and Suchomel, V.
2014 The Sketch Engine: Ten Years On. Lexicography 1(1): 7–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krzeszowski, T. P.
1990 Contrasting Languages. The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A.
2012 From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Change Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lefer, M.-A. and Cartoni, B.
2011 Prefixes in Contrast. Towards a Meaning-Based Contrastive Methodology for Lexical Morphology. Languages in Contrast 11(1): 87–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C.
2008 Roots, Stems and Word Classes. Studies in Language 32: 546–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B.
1993 English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R.
2004 Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. and Štekauer, P.
2014 Introduction. The Scope of the Handbook. In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (eds), 3–9. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Manova, S.
2011 Understanding Morphological Rules: With Special Emphasis on Conversion and Subtraction in Bulgarian, Russian and Serbo-Croatian (Studies in Morphology 1). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R. and Roussou, A.
2019 Morphological and Syntactic (non-)Finiteness. A Comparison between English and Balkan Languages. Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali/Working Papers in Linguistics and Oriental Studies 5: 195–229.Google Scholar
Marchand, H.
1969 The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach (2nd edition). München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Martsa, S.
2013 Conversion in English: A Cognitive Semantic Approach. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A.
2015 Denominal Verbs. In Word Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (Volume II), P. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen and F. Rainer (eds), 1406–1424. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plag, I.
1999 Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2004 Syntactic Category Information and the Semantics of Derivational Morphological Rules. Folia Linguistica XXXVIII(3–4): 193–225.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J.
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Ralli, A.
1999 Inflectional Features and the Morphological Module Hypothesis. In Working Papers in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics 6, A. Kakouriotis and V. Bolla-Mavrides (eds), 111–142. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
2004 Stem-Based versus Word-Based Morphological Configurations: The Case of Modern Greek Preverbs. Lingue e Linguaggio 2004(2): 269–302.Google Scholar
2005 Μορφολογία [Morphology]. Athens: Patakis.Google Scholar
2008 Greek Deverbal Compounds with ‘Bound Stems’. Southern Journal of Linguistics 29(1/2): 150–173.Google Scholar
Spyropoulos, V., Revithiadou, A. and Panagiotidis, P.
2015 Verbalizers Leave Marks: Evidence from Greek. Morphology 25(3): 299–325. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, P.
1996 A Theory of Conversion in English. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P., Valera, S. and Körtvélyessy, L.
2012 Word-Formation in the World’s Languages. A Typological Survey. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Valera, S.
2014 Conversion. In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (eds), 154–168. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2015 Conversion. In Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (Volume 1), P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen and F. Rainer (eds), 322–339. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, N.
1997 Synthetic and Analytic Structures. In The Dialects of Italy, M. Maiden and M. Parry (eds), 99–105. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vogel, P. M.
2005 Conversion and Derivation in Different Part-of-Speech Systems. In Wortarten und Grammatikalisierung, C. Knobloch and B. Schaeder (eds), 67–78. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Weiner, E.
2016 Grammatical Analysis and Grammatical Change. In The Oxford Handbook of Lexicography, P. Durkin (ed), 221–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Primary sources

Oxford English Dictionary (online edition)
Available at https://​en​.oxforddictionaries​.com/
Sketch Engine parallel corpora
Available at http://​www​.sketchengine​.co​.uk
Online etymology dictionary
Available at https://​www​.etymonline​.com/
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Koutsoukos, Nikos & Laura A. Michaelis
2021. Pleonastic complex words as functional amalgams. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 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.