Cover not available
Article published In:
NOWELE
Vol. 75:2 (2022) ► pp.194–222

Tvær blækur labba inn á bar

On limited productivity as graded membership of an Icelandic microclass

ORCID logo | University of Iceland,
This article examines the limited productivity of a minimally schematic Icelandic microclass, originally containing bók ‘book’, bót ‘patch’, brók ‘trousers’, nót ‘fishing net’, and rót ‘root’ only. Productivity is betrayed by the addition of feminine blók ‘nonentity’ and forms of neuter kók ‘Coke™’. While plural nominative/accusative blækur and kækur speak to the productivity of the microclass specifically, doublet forms in both paradigms follow multiple inflection classes. Some are of the opinion that plural kækur belies real language use, as it is only used for humorous effect. The current paper applies a usage-based cognitive analysis to the relevant data with two objectives. First, to account for graded membership in the microclass as a function of limited productivity. Secondly, to demonstrate that innovative kækur and blækur are deduced by identical means. It is concluded that productivity is a property of language use, which is posited as a function of analogy.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Graded productivity and analogy
    • 2.1The mediation of type frequency by schematicity
    • 2.2Analogical reasoning: The mechanism of productivity
  • 3.Ice. neut. kók as feminine
    • 3.1Deduction of fem. plural kækur by proportional analogy
    • 3.2Accounting for the (grammatical) gender fluidity of Ice. kók
  • 4.Extension of the XóT-microclass pattern: That’s not funny!
  • 5.General summary
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.00068.mar
References (61)
References
Audring, J. 2019. Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure 121. 274–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axelsdóttir, K. 2014. Sögur af orðum. Sex athuganir á beygingarþróun í íslensku. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan.Google Scholar
2015. Beyging og merking orðsins hjalt . Orð og tunga 171. 95–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar approach. Lingua 121(1). 60–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Predicting the productivity of argument structure constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society 321 (2006). 467–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, M. & S. Kemmer. 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Beckner, C., R. Blythe, J. Bybee, M. H. Christiansen, W. Croft, N. E. Ellis, J. Holland, J. Ke, D. Larsen-Freeman & T. Schoenemann. 2009. Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 591. 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. & J. Blevins. 2009. Analogy: An introduction. In J. P. Blevins & J. Blevins (eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition, 1–12. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. 2010. Construction morphology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2019. The role of schemas in construction morphology. Word Structure 12(3). 385–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. & J. Audring. 2018. Partial motivation, multiple motivation: The role of output schemas in morphology. In G. Booij (ed.), The construction of words. Advances in construction morphology, 59–80. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bulloch, M. J. & J. E. Opfer. 2009. What makes relational reasoning smart? Revisiting the perceptual-to-relational shift in the development of generalization. Developmental Science 12(1). 114–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Language, usage and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & J. L. McClelland. 2005. Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. In N. A. Ritter (ed.), The role of linguistics in cognitive science. Special Edition of The Linguistic Review 22(2–4). 381–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & C. L. Moder. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 591. 251–270. [Reprinted in Bybee 2007] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. J. 2015. Spoken language and usage events. Language and Cognition 71. 499–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 221. 991–1060. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clausner, T. C. & W. Croft. 1997. Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science 21(3). 247–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cordes, A. K. 2017. The roles of analogy, categorization, and generalisation in entrenchment. In H. Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language: How we reorganise and adapt linguistic knowledge, 269–88. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Croft, W. & D. A. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. 2017. Entrenchment effects in language change. In H. Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language: How we reorganise and adapt linguistic knowledge, 75–99. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U. 1997. On productivity and potentiality in inflectional morphology. Cross- Language Aphasia Study Network (CLASNET) Working papers 71. 3–22.Google Scholar
2003. Degrees of grammatical productivity in inflectional morphology. Italian Journal of Linguistics 151. 31–62.Google Scholar
Fertig, D. 2013. Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardani, F. 2013. Dynamics of morphological productivity: The evolution of noun classes from Latin to Italian. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. 2005. The development of relational category knowledge. In L. Gershkoff-Stowe & D. H. Rakison (eds.), Building object categories in developmental time, 245–275. New Jersey: Lawrence Erblaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. & C. Hoyos. 2017. Analogy and abstraction. Topics in Cognitive Science 91. 672–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. & A. B. Markman. 1997. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 521. 45–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halford, G. S. & G. Andrews. 2007. Domain general processes in higher cognition: Analogical reasoning, schema induction and capacity limitations. In M. J. Roberts (ed.), Integrating the mind: Domain general versus domain specific processes in higher cognition, 213–232. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1). 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Houghton, D. E. 1968. Humor as a factor in language change. The English Journal 571. 1178–1181–1186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Íslensk orðabók. 2010. Reykjavík: Forlagið.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & C. J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1). 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kvaran, G. 2005. Íslensk tunga II: Orð. Reykjavík: Almenna bókafélagið.Google Scholar
Magnússon, Á. B. 1989. Íslensk orðsifjabók. Reykjavík: Orðabók Háskólans.Google Scholar
Markússon, J. S. 2012. Eðli u-hljóðvarpsvíxla í íslenskri málsögu. Reykjavík: University of Iceland (MA thesis).
2017. Samband veiklunar og hljóðanvæðingar: Vitnisburður u- hljóðvarpvíxla í frum- og vesturnorrænni málsögu. In S. S. Hansen, A. Johansen, H. P. Petersen, L. Reinert (eds), Bók Jógvan: Heiðursrit til Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen á 60 ára degnum, 263–276. Tórshavn: Føroya fróðskaparfelag.Google Scholar
2021. Undir áhrifum (orða)gengis. In K. Axelsdóttir et al. (eds.), Möggubrár heklaðar Margréti Jónsdóttur sjötugri, 21. mars 2021, 99–104. Reykjavík: Rauðhetta.Google Scholar
2022. Accounting for different rates of gender reanalysis among Icelandic masculine forms in plural -ur . Nordic Journal of Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [URL]
Penn, D. C., K. J. Holyoak & D. J. Povinelli. 2008. Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 311. 109–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quinion, M. Bloke. World Wide Words, 16th June 2004 (updated 22nd January 2011). [URL] (accessed 17 April 2021).
Rácz, P., C. Beckner, J. B. Hay & J. B. Pierrehumbert. 2020. Morphological convergence as on-line lexical analogy. Language 96(4). 1–36.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. & C. B. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 71. 573–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, E. 2013. Hljóðkerfi og orðhlutakerfi íslensku. [Electronic edition] Reykjavík. [URL]
Svavarsdóttir, Á. Er virkilega hægt að drekka kók í þremur kynjum? Vísindavefurinn, 11 December 2014. [URL] (accessed 12 June 2020).
Sveinsson, S. 2001. Íslensk málsaga. Reykjavík: Iðunn.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 2012. The mental corpus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2000. First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics 11 (1/2). 61–82.Google Scholar
Whelpton, M., D. Trotter, Þ. G. Beck, C. Anderson, J. Maling, K. Durvasula & A. Beretta. 2014. Portions and sorts in Icelandic: An ERP study. Brain and Language 1361. 44–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, H. & J. Maling. 2005. Biers, kaffi and schnaps: Different grammatical options for restaurant talk coercions in three Germanic languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 171. 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winters, M. E. 2020. Historical linguistics: A cognitive grammar introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Þórhallsdóttir, G. 1997. Ylgr, heiðr, brúðr: saga r-endingar nefnifalls eintölu kvenkynsorða. In Ú. Bragason (ed.), Íslensk málsaga og textafræði, 41–56. Reykjavík: Stofnun Sigurðar Nordals.Google Scholar
Þórhallsdóttir, G. 2007. The dative singular of ō-stems in Old Norse. In A. J. Nussbaum (ed.), Verba docenti: Studies in historical and Indo-European linguistics presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by students, colleagues, and friends, 329–41. Ann Arbor, MI: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Markússon, Jón Símon
2023. Accounting for different rates of gender reanalysis among Icelandic masculine forms in plural -ur. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 46:3 ► pp. 331 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.