Cover not available
Part of
Extravagant Morphology: Studies in rule-bending, pattern-extending and theory-challenging morphology
Edited by Matthias Eitelmann and Dagmar Haumann
[Studies in Language Companion Series 223] 2022
► pp. 101–130

The extravagant dutch suffix -ke and its meandering through the interfaces

| Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg
The substandard Dutch diminutive suffix -ke occurs in words of four different categories: nouns, predicatively used adjectives, adverbs, and interjections. In nouns, adjectives, and adverbs, the suffix may trigger an epenthetic consonant, which is not available for the interjections. This seems to go hand in hand with a syntactic distinction: for the interjections the suffix is not to be analysed as a diminutive, but as an honorific. I argue that in all contexts, the suffix realises scalar features, but of different natures. The phonological contrasts follow from the extravagant meandering through the syntax-phonology interface.
Keywords: syntax-phonology interface, honorifics, diminutives, epenthetic consonants, Distributed Morphology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Distributed morphology
  • 3.The epenthetic consonant
  • 4.The [s] is a syntactic epenthetic consonant typologically
  • 5.Same syntax, different lexical items
  • 6.Same lexical item, different syntax
    • 6.1The suffix -ke may occur as an honorific
    • 6.2The honorific and the diminutive are realised by the same lexical item
    • 6.3Restrictions on productivity
  • 7.The path through the interfaces
    • 7.1The features realised by -ke/-tje
    • 7.2The insertion of the epenthetic consonant
    • 7.3A remaining puzzle
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.223.05deb
References (33)
References
Booij, Geert. 1998. Prosodic output constraint in morphology. In Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages, Wolfgang Kehrein & Richard Wiese (eds), 143–163. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2013. Taking Form. Structuring Sense Volume III. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bye, Patrik & Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Non-Concatenative Morphology as Epiphenomenon. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 2017. Adverbial -s: So Awks, but so Natural. Ms., Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Cresswell, M. J. 1976. The semantics of degree. In Montague Grammar, Barbara Partee (ed), 261–292. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Belder, Marijke. 2011. Roots and Affixes. Eliminating Lexical Categories from Syntax. Utrecht: LOT Dissertations.Google Scholar
. 2020. A split approach to the selection of allomorphs: vowel length alternating allomorphy in Dutch. Glossa 5(1): 42. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. To appear. The syntax-semantics interface in Distributed Morphology. To appear in The Cambridge Handbook of Distributed Morphology, Artemis Alexiadou, Ruth Kramer, Alec Marantz & Isabel Oltra-Massuet (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Schutter, Georges, van den Berg, Boudewijn, Goeman, Ton & de Jong, Thera. 2005. Morphological Atlas of the Dutch dialects. Volume 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1976. Autosegmental Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Jacobs, Haike. 1998. Understanding Phonology. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Hill, Virginia. 2013. The syntactization of discourse. In Syntax and Its Limits, Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali & Robert Truswell (eds), 370–390. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30: Papers at the Interface, Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds), 125–148. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30: Papers at the Interface, Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds), 425–449. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2008. Morphosemantic Number: From Kiowa Noun Classes to UG Number Features. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf. 1999. State-of-the-article: Distributed Morphology. GLOT International 4(4): 3–9.Google Scholar
Heim, Johannes, Keupdjio, Hermann, Wai-Man Lam, Zoe, Osa- Gómez, Adriana, Thoma Sonja & Wiltschko, Martina. 2016. Intonation and particles as speech act modifiers: A syntactic analysis. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 37(2): 109–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2013. Vocatives: How Syntax Meets with Pragmatics. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Koul, Omkar. sine dato. Modes of Greetings in Kashmiri. Ms., Indian Institute of Language Studies.
Leben, William. 1973. Suprasegmental Phonology. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phases and words. In Phases in the Theory of Grammar, Sook-Hee Choe (ed), 191–222. Seoul: Dong-In Publishing Co.Google Scholar
McCready, Elin. 2019. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Honorification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Features, Position and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Pierce, Marc & Boas, Hans C. 2010. First diminutive formation and [d]-epenthesis in Yiddish. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 15: 213–230.Google Scholar
Postma, Gertjan. 2001. Negative polarity and the syntax of taboo. In Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 40, Jack Hoeksema, Hotze Rullmann, Víctor Sánchez-Valencia & Ton van der Wouden (eds), 283–330. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 222–272. Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Spanning. Ms., University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Tang, Sze-Wing. 2015. Cartographic syntax of pragmatic projections. In Chinese Syntax in a Cross- Linguistic Perspective, Audrey Li, Simpson, Andrew & Wei-tien Dylan Tsai (eds), 429–441. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew Adam. 2008. Optimal Interleaving: Serial Phonology-Morphology Interaction in a Constraint-Based Model. PhD dissertation Amherst, MA, University of Massachusetts.
Zygis, Marzena. 2010. Typology of consonantal insertions. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 52: 111–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

De Belder, Marijke
2023. Linking Elements. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 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.