Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2017
Edited by Sander Lestrade and Bert Le Bruyn
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 34] 2017
► pp. 1–15

Menscheln, kibbelen, sparkle

Verbal diminutives between grammar and lexicon

 | Leiden University Centre for Linguistics
 | Leiden University Centre for Linguistics
 | Tufts University | Massachusetts Institute of Technology
German, Dutch and English have surprisingly large sets of verbal diminutives: verbs ending in -el/-le and carrying an attenuative and/or iterative meaning. These verbs exhibit particular properties that make them interesting for morphological theory. Focussing on Dutch data, this paper sketches the challenges that arise with respect to structure, productivity and meaning, and proposes a constructionist account that allows for a better understanding of the issues. The central notion is the schema, a generalization over the structure of complex words. In contrast to rules, whose main function is to generate new words, schemas motivate existing words by marking their structure as non-arbitrary. We discuss the modelling options this gives us and apply them to the verbal diminutives.
Keywords: verbal diminutives, frequentatives, schema, Construction Morphology, motivation, Germanic
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Non-lexical bases and non-productivity
  • 3.The identity of -el and structural ambiguity
  • 4.Theoretical challenges and a constructionist account
  • 5.Partial motivation
  • 6.Multiple motivation
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 23 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.34.01aud
References (19)
References
Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber & Ingo Plag. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Inheritance and motivation in Construction Morphology.” Defaults in Morphological Theory. ed. by N. Gisborne & A. Hippisley. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert & Jenny Audring. forthcoming. “Partial motivation, multiple motivation: the role of output schemas in morphology.” The construction of words, Advances in Construction Morphology. ed. by G. Booij. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logo
Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Haas, Wim & Mieke Trommelen. 1993. Morfologisch Handboek van het Nederlands. Een overzicht van de woordvorming. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray & Jenny Audring. forthcoming. The texture of the lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logo
. 2016. “Morphological schemas: Theoretical and psycholinguistic issues.” The Mental Lexicon 11(3): 467–493. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Jager, Arie de. 1875. Woordenboek der frequentatieven in het Nederlandsch. Gouda: G.B. van Goor.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Günter Radden, eds. 2011. Motivation in grammar and the lexicon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philippa, Marlies, Frans Debrabandere & Arend Quak. 2003. Etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & Klaus-Uwe Panther, eds. 2004. Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916/1977. Cours de linguistique générale, ed. by C. Bally and A. Sechehaye, with the collaboration of A. Riedlinger. Lausanne and Paris: Payot; trans. by W. Baskin, Course in general linguistics, Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.Google Scholar
Schönfeld, Moritz & Adolphe Van Loey. 1964. Schönfelds historische grammatica van het Nederlands: Klankleer, vormleer, woordvorming. Zutphen: Thieme.Google Scholar
Weidhaas, Thomas & Hans-Jörg Schmid. 2015. “Diminutive verbs in German: semantic analysis and theoretical implications.” Morphology 25(2). 183–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Cavirani-Pots, Cora & Engela De Villiers
2023. Univerbation in Afrikaans verbal diminutives. Linguistics in the Netherlands 40 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
DINGEMANSE, MARK & BILL THOMPSON
2020. Playful iconicity: structural markedness underlies the relation between funniness and iconicity. Language and Cognition 12:1 ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo
Tarasova, Elizaveta & José A. Sánchez Fajardo
2020. Iconicity and word-formation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 332 ff. DOI logo
van de Weijer, Jeroen, Weiyun Wei, Yumeng Wang, Guangyuan Ren & Yunyun Ran
2020. Words are constructions, too: A construction-based approach to English ablaut reduplication. Linguistics 58:6 ► pp. 1701 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 december 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.