Cover not available
Part of
Category Change from a Constructional Perspective
Edited by Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé and Gudrun Vanderbauwhede
[Constructional Approaches to Language 20] 2018
► pp. 47–90

Chapter 3
Derivation without category change

A network-based analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch

Dutch derivational morphology is rich in intensifying prefixoids, i.e. morphemes that occur as independent lexemes but have an intensifying meaning when bound to adjectives or adverbs. A specific variant of these are diminutive prefixoid constructions such as bloedjeserieus (blood-dim-serious) ‘very serious’ or kletsjenat (splash-dim-wet) ‘very wet’. Unlike the regular derivational diminutive however, the diminutive morpheme lacks the ability to change category when added to a prefixoid, and its primary function is a pragmatic one of either emphasis or downtoning. In this paper, we will discuss the formal and semantic-pragmatic properties of the diminutive prefixoid construction, based on an empirical study into its synchronic distribution, as well as explore how prefixoid constructions may be organised in a constructional network.
Keywords: prefixoids, diminutives, derivation, degree modifiers, constructional networks
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical preliminaries
    • 2.1Construction Morphology
    • 2.2Constructional networks
    • 2.3Inheritance links and lateral links
  • 3.The present study
    • 3.1Sources and method
    • 3.2Results
      • 3.2.1Type and token frequencies
      • 3.2.2Sociolinguistic variables
        • 3.2.2.1Gender
        • 3.2.2.2Age
        • 3.2.2.3Region
    • 3.3Formal and semantic properties
      • 3.3.1Morphophonology
      • 3.3.2Part of speech of the diminutivised element
        • 3.3.2.1Prefixoids deriving from nouns
        • 3.3.2.2Prefixoids deriving from adjectives and adverbs
        • 3.3.2.3Prefixoids deriving from verbs
        • 3.3.2.4Prefixoids deriving from prepositions
        • 3.3.2.5Diminutivised prefixes
        • 3.3.2.6Prefixoids deriving from bound roots
      • 3.3.3Meaning
  • 4.A network analysis
    • 4.1Inheritance links and lateral links in the dpc network
    • 4.2A multiple source construction?
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 22 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20.03nor
References (42)
References
Ascoop, K., & Leuschner, T. (2006). Affixoidhungrig? Skitbra! Comparing affixoids in German and Swedish. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 59(3), 241–252.Google Scholar
Baayen, H. (2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling, & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 900–919). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakema, P., & Geeraerts, D. (2000). Diminution and augmentation. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann, & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation (pp. 1045–1052). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Banga, A. (2012). Function follows form: The linking element in Dutch and related languages. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2005). The grammar of words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Morphology in construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 255–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G., & Hüning, M. (2014). Affixoids and constructional idioms. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 77–106). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Usage-based theory and examplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haas, W. de, & Trommelen, M. (1993). Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands: Een overzicht van de woordvorming. The Hague: SDU.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2015). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, J. (2012). Elative compounds in Dutch: Properties and developments. In G. Oebel (Ed.), Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachenvergleich (pp. 97–142). Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (2007). Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hüning, M., & Booij, G. (2014). From compounding to derivation: The emergence of derivational affixes through ‘constructionalization’. Folia Linguistica, 48(2), 579–604. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. (2013). The limits of (construction) grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 32–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klara, L. (2012). Steinreich ist saucool: Adjektivische Steigerungsbildungen des Gegenwartsdeutschen. In G. Oebel (Ed.), Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachenvergleich (pp. 143–170). Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
Knooihuizen, R., & Strik, O. (2014). Relative productivity potentials of Dutch verbal inflection patterns. Folia Linguistica Historica, 35(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Leuschner, T. (2010). Ausnahmepianist Fettgeschreckt-inbleich! Deutsche, niederländische und schwedische präfixoide im Spannungsfeld von Genealogie, Kreativität und Norm. In A. Dammel, S. Kürschner, & D. Nübling (Eds.), Kontrastive germanistische Linguistik (pp. 863–892). Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Majtényi, M. (2012). The productivity of the prefix über- in English and Hungarian: A cross-linguistic, corpus-based study. Argumentum, 8, 244–261.Google Scholar
Meibauer, J. (2013). Expressive compounds in German. Word Structure, 6(1), 21–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morris, C. (2013). Bekje-af, knettertjegek en dolletjesgelukkig: The use and development of intensifying diminutive compounds in Dutch within the framework of Construction Morphology. MA thesis, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Norde, M. (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). On parents and peers in constructional networks. Paper presented at Coglingdays 2014, Ghent University. Retrieved from [URL]
Norde, M., & Trousdale, G. (2016). Exaptation from the perspective of construction morphology. In M. Norde, & F. Van de Velde (Eds.), Exaptation and language change (pp. 163–195). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M., & Van Goethem, K. (2014). Bleaching, productivity and debonding of prefixoids: A corpus-based analysis of ‘giant’ in German and Swedish. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 37(2), 256–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Emancipatie van affixen en affixoïden: degrammaticalisatie of lexicalisatie? Nederlandse taalkunde, 20(1), 109–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oostdijk, N. (2000). Het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 5(3), 280–284.Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reker, S. (1996). Dikke woorden: Bikkelhaard, bragelvet, strontdeurnat en hun soortgenoten in het Gronings en verwante talen. Bedum: Profiel.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, J. (2008). Layers, levels and contexts in Functional Discourse Grammar. In D. García Velasco, & J. Rijkhoff (Eds.), The noun phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar (pp. 63–115). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Schäfer, R., & Bildhauer, F. (2012). Building large corpora from the Web using a new efficient tool chain. In N. Calzolari et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12) (pp. 486–493). Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2011). Left-peripheral expansion of the English NP. English Language and Linguistics, 15(2), 387–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K. (2008). Oud-leerling versus ancien élève: A comparative study of adjectives grammaticalizing into prefixes in Dutch and French. Morphology, 18, 27–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Reuze bedankt, het was echt top! Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar ‘loskoppeling’ van samenstellingscomponenten. Internationale Neerlandistiek, 52(1), 27–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K., & De Smet, H. (2014). How nouns turn into adjectives: The emergence of new adjectives in French, English and Dutch through debonding processes. Languages in Contrast, 14(2), 251–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K., & Hiligsmann, P. (2014). When two paths converge: Debonding and clipping of Dutch reuze . Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 26(1), 31–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K., & Hüning, M. (2015). From noun to evaluative adjective: Conversion or debonding? Dutch top and its equivalents in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 27(4), 366–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

Bloom, Barthe
2023. Chapter 2. Life at the intersection. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo
Hoeksema, Jack
2023. Elative Compounds. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kinn, Torodd
2023. The development of heterosemous inflection and derivation. Constructions and Frames 15:2 ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Norde, Muriel & Graeme Trousdale
2023. Issues in Diachronic Construction Morphology. Constructions and Frames 15:2 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Norde, Muriel & Graeme Trousdale
2024. Creativity, paradigms and morphological constructions: evidence from Dutch pseudoparticiples. Linguistics DOI logo
Maekelberghe, Charlotte
2022. From noun to verb. In English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 221], ► pp. 136 ff. DOI logo
Fried, Mirjam
2021. Discourse-referential patterns as a network of grammatical constructions. Constructions and Frames 13:1 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Budts, Sara & Peter Petré
2020. Putting connections centre stage in diachronic Construction Grammar. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 318 ff. DOI logo
Diessel, Holger
2020. A Dynamic Network Approach to the Study of Syntax. Frontiers in Psychology 11 DOI logo
Diessel, Holger
2023. The Constructicon, DOI logo
Audring, Jenny
2019. Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure 12:3 ► pp. 274 ff. DOI logo
Norde, Muriel & Sarah Sippach
2019. Nerdalicious scientainment: A network analysis of English libfixes. Word Structure 12:3 ► pp. 353 ff. DOI logo
Norde, Muriel & Kristel Van Goethem
2018. Debonding and Clipping of Prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or Constructional Change?. In The Construction of Words [Studies in Morphology, 4], ► pp. 475 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 november 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.