Cover not available
Part of
Morphology and Meaning: Selected papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012
Edited by Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Hans Christian Luschützky and Wolfgang U. Dressler
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 327] 2014
► pp. 71–96

Between word formation and meaning change

| University of Tübingen
In diachronic lexicology, word formation (henceforth: WF) is generally treated as one of three strictly distinct types of processes of lexical innovation, the two others being meaning change (MCh) and borrowing. A unitary theoretical framework based on Construction Grammer and integrating different types of lexical innovation will show that, from an onomasiological point of view, WF and MCh in particular are only two ways of switching from a construction 1 expressing a concept C1 to a formally and semantically related construction 2 expressing a concept C2. From this perspective it is not surprising to find multiple combination, intertwining and interaction between MCh and WF: WF and MCh as subsequent steps in chains of diachronic change; WF and MCh as designative alternatives in lexical innovation; WF and MCh as components of the phenomena of lexical ellipsis and folk-etymology; MCh governing the diachronic evolution of already existing WF devices; MCh creating new WF devices.
Published online: 27 February 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.327.05koc
References (66)
References
Bauer, Laurie & Salvador Valera, eds. 2005. Approaches to Conversion / Zero Derivation. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald, eds. 2008. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blank, Andreas. 1997a. Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997b. “Outlines of a Cognitive Approach to Word-Formation”. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists ed. by Bernard Caron, paper No. 0239. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
. 2003. “Words and Concepts in Time: Towards Diachronic Cognitive Onomasiology”. Words in Time: Diachronic Semantics from Different Points of View ed. by Regine Eckardt, Klaus von Heusinder & Christoph Schwarze, 37–65. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Cambio semantico e formazione delle parole”. La formazione delle parole in italiano ed. by Maria Grossmann & Franz Rainer, 23–30. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert, Christian Lehman, Joachim Mugdan & Stavros Skopetas, eds. 2000, 2004. Morphologie/Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. 2 vols. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbin, Danielle. 1987. Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. 2 vols. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1968. “Les structures lexématiques”. Probleme der Semantik ed. by Wilhelm Theodor Elwert, 3–16. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Croft, William & David Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DELI = Manlio Cortelazzo & Michele A. Cortelazzo, ed. 1999. Il nuovo etimologico. DELI – Dizionario etimologico della lingua italiana. 2nd ed. Bologna Zanichelli.
Detges, Ulrich. 1998. “Echt die Wahrheit sagen: Überlegungen zur Grammatikalisierung von Adverbmarkern”. Philologie im Netz 4.1–29.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Richard Waltereit. 2002. “Grammaticalization vs. Reanalysis: A Semantic-Pragmatic Account of Functional Change in Grammar”. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21.151–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DHLF = Alain Rey, ed. 1992. Dictionnaire historique de la langue française. 2 vols. Paris: Dictionnaires le Robert.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2008. “Konstruktionen in der diachronen Sprachwissenschaft”, Fischer et al. , eds. 2008–2011, vol. I, 79–103.Google Scholar
Don, Jan, Mieke Trommelen & Wim Zonneveld. 2000. “Conversion and Category Indeterminacy”. Booij et al. , eds. 2000, vol. I, 943–952.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan & Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fill, Alwin. 2004. “Remotivation and Reinterpretation”. Booij et al. , eds. 2004, vol. II, 1615–1625.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. “The Mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’”. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14.35–55.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of let alone”. Language 64.501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2008. “Konstruktionsgrammatik: Ein Überblick”. Fischer et al. , eds. 2008–11, vol. I, 3–17.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin, Anatol Stefanowitsch, Alexander Lesch & Alexander Ziem, eds. 2008–2011. Konstruktionsgrammatik. 3 vols. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Fleischer, Wolfgang. 2000. “Die Klassifikation von Wortbildungsprozessen”. Booij et al. , eds. 2000, vol. I, 886–897.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman. 2004. “Construction Grammar: A Thumbnail Sketch”. Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective ed. by Mirjam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman, 11–86. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gévaudan, Paul. 2007. Typologie des lexikalischen Wandels: Bedeutungswandel, Wortbildung und Entlehnung am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Gévaudan, Paul & Peter Koch. 2010. “Sémantique cognitive et changement lexical”. Grandes voies et chemins de traverse de la sémantique cognitive ed. by Jacques François, 103–145. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele Eva. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2003. “Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language”. Trends in Cognitive Science 7.219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grossmann, Maria & Franz Rainer, eds. 2004. La formazione delle parole in italiano. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Grzega, Joachim. 2004. Bezeichnungswandel: Wie, Warum, Wozu? Ein Beitrag zur englischen und allgemeinen Onomasiologie. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. “On the Role of Context in Grammaticalization”. New Reflections on Grammaticalization ed. by Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald, 83–101. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2011. “Was ist Konstruktionswandel?”. Fischer et al. , eds. 2011, vol. III, 59–75.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jacob. 2000. “Compositionality of Meaning”. Booij et al. , eds. 2000, vol. I, 851–857.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1982. Wortbildung und Semantik. Düsseldorf: Schwann-Bagel.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter. 1999. “Tree and fruit: A cognitive-onomasiological approach”. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 28:2.331–347.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Pour une approche cognitive du changement sémantique lexical: aspect onomasiologique”. Théories contemporaines du changement sémantique ed. by Jacques François, 75–95. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2001a. “Bedeutungswandel und Bezeichnungswandel: Von der kognitiven Semasiologie zur kognitiven Onomasiologie Metonymy”. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 121.7–36.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. “Lexical Typology from a Cognitive and Linguistic Point of View”. Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook/Ein internationales Handbuch/Manuel international. 2 vols ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible, vol. II, 1142–1178. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Diachronic Onomasiology and Semantic Reconstruction”. Lexical Data and Universals of Semantic Change ed. by Wiltrud Mihatsch & Reinhild Steinberg, 79–106. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Taxinomie et relations associatives”. Sens et Références/Sinn und Referenz: Mélanges Georges Kleiber/Festschrift für Georges Kleiber ed. by Adolfo Murguía, 159–191. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
. 2012a. “Es gibt keine Konstruktionsbedeutung ohne Bedeutungswandel. Valenz – Konstruktion – Diachronie”. Ki bien voldreit raisun entendre: Mélanges en l’honneur du 70e anniversaire de Frankwalt Möhren ed. by Stephen Dörr & Thomas Städtler, 147–174. Strasbourg: Éditions de linguistique et de philologie.Google Scholar
. 2012b. “The Pervasiveness of Contiguity and Metonymy in Semantic Change”. Current Methods in Historical Semantics ed. by Kathryn Allan & Justyna Robinson, 259–311. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lipka, Leonhard. 1994. “Wortbildung, Metapher und Metonymie: Prozesse, Resultate und ihre Beschreibung”. Wortbildungslehre ed. by Bruno Staib, 1–15. Münster: Lit.Google Scholar
. 2002. English Lexicology. Lexical Structure, Word Semantics & Word-formation. 3rd edition. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2008. “Lexical Nonsense and Morphological Sense: On the Real Importance of ‘Folk Etymology’ and Related Phenomena for Historical Linguists”. Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory. The Rosendal Papers ed. by Thórhallur Eythórsson, 307–328. Amsterdam & Philadelpha: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. 2nd edition. München: H. C. Beck.Google Scholar
Mutz, Katrin. 2000. Die italienischen Modifikationssuffixe: Synchronie und Diachronie. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Naumann, Bernd & Petra M. Vogel. 2000. “Derivation”. Booij et al. , eds. 2000, vol. I, 929–943.Google Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary. CD-ROM version 3.00. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2002.Google Scholar
Olschansky, Heike. 1996. Volksetymologie. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panagl, Oswald. 2005. “Volksetymologie und Verwandtes”. Lexikologie. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen ed. by Alan D. Cruse, Franz Hundsnurscher, Michael Job & Peter Rolf Lutzeier, 2 vols, 1346–1352. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rainer, Franz. 1993. Spanische Wortbildungslehre. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Semantic Change in Word Formation”. Linguistics 43.415–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sablayrolles, Jean-François. 2000. La néologie en français contemporain. Examen du concept et analyse de productions néologiques récentes. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Sauer, Hans. 2004. “Lexicalization and Demotivation”. Booij et al. , eds. 2004, vol. II, 1625–1636.Google Scholar
Tournier, Jean. 1985. Introduction descriptive à la lexicogénétique de l’anglais contemporain. Paris: Nathan; Genève: Slatkine.Google Scholar
. 1991. Structures lexicales de l’anglais. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. “Constructions in Grammaticalization”. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, Stephen. 1964. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vogel, Petra M. 1996. Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel: Zu Konversion und verwandten Erscheinungen im Deutschen und in anderen Sprachen. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, David P. 1996. “Natural Tendencies of Semantic Change and the Search for Cognates”. The Comparative Method Reviewed ed. by Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross, 264–304. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zwanenburg, Wiecher. 2000. “Correspondence between Formal and Semantic Relations”. Booij et al. , eds. 2000, vol. I, 840–850.Google Scholar