Article published In:
Languages in Contrast: Online-First Articles

The fate of ‘pseudo-’ words

A contrastive corpus-based analysis

ORCID logo | F.R.S.-FNRSBelgium | Université catholique de LouvainBelgium
ORCID logo | Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinGermany
ORCID logo | Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di BolognaItaly
The present study examines the fate of the neoclassical combining form pseudo- in eight European languages, belonging to Germanic (Danish, Dutch, English, German and Swedish) and Romance (French, Italian, Spanish). In order to gain a better understanding of the synchronic morphological behaviour and productivity of pseudo- words in these languages, we carry out a cross-linguistic corpus analysis and compare the morphological and distributional properties of pseudo-. We also analyse its debonding behaviour and categorical flexibility in the set of languages and correlate this property with its productivity. The results of the corpus study are discussed against the typological background of the so-called Germanic and Romance Sandwiches.
Keywords: neoclassical compounds, combining forms, morphological cohesion, corpus linguistics, Danish/Dutch/English/French/German/Italian/Spanish/Swedish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. Pseudo-: Morphological and semantic properties
    • 2.1Etymology and morphological status of pseudo-
    • 2.2Morphological properties
    • 2.3Semantic profile
  • 3.Typological framework
    • 3.1The Germanic and Romance Sandwiches
    • 3.2Morphological cohesion and debonding in Germanic and Romance
  • 4.A cross-linguistic corpus study of pseudo-
    • 4.1Research questions
    • 4.2Data and methods
    • 4.3Results
      • 4.3.1Construction types
      • 4.3.2Word frequencies
      • 4.3.3Productivity
  • 5.Degree of debonding and categorical flexibility
    • 5.1Degree of (de)bonding
    • 5.2Debonding and categorical flexibility ratios
    • 5.3Correlation between productivity and debonding
  • 6.Conclusions and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Sources
Published online: 29 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.22003.van
References (62)
References
Amiot, D. and Van Goethem, K. 2012. A Constructional Account of French -clé ‘key’ and Dutch sleutel- ‘key’ as in mot-clé / sleutelwoord ‘key word’. Morphology 221: 347–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H. and Lieber, R. 1991. Productivity and English Derivation: A Corpus-Based Study. Linguistics 291: 801–843. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H. 2009. Corpus Linguistics in Morphology: Morphological Productivity. In Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, A. Lüdeling and M. Kytö (eds), 900–919. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakema, P. and Geeraerts, D. 2000. Diminution and Augmentation. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation, G. Booij, C. Lehmann and J. Mugdan (eds), 1045–1052. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. 1983. English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Evaluative Morphology: In Search of Universals. Studies in Language 21(3): 533–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blank, A. 2001. 112. Pathways of Lexicalization. In Language Typology and Language Universals (Vol. 21), M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher and W. Raible (eds), 1596–1608. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B., Daugs, R. and Hartmann, S. 2023. The English Privative Prefixes near-, pseudo- and quasi-: Approximation and ‘Disproximation’. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation 7(1): 52–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. 2012. The Course of Actualization. Language 88(3): 601–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U. and Barbaresi, L. M. 1994. Morphopragmatics. Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and other Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Efthymiou, A. 2015. Modern Greek Diminutive and Augmentative Adjectives (in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective). SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 21(1): 57–71.Google Scholar
Eitelmann, M., Haugland, K. E. and Haumann, D. 2020. From engl-isc to whatever-ish: A Corpus-Based Investigation of -ish Derivation in the History of English. English Language and Linguistics 24(4): 801–831. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eitelmann, M. and Haumann, D. 2023. Getting close-ish: A Corpus-Based Exploration of -ish as a Marker of Approximation and Vagueness. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation 7(1): 76–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannoulopoulou, G. 2006. On the Borderline between Lexicon and Grammar: Confixes in Modern Greek and Italian. Language Typology and Universals 59(3): 270–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardani, F. 2020. Borrowing Matter and Pattern in Morphology. An Overview. Morphology 301: 263–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grandi, N. and Körtvélyessy, L. (eds). 2015. Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grandi, N. 2017. I diminutivi come marche di attenuazione e indeterminatezza. In L’expression de l’imprécision dans les langues romanes, O. D. Balaş, A. Ciama, M. Enăchescu, A. Gebăilă and R. Voicu (eds), 162–175. Bucharest: Ars docendi – Universitatea din București.Google Scholar
Hüning, M., Vogl, U., van der Wouden, T. and Verhagen, A. 2006. Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Handelingen van de workshop aan de Freie Universität Berlin. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.Google Scholar
Iacobini, C. 2015. Foreign Word-Formation in Italian. In Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (Vol. 31), P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen and F. Rainer (eds), 1660–1679. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. 1996. Universal Tendencies in the Semantics of the Diminutive. Language 72(3): 533–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, D. 2009. Astronaut, Astrology, Astrophysics: About Combining Forms, Classical Compounds and Affixoids. In Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX 2), R. W. McConchie, J. Tyrkkö and A. Honkapohja (eds), 1–13. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Kempf, L. and Eitelmann, M. 2018. Von diutisk zu dynamisch, von englisc zu anything-ish. is(c)h kontrastiv diachron. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung / Journal of Word Formation 2(1): 93–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P. and Suchomel, V. 2014. The Sketch Engine: Ten Years on. Lexicography 11: 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E. and Gast, V. 2018. Understanding English-German Contrasts (4th ed.). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L. and Štekauer, P. (eds). 2011. Diminutives and Augmentatives in the Languages of the World. Lexis: e-journal in English lexicology 61: 5–25.Google Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L. 2015. Evaluative Morphology from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Kuzmack, S. 2007. Ish: A New Case of Antigrammaticalization. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, B. 2011. Degré de grammaticalisation à travers les langues de la même famille. Mémoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris 191: 167–192.Google Scholar
Levshina, N. 2015. How to do Linguistics with R. Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, F. and Micheli, S. 2020. The Morphological Expression of Approximation: The Emerging simil- Construction in Italian. Word Structure 13(3): 371–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, F., Norde, M. and Van Goethem, K. 2023. Approximation in Morphology: A State of the Art. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation 7(1): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlini Barbaresi, L. 2015. Evaluative Morphology and Pragmatics. In Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology, N. Grandi and L. Körtvélyessy (eds), 32–42. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M. and Van Goethem, K. 2015. Emancipatie van affixen en affixoïden. Nederlandse Taalkunde 201: 109–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Debonding and Clipping of Prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or Constructional Change? In The Construction of Words, G. Booij (ed.), 475–518. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oltra-Massuet, I. 2017. Towards a Morphosyntactic Analysis of -ish . Word Structure 10(1): 54–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prćić, T. 2005. Prefixes vs Initial Combining Forms in English: A Lexicographic Perspective. International Journal of Lexicography 18(3): 313–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prieto, V. M. 2005. Spanish Evaluative Morphology: Pragmatic, Sociolinguistic, and Semantic Issues. PhD Thesis, University of Florida.
Rainer, F. 2015. Intensification. In Word-formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (Vol. 21), P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen and F. Rainer (eds), 1339–1351. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P. 2003. Diminutives in English. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Seifart, F. 2015. Direct and Indirect Affix Borrowing. Language 91(3): 511–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K. and 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. and Koutsoukos, N. 2022. How Typology Shapes the Constructional Network: Denominal Verb Constructions in English, Dutch and German. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation 6(1): 7–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K. and Norde, M. 2020. Extravagant “Fake” Morphemes in Dutch. Morphological Productivity, Semantic Profiles and Categorical Flexibility. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16(3): 425–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Haeringen, C. B. 1956. Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. The Hague: Servire.Google Scholar
Vassiliadou, H., Gerhard-Krait, F., Fotiadou, G. and Lammert, M. 2023. Pseudo(-) in French and Greek: Categorization and Approximation. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation 7(1): 234–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sources
Online Etymological Dictionary (Etymonline): [URL]
Oxford English Dictionary (OED): [URL]
SketchEngine: [URL]; TenTen corpora available on SketchEngine used in this study:
– Danish: daTenTen17 (1.9 billion tokens)
– Dutch: nlTenTen14 (2.6 billion tokens)
– English: enTenTen15 (13.2 billion tokens)
– French: frTenTen17 (5.8 billion tokens)
– German: deTenTen13 (16.5 billion tokens)
– Italian: itTenTen16 (4.9 billion tokens)
– Spanish: esTenTen18 (16.9 billion tokens)
– Swedish: svTenTen14 (3.4 billion tokens)
Svenska Akademiens Ordbok (SAOB) (scientific dictionary published by the Swedish Academy): [URL]
Trésor de la langue française informatisé (TLFi): [URL]
Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT): [URL]