1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Languages in Contrast
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of The fate of ‘pseudo-’ words
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study examines the fate of the neoclassical combining form 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 words in these languages, we carry out a cross-linguistic corpus analysis and compare the morphological and distributional properties of . 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.

© 2023 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.22003.van
2023-09-29
2024-09-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lic.22003.van
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 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: –. 10.1007/s11525‑011‑9196‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-011-9196-3 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, H. and Lieber, R.
    1991 Productivity and English Derivation: A Corpus-Based Study. Linguistics: –. 10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, H.
    2009 Corpus Linguistics in Morphology: Morphological Productivity. InCorpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, A. Lüdeling and M. Kytö (eds), –. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213881.2.899
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213881.2.899 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakema, P. and Geeraerts, D.
    2000 Diminution and Augmentation. InMorphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation, G. Booij, C. Lehmann and J. Mugdan (eds), –. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Barðdal, J.
    2008 Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bauer, L.
    1983 English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165846
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165846 [Google Scholar]
  7. 1997 Evaluative Morphology: In Search of Universals. Studies in Language(): –. 10.1075/sl.21.3.04bau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.21.3.04bau [Google Scholar]
  8. Blank, A.
    2001 112. Pathways of Lexicalization. InLanguage Typology and Language Universals (Vol.), M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher and W. Raible (eds), –. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Booij, G.
    2010 Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 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(): –. 10.21248/zwjw.2023.1.35
     https://doi.org/10.21248/zwjw.2023.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  11. De Smet, H.
    2012 The Course of Actualization. Language(): –. 10.1353/lan.2012.0056
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0056 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dressler, W. U. and Barbaresi, L. M.
    1994 Morphopragmatics. Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and other Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110877052
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877052 [Google Scholar]
  13. Efthymiou, A.
    2015 Modern Greek Diminutive and Augmentative Adjectives (in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective). SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics(): –.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 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(): –. 10.1017/S1360674319000340
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674319000340 [Google Scholar]
  15. 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(): –. 10.21248/zwjw.2023.1.91
     https://doi.org/10.21248/zwjw.2023.1.91 [Google Scholar]
  16. Giannoulopoulou, G.
    2006 On the Borderline between Lexicon and Grammar: Confixes in Modern Greek and Italian. Language Typology and Universals(): –. 10.1524/stuf.2006.59.3.270
     https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2006.59.3.270 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gardani, F.
    2020 Borrowing Matter and Pattern in Morphology. An Overview. Morphology: –. 10.1007/s11525‑020‑09371‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-020-09371-5 [Google Scholar]
  18. Grandi, N. and Körtvélyessy, L.
    (eds) 2015 Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9780748681754
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748681754 [Google Scholar]
  19. Grandi, N.
    2017 I diminutivi come marche di attenuazione e indeterminatezza. InL’expression de l’imprécision dans les langues romanes, O. D. Balaş, A. Ciama, M. Enăchescu, A. Gebăilă and R. Voicu (eds), –. Bucharest: Ars docendi – Universitatea din București.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Iacobini, C.
    2015 Foreign Word-Formation in Italian. InWord-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (Vol.), P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen and F. Rainer (eds), –. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Jurafsky, D.
    1996 Universal Tendencies in the Semantics of the Diminutive. Language(): –. 10.2307/416278
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416278 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kastovsky, D.
    2009 Astronaut, Astrology, Astrophysics: About Combining Forms, Classical Compounds and Affixoids. InSelected Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX 2), R. W. McConchie, J. Tyrkkö and A. Honkapohja (eds), –. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 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(): –. 10.3726/zwjw.2018.01.04
     https://doi.org/10.3726/zwjw.2018.01.04 [Google Scholar]
  25. 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: –. 10.1007/s40607‑014‑0009‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [Google Scholar]
  26. König, E. and Gast, V.
    2018 Understanding English-German Contrasts (4th ed.). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Körtvélyessy, L. and Štekauer, P.
    (eds) 2011 Diminutives and Augmentatives in the Languages of the World. Lexis: e-journal in English lexicology: –.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Körtvélyessy, L.
    2015 Evaluative Morphology from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Kuzmack, S.
    2007 Ish: A New Case of Antigrammaticalization. Chicago: University of Chicago.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Lamiroy, B.
    2011 Degré de grammaticalisation à travers les langues de la même famille. Mémoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris: –.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Levshina, N.
    2015 How to do Linguistics with R. Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  32. Masini, F. and Micheli, S.
    2020 The Morphological Expression of Approximation: The Emerging simil- Construction in Italian. Word Structure(): –. 10.3366/word.2020.0176
     https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2020.0176 [Google Scholar]
  33. Masini, F., Norde, M. and Van Goethem, K.
    2023 Approximation in Morphology: A State of the Art. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation(): –. 10.21248/zwjw.2023.1.100
     https://doi.org/10.21248/zwjw.2023.1.100 [Google Scholar]
  34. Merlini Barbaresi, L.
    2015 Evaluative Morphology and Pragmatics. InEdinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology, N. Grandi and L. Körtvélyessy (eds), –. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9780748681754‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748681754-007 [Google Scholar]
  35. Norde, M.
    2009 Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207923.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207923.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Norde, M. and Van Goethem, K.
    2015 Emancipatie van affixen en affixoïden. Nederlandse Taalkunde: –. 10.5117/NEDTAA2015.1.NORD
     https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2015.1.NORD [Google Scholar]
  37. 2018 Debonding and Clipping of Prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or Constructional Change?InThe Construction of Words, G. Booij (ed.), –. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑74394‑3_17
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_17 [Google Scholar]
  38. Oltra-Massuet, I.
    2017 Towards a Morphosyntactic Analysis of -ish. Word Structure(): –. 10.3366/word.2017.0100
     https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2017.0100 [Google Scholar]
  39. Prćić, T.
    2005 Prefixes vs Initial Combining Forms in English: A Lexicographic Perspective. International Journal of Lexicography(): –. 10.1093/ijl/eci026
     https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/eci026 [Google Scholar]
  40. Prieto, V. M.
    2005 Spanish Evaluative Morphology: Pragmatic, Sociolinguistic, and Semantic Issues. PhD Thesis, University of Florida.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Rainer, F.
    2015 Intensification. InWord-formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (Vol.), P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen and F. Rainer (eds), –. Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Schneider, K. P.
    2003 Diminutives in English. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Seifart, F.
    2015 Direct and Indirect Affix Borrowing. Language(): –. 10.1353/lan.2015.0044
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0044 [Google Scholar]
  44. 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(): –. 10.1075/lic.14.2.04goe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.2.04goe [Google Scholar]
  45. 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(): –. 10.3726/zwjw.2022.01.01
     https://doi.org/10.3726/zwjw.2022.01.01 [Google Scholar]
  46. Van Goethem, K. and Norde, M.
    2020 Extravagant “Fake” Morphemes in Dutch. Morphological Productivity, Semantic Profiles and Categorical Flexibility. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory(): –. 10.1515/cllt‑2020‑0024
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2020-0024 [Google Scholar]
  47. Van Haeringen, C. B.
    1956 Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. The Hague: Servire.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 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(): –. 10.21248/zwjw.2023.1.34
     https://doi.org/10.21248/zwjw.2023.1.34 [Google Scholar]
  49. Online Etymological Dictionary (Etymonline)
    Online Etymological Dictionary (Etymonline): https://www.etymonline.com/word/pseudo-#etymonline_v_2781
  50. Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
    Oxford English Dictionary (OED): https://www-oed-com
  51. SketchEngine
    SketchEngine: https://www.sketchengine.eu; TenTen corpora available on SketchEngine used in this study:
  52. –Danish: daTenTen17 (1.9 billion tokens)
  53. –Dutch: nlTenTen14 (2.6 billion tokens)
  54. –English: enTenTen15 (13.2 billion tokens)
  55. –French: frTenTen17 (5.8 billion tokens)
  56. –German: deTenTen13 (16.5 billion tokens)
  57. –Italian: itTenTen16 (4.9 billion tokens)
  58. –Spanish: esTenTen18 (16.9 billion tokens)
  59. –Swedish: svTenTen14 (3.4 billion tokens)
  60. Svenska Akademiens Ordbok (SAOB) (scientific dictionary published by the Swedish Academy): https://svenska.se/
  61. Trésor de la langue française informatisé (TLFi)
    Trésor de la langue française informatisé (TLFi): stella.atilf.fr/
  62. Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT)
    Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT): https://gtb.ivdnt.org/search/?owner=wnt
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.22003.van
Loading
The fate of ‘pseudo-’ words
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.22003.van
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.22003.van
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.22003.van
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: combining forms ; Danish/Dutch/English/French/German/Italian/Spanish/Swedish ; morphological cohesion ; neoclassical compounds ; corpus linguistics

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error