Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Divjak, Dagmar


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.902
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 2.297

CiteScore 2017: 1.62

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 1.032
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.930

Online
ISSN
1613-3641
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 29, Issue 1

Issues

Derivational morphology in flux: a case study of word-formation change in German

Stefan Hartmann
Published Online: 2018-02-14 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0146

Abstract

The diachronic change of word-formation patterns is currently gaining increasing interest in cognitive-linguistic and constructionist approaches. This paper contributes to this line of research with a corpus-based investigation of nominalization with the suffix -ung in German. In doing so, it puts forward both theoretical and methodological considerations on morphology and morphological change from a usage-based perspective. Regarding methodology, the long-standing topic of how to measure (changes in) the productivity of a morphological pattern is discussed, and it is shown how statistical association measures can be applied to quantify the relationship between word-formation patterns and their bases. These findings are linked up with theoretical considerations on the interplay between constructional schemas and their respective instances.

Keywords: morphology; historical linguistics; construction grammar

References

  • CorporaGoogle Scholar

  • DECOW14AX=Corpora from the Web. http://www.corporafromtheweb.org/

  • DTA=Deutsches Textarchiv (German Text Archive), deutschestextarchiv.de

  • DeReKo=Deutsches Referenzkorpus (German Reference Corpus), https://cosmas2.ids-mannheim.de/cosmas2-web/

  • DWDS=Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache – Kernkorpus 20. Jahrhunderts. http://www.dwds.de/

  • FnhdC=Bonner Frühneuhochdeutschkorpus (Bonn Early New High German Corpus). https://korpora.zim.uni-due.de/Fnhd/

  • SoftwareGoogle Scholar

  • R Core Team. 2015. R. A software and environment for statictical computing. Vienna: R Foundation.Google Scholar

  • Scripts and packages:Google Scholar

  • Baroni, Marco & Stefan Evert. 2007. zipfR. Lexical statistics in R. http://zipfr.r-forge.r-project.org/(accessed 26 January 2015).

  • Flach, Susanne. 2016. Collostructions. An R implementation for the family of collostructional methods. www.bit.ly/sflach

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2007. Collostructional analysis: Computing the degree of association between words and words/constructions.

  • Research literatureGoogle Scholar

  • Harald. 1992. Quantitative Aspects of Morphological Productivity. In Geert E. Booij & Jaap Van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991, 109–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. Harald. 1993. On Frequency, Transparency, and Productivity. In Geert E. Booij & Jaap Van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992, 181–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. Harald. 2001. Word Frequency Distributions. (Text, Speech and Language Technology, 18). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Corpus Linguistics in Morphology: Morphological Productivity. In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics (HSK 29.2), 899–919. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Baroni, Marco & Stefan Evert. 2005. Testing the extrapolation quality of word frequency models. Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2005. http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/corpus/conference-archives/2005-journal/Lexiconodf/EvertBaroni2005.pdf. (accessed 15 October 2016).

  • Baroni, Marco & Stefan Evert. 2014. The zipfR package for lexical statistics: A tutorial introduction. http://zipfr.r-forge.r-project.org/materials/zipfr-tutorial.pdf.

  • Barz, Irmhild. 1998. Zur Lexikalisierungspotenz nominalisierter Infinitive. In Irmhild Barz & Günther Öhlschläger (eds.), Zwischen Grammatik und Lexikon, 57–68. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

  • Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Booij, Geert E. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Booij, Geert E. 2012. The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(5). 425–455.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2009. Words as constructions. In Vyvyan Evans & Stéphanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (Human Cognitive Processing 24), 201–223. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Dammel, Antje. 2011. Wie kommt es zu rumstudierenden Hinterbänklern und anderen Sonderlingen? Pfade zu pejorativen Wortbildungsbedeutungen im Deutschen. In Jörg Riecke (ed.), Historische Semantik. (Jahrbuch für germanistische Sprachgeschichte 2). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Demske, Ulrike. 2000. Zur Geschichte der ung-Nominalisierung im Deutschen: Ein Wandel morphologischer Produktivität. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 122. 365–411. doi: .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Demske, Ulrike. 2001. Zur Distribution von Infinitivkomplementen im Althochdeutschen.Linguistische Berichte 9. 61–86.Google Scholar

  • Demske, Ulrike. 2002. Nominalization and argument structure in early new high German. In Ewald Lang & Ilse Zimmermann (eds.), Nominalisations (ZAS Papers in Linguistics), 67–90. Berlin ZAS.Google Scholar

  • Diessel, Holger. 2015. Usage-based construction grammar. In Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 296–322. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Dunning, Ted. 1993. Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics 19(1). 69–74.Google Scholar

  • Durrell, Martin, Astrid Ensslin & Paul Bennett. 2007. The GerManC project. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 31. 71–80.Google Scholar

  • Ebensgaard-Jensen, Kim. 2013. Semantic coherence in English accusative-with-bare-infinitive constructions. Rask 38. 161–176.Google Scholar

  • Ehrich, Veronika & Irene Rapp. 2000. Sortale Bedeutung und Argumentstruktur: -ung-Nominalisierungen im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 19. 245–303.Google Scholar

  • Evert, Stefan. 2004. A simple LNRE model for random character sequences. In Gérald Purnelle, Cédrick Fairon, Anne Dister (eds.), Proceedings of JADT 2004. 411–422. Louvain: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar

  • Evert, Stefan & Marco Baroni. 2007. zipfR: Word frequency distributions in R. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Posters and Demonstrations Sessions, Prague, 29–32.

  • Flach, Susanne. 2015. Let’s go look at usage. (Ed.) Thomas Herbst & Peter Uhrig. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3(1). 231–251. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fonteyn, Lauren & Stefan Hartmann. 2016. Usage-based perspectives on diachronic morphology: A mixed-methods approach towards English ing-nominals. Linguistics Vanguard 2(1). doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gaeta, Livio & Davide Ricca. 2006. Productivity in Italian word-formation. Linguistics 44(1). 57–89.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2001. Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1). 131–153.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hartmann, Stefan. 2014a. The Diachronic Change of German Nominalization Patterns: An Increase in Prototypicality. In Gabriella Rundblad, Aga Tytus, Olivia Knapton & Chris Tang (eds.), Selected Papers from the 4th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference, 152–171. London: UK Cognitive Linguistics Association.Google Scholar

  • Hartmann, Stefan. 2014b. “Nominalization” Taken Literally: A Diachronic Corpus Study of German Word-Formation Patterns. Italian Journal of Linguistics 26(2). 123–155.Google Scholar

  • Hartmann, Stefan. 2014c. Constructing a Schema: Word-Class Changing Morphology in a Usage-Based Perspective. In Martin Hilpert & Susanne Flach (eds.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Vol. 2, 235–252. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Hartmann, Stefan. 2016. Wortbildungswandel. Eine diachrone Studie zu deutschen Nominalisierungsmustern. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Hartmann, Stefan. 2018. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte. Grundz̈ge und Methoden. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar

  • Hilpert, Martin. 2006. Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(2). 243–256.Google Scholar

  • Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hilpert, Martin. forthc. Three open questions in diachronic construction grammar. In Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hilpert, Martin & Stefan Th Gries. 2009. Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24(4). 385–401.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kempf, Luise. 2016. Adjektivsuffixe in Konkurrenz. Wortbildungswandel vom Frühneuhochdeutschen zum Neuhochdeutschen. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Kempf, Luise & Stefan Hartmann. forthc. Schema unification and morphological productivity: A diachronic perspective. To appear in Geert E. Booij (ed.): The construction of words. Advances in construction morphology. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Knobloch, Clemens. 2002. Zwischen Satz-Nominalisierung und Nennderivation: -ung-Nomina im Deutschen. Sprachwissenschaft 27. 333–362.Google Scholar

  • Krott, Andrea, Robert Schreuder & R. Harald Baayen. 1999. Complex words in complex words. Linguistics 37(5). 905–926.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2004. Remarks on Nominal Grounding. Functions of Language 11(1). 77–113.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R. Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Li, Wentian. 1992. Random texts exhibit Zipf’s-law-like word frequency distribution. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 38(6). 1842–1845.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mandelbrot, Benoît. 1962. On the theory of word frequencies and on related Markovian models of discourse. In Roman Jakobson (ed.), Structure of language and its mathematical aspects, 190–219. Providence: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar

  • Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach. München: Beck.Google Scholar

  • Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Yuan Kui Shen, Aviva Presser Aiden, Adrian Veres, Matthew K. Gray, Joseph P. Pickett, Dale Hoiberg, Dan Clancy, Peter Norvig, Jon Orwant, Steven Pinker, Martin A. Nowak & Erez Lieberman Aiden. 2011. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331(6014). 176–182.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nübling, Damaris, Antje Dammel, Janet Duke & Renata Szczepaniak. 2013. Historische Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen: Eine Einführung in die Prinzipien des Sprachwandels. 4th edn. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg. 2001. A conceptual analysis of English -er nominals. In Martin Pütz, Susanne Niemeier & René Dirven (eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics (Cognitive Linguistics Research 19.2), 149–200. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Perek, Florent. 2016. Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony. A case study. Linguistics 54(1). 149–188.Google Scholar

  • Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg. 2002. The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er Nominals. In René Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, 279–319. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. (Topics in English Linguistics, 28). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Römer, Christine. 1987. Transformationalistische und lexikalistische Erklärung von Wortbildungen - dargestellt am Beispiel deverbaler -ung-Substantive. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 24. 217–221.Google Scholar

  • Roßdeutscher, Antje & Hans Kamp. 2010. Syntactic and Semantic Constraints on the Formation and Interpretation of -ung-Nouns. In Monika Rathert & Artemis Alexiadou (eds.), The semantics of nominalizations across languages and frameworks (Interface Explorations 22), 169–214. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Schäfer, Roland. 2015. Processing and querying large corpora with the COW14 architecture. Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora (CMLC-3). http://corpora.ids-mannheim.de/cmlc.html.

  • Schäfer, Roland & Felix Bildhauer. 2012. Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. In Cicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Terry Declerck, Mehmet Uğur Doğan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds.), Proceedings of LREC 2012, 486–493. Istanbul: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar

  • Scherer, Carmen. 2006. Was ist Wortbildungswandel? Linguistische Berichte 205. 3–28.Google Scholar

  • Scherer, Carmen. 2007. The Role of Productivity in Word-Formation Change. In Joseph C. Salmons & Shannon Dubenion-Smith (eds.), Historical linguistics 2005 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 284), 257–271. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Schneider-Wiejowski, Karina. 2011. Produktivität in der deutschen Derivationsmorphologie. University of Bielefeld PhD thesis.Google Scholar

  • Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2017. A framework for understanding entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 9–39. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Schmidt, Wilhelm. 2007. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache: Ein Lehrbuch für das germanistische Studium. 10th ed. Stuttgart: Hirzel.Google Scholar

  • Shin, Soo-Song. 2001. On the event structure of -ung-nominals in German. Linguistics 39. 297–319.Google Scholar

  • Smirnova, Elena & Tanja Mortelmans. 2010. Funktionale Grammatik: Konzepte und Theorien. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Spencer, Andrew. 2001. Morphology. In Mark Aronoff & Janie Rees-Miller (eds.), The handbook of linguistics, 213–237. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Spencer, Andrew & Arnold M. Zwicky. 1998. Introduction. In Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 1–10. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2009. Bedeutung und Gebrauch in der Konstruktionsgrammatik: Wie kompositional sind modale Infinitive im Deutschen? Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 37. 562–592.Google Scholar

  • Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2013. Collostructional analysis. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of construction grammar, 290–306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Taylor, John R. 2012. The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Thielmann, Winfried. 2007. Substantiv. In Ludger Hoffmann (ed.), Handbuch der deutschen Wortarten, 791–822. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 6). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Vogel, Petra M. 1996. Wortarten und Wortartenwechsel: Zur Konversion und verwandten Erscheinungen im Deutschen und in anderen Sprachen. Vol. 39. (Studia Linguistica Germanica). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Vogel, Petra M. 2000. Grammaticalization and part-of-speech systems. In Petra Maria Vogel & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Approaches to the typology of word classes (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 23), 259–284. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Werner, Martina. 2012. Genus, Derivation und Quantifikation: Zur Funktion der Suffigierung und verwandter Phänomene im Deutschen. (Studia Linguistica Germanica, 114). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Wiechmann, Daniel. 2008. On the computation of collostruction strength: Testing measures of association as expressions of lexical bias. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4(2). 253–290.Google Scholar

  • Wulff, Stefanie. 2006. Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy? In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 101–126. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-12-12

Revised: 2017-08-14

Accepted: 2017-08-20

Published Online: 2018-02-14

Published in Print: 2018-02-23


Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 29, Issue 1, Pages 77–119, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0146.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in