Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:22:47.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Noun to Evaluative Adjective: Conversion or Debonding? Dutch Top and Its Equivalents in German

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2015

Kristel Van Goethem  and
Matthias Hüning
Kristel Van Goethem*
Affiliation:
F.R.S.-FNRS & Université catholique de Louvain
Matthias Hüning*
Affiliation:
Freie Universität Berlin
*
Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (F.R.S.-FNRS), Université catholique de Louvain, Institut Langage et Communication, Pôle Linguistique Centre de recherche Valibel — Discours et Variation, Place Blaise Pascal 1, Box L3.03.33, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, [kristel.vangoethem@uclouvain.be]
Institut für Deutsche und Niederländische Philologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Habelschwerdter Allee 45, 14195 Berlin, Germany, [matthias.huening@fu-berlin.de]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this study, we address the ways in which nouns can give rise to new adjectives in Dutch and German. More specifically, the focus is on words with an evaluative meaning that can be used in a wide range of morphological and syntactic constructions in recent (and informal) language. For example, the German noun Hammer ‘hammer’ can be used in Hammervorstellung ‘very good performance’ or hammer film ‘fantastic film’. In the literature, two distinct hypotheses can be found to account for the adjectival uses of such evaluative nouns. The debonding hypothesis states that the intensifying bound morpheme has developed into a free morpheme. The conversion hypothesis suggests that the new adjectival uses are the result of a syntactic reanalysis of an N as an A that takes place in the predicative position. In our case study, we analyze the synchronic bound and free uses of Dutch top, and we compare them with German top and spitze. We conclude that the emergence of the adjectival uses of these morphemes points toward an interaction between both processes involved, conversion and debonding.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 366 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Amiot, Dany, & Van Goethem, Kristel. 2012. A constructional account of French -clé ‘key’ and Dutch sleutel- ‘key’ as in mot-clé / sleutelwoord ‘key word’. Morphology 22. 347–364.Google Scholar
Battefeld, Malte, & Rawoens, Gudrun. 2014. From noun (to intensifier) to adjective? A construction-morphological, corpus-based view of German Top- and Swedish top(en)-. Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Construction Grammar held at Osnabrück University, September 3–6, 2014.Google Scholar
Berman, Judith. 2009. The predicative as a source of grammatical variation. Describing and modeling variation in grammar, ed. by Dufter, Andreas, Fleischer, Jürg, & Seiler, Guido, 99–116. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2002. The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert, & Van Santen, Ariane. 1998. Morfologie. De woordstructuur van het Nederlands. 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88. 601–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Ghesquière, Lobke, & Van de Velde, Freek (eds.). 2013. Studies in Language 37: Special issue on multiple source constructions in language change.Google Scholar
Hendrik, De Smet, & Van de Velde, Freek. 2014. Travelling features. Multiple sources, multiple destinations. Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Construction Grammar held at Osnabrück University, September 3–6, 2014.Google Scholar
Donalies, Elke. 2002. Die Wortbildung des Deutschen: Ein Überblick (Studien zur Deutschen Sprache 27.). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Eichinger, Ludwig M. 2000. Deutsche Wortbildung. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Elsen, Hilke. 2011. Grundzüge der Morphologie des Deutschen. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erben, Johannes. 2000. Einführung in die deutsche Wortbildungslehre. 4th edn. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 2009. The English compound stress myth. Word Structure 2. 1–17.Google Scholar
Hüning, Matthias, & Booij, Geert. 2014. From compounding to derivation: The emergence of derivational affixes through “constructionalization”. Folia Linguistica 48. 579–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lauwers, Peter. 2014. Between adjective and noun. Category/function mismatch, constructional overrides and coercion. Word classes: Nature, typology and representations, ed. by Simone, Raffaele & Masini, Francesca, 203–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leuschner, Torsten. 2010. Ausnahmepianist fettgeschreckt—inbleich! Deutsche, nierländische und schwedische Präfixoide im Spannungsfeld von Genealogie, Kreativität und Norm. Kontrastive Germanistische Linguistik (Germanistische Linguistik, 206 –209), ed. by Nübling, Damaris, Dammel, Antje, & Kürschner, Sebastian, 863–892. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in construction grammar. An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15. 1–67.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel, & Van Goethem, Kristel. 2014. Bleaching, productivity and debonding of prefixoids. A corpus-based analysis of ‘giant’ in German and Swedish. Lingvisticae Investigationes 37: Special issue on morphology and its interfaces. Syntax, semantics and the lexicon, ed. by Amiot, Dany, Tribot, Delphine, Grabar, Natalia, Patin, Cédric, & Tayalati, Fayssal, 256–274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel, & Van Goethem, Kristel. 2015. Emancipatie van affixen en affixoïden: Degrammaticalisatie of lexicalisatie? Nederlandse Taalkunde 20. 109–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 1990. Konversion als ein kombinatorischer Wortbildungsprozeß. Linguistische Berichte 127. 185–216.Google Scholar
Pittner, Karin, & Berman, Judith. 2006. Video ist echt schrott aber single ist hammer—Jugendsprachliche Nomen-Adjektiv-Konversion in der Prädikativposition. Deutsche Sprache 3. 233–250.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo, Kunter, Gero, Lappe, Sabine, & Braun, Maria. 2008. The role of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalization in compound stress assignment in English. Language 84. 760–794.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Roland, & Bildhauer, Felix. 2012. Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2010), ed. by Calzolari, Nicoletta, Choukri, Khalid, Maegaard, Bente, Mariani, Joseph, Odijk, Jan, Piperidis, Stelios, Rosner, Mike, & Tapias, Daniel, 486–493. Valletta: European language resources distribution agency.Google Scholar
Schlücker, Barbara, & Hüning, Matthias (eds.). 2009. Word Structure 2/2: Special issue on words and phrases – nominal expressions of naming and describing.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language 37. 491–514.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme, & Norde, Muriel. 2013. Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences 36. 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, Kristel. 2015. Cette mesure est-elle vraiment clé? A constructional approach to categorial gradience. Journal of French Language Studies 25. 115–142.Google Scholar
Van Goethem, Kristel, & De Smet, Hendrik. 2014. How nouns turn into adjectives. The emergence of new adjectives in French, English and Dutch through debonding processes. Languages in Contrast 14. 251–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, Kristel, & Hiligsmann, Philippe. 2014. When two paths converge: Debonding and clipping of Dutch reuze ‘lit. giant; great’. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26. 31–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar