Why *-ling-in? : The pertinacity of a wrong gender

Plank, Frans

Why *-ling-in? : The pertinacity of a wrong gender

Dateien

plank_219564.pdfGröße: 5.99 MBDownloads: 1028

Datum

2011

Open Access-Veröffentlichung

Open Access Green

Sammlungen

Linguistik

Publikationstyp

Zeitschriftenartikel

Publikationsstatus

Published

Erschienen in

Morphology. 2011, 22(2), pp. 277-292. ISSN 1871-5621. eISSN 1871-5656. Available under: doi: 10.1007/s11525-011-9188-3

Zusammenfassung

Co-occurrence restrictions among affixes are preferably accounted for through general structural constraints, to do with separations of word-internal domains, with hierarchical rankings of the affixes involved, with processing complexity, or with word-prosodic patterns. Disallowing particular designated affixes to combine with one another by (language-particular) stipulation is considered a theoretical option only to be taken as a last resort. Against this backdrop it is argued here that in the much-discussed German case of diminutive-pejorative-absolutive suffix -ling the preclusion of further derivational affixation, in particular suffixation with feminine motional -in, is not due to any such general constraint; rather, this must be recognised as an instance of an affix-specific selectional restriction of a morphosemantic kind. The chief theoretical interest of this particular case is diachronic. While inner suffix -ling, originally a semantically neutral nominalising suffix, was able to acquire a diminutive, pejorative, absolutive-aligned ("passive") semantics, its original gender remained masculine rather than changing to neuter, as would be semantically more suitable. Thus, with the outer, feminine-deriving suffix -in being sensitive to the gender of its nominal bases, nouns which are formally masculine, as required by -in suffixation, but on semantic grounds ought to be neuter are infelicitous.

Fachgebiet (DDC)

400 Sprachwissenschaft, Linguistik

Schlagwörter

Affix co-occurrence, affix order, animacy, "closing" suffixes, derivational morphology, diachrony, gender, German

Zitieren

ISO 690

PLANK, Frans, 2011. Why *-ling-in? : The pertinacity of a wrong gender. In: Morphology. 2011, 22(2), pp. 277-292. ISSN 1871-5621. eISSN 1871-5656. Available under: doi: 10.1007/s11525-011-9188-3

BibTex

@article{Plank2011lingi-21956,
  year={2011},
  doi={10.1007/s11525-011-9188-3},
  title={Why *-ling-in? : The pertinacity of a wrong gender},
  number={2},
  volume={22},
  issn={1871-5621},
  journal={Morphology},
  pages={277--292},
  author={Plank, Frans}
}

RDF

<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/21956">
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2013-05-14T22:25:06Z</dcterms:available>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
    <dc:contributor>Plank, Frans</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:bibliographicCitation>Morphology ; 22 (2012), 2. - S. 277-292</dcterms:bibliographicCitation>
    <dcterms:issued>2011</dcterms:issued>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Co-occurrence restrictions among affixes are preferably accounted for through general structural constraints, to do with separations of word-internal domains, with hierarchical rankings of the affixes involved, with processing complexity, or with word-prosodic patterns. Disallowing particular designated affixes to combine with one another by (language-particular) stipulation is considered a theoretical option only to be taken as a last resort. Against this backdrop it is argued here that in the much-discussed German case of diminutive-pejorative-absolutive suffix -ling the preclusion of further derivational affixation, in particular suffixation with feminine motional -in, is not due to any such general constraint; rather, this must be recognised as an instance of an affix-specific selectional restriction of a morphosemantic kind. The chief theoretical interest of this particular case is diachronic. While inner suffix -ling, originally a semantically neutral nominalising suffix, was able to acquire a diminutive, pejorative, absolutive-aligned ("passive") semantics, its original gender remained masculine rather than changing to neuter, as would be semantically more suitable. Thus, with the outer, feminine-deriving suffix -in being sensitive to the gender of its nominal bases, nouns which are formally masculine, as required by -in suffixation, but on semantic grounds ought to be neuter are infelicitous.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/21956/1/plank_219564.pdf"/>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/21956/1/plank_219564.pdf"/>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2013-02-20T07:39:21Z</dc:date>
    <dc:creator>Plank, Frans</dc:creator>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/21956"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
    <dcterms:title>Why *-ling-in? : The pertinacity of a wrong gender</dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Universitätsbibliographie

Ja