28.3574, Review: General Linguistics; Typology: Körtvélyessy, Valera, Štekauer (2016)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-3574. Wed Aug 30 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.3574, Review: General Linguistics; Typology: Körtvélyessy, Valera, Štekauer (2016)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Clare Harshey <clare at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:31:33
From: Alexandra Galani [algalani at cc.uoi.gr]
Subject: Word-Formation across Languages

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36270063


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/27/27-4239.html

EDITOR: Lívia  Körtvélyessy
EDITOR: Pavol  Štekauer
EDITOR: Salvador  Valera
TITLE: Word-Formation across Languages
PUBLISHER: Cambridge Scholars Publishing
YEAR: 2016

REVIEWER: Alexandra Galani, University of Ioannina

REVIEWS EDITOR: Robert A. Coté

SUMMARY 

“Word Formation across Languages”, edited by Lívia Körtvélyessy, Pavol
Štekauer and Salvador Valera, is a collection of nineteen papers on universals
and typology in word formation. The papers were presented at the Slovak word
formation conference held in Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in 2015.   

Chapter 1, entitled “On [N1N2] constructions and word-formation in Bulgarian”
by Alexandra Bagasheva, discusses NN compounds in Bulgarian, which is a new
compounding category that began as the result of MAT-borrowing and was later
developed by PAT-borrowing. Constructional approaches to language are taken
into account (ie. Booij 2009, 2010). The author claims that NN compounds in
Bulgarian have been influenced by English. The chapter is well-referenced and
a sufficient amount of data is presented. Nevertheless, the discussion of the
theory and the supportive data can be confusing to someone who is not familiar
with the language. Not all references are in alphabetical order (e.g. Booij
(2007), Bencznes (2006), Booij (2010)).   

In Chapter 2, “The patterns of complementary polysemy in Polish action nouns”,
Maria Bloch-Trojnar presents an interesting and well-presented chapter, which
offers an overview of the semantic patterns (polysemy) in Polish action nouns.
The account is formulated within the lexeme-morpheme based morphology (Beard,
1995). Bloch-Trojnar shows that derivation is subject to the stems’ semantic
properties. Nominal derivation may be the result of prefixation, suffixation
or morphophonological modification. Aspect neutral deverbal nouns cannot be
derived from perfective-only verbs. Two derivatives may be formed from
imperfective-only verbs. Some inconsistencies in the references are noticed
(e.g. Szober).

Chapter 3, “Identifying (Heads of) copulative appositional compounds in Polish
and English” by Bożena Cetnarowska, sheds light on the issue of compound
headedness. The author compares copulative appositional compounds (i.e.
waiter-bartender) in the two languages. In Polish N+N appositional
combinations, there are two patterns: two fully infected forms may be
juxtaposed, i.e. barman-kelner “bartender-waiter”, or two stems may be linked
with a vocalic interfix and the inflectional affixes may be attached to the
right-hand constituent, i.e. barmanokelner, “a bartender-waiter”. Cetnarowska
claims that there is a division between syntax and morphology and she argues
in favour of a morphological status of N+N juxtapositions in Polish. The
discussion is easy to follow, but there are some inconsistencies in the
references (e.g. William, 1981; Willim, 2000). 

Chapter 4, “The Arabic comparative and the nature of templatic mapping in
Arabic” by Stuart Davis, is a well-presented and easy to follow paper. He
first explains that there are two analyses in the literature; a stem-based
versus a word-based. He argues in favour of a root-based account of the
templatic morphological comparative in Egyptian Arabic and he suggests that
Arabic word formation may be best analysed within Construction Morphology
(Booij, 2010).      

Chapter 5, entitled “On the polysemy of the Modern Greek prefix para-” by
Angeliki Efthymiou, offers a semantic account of the prefix para- “close to”
within Lieber’s (2004) framework. The properties and the meaning of the prefix
are discussed (i.e. locational, non-locational: parallel, subsidiary,
accessory, violation, divergence, excess, periphrastic reinforcement.). The
different meanings are interpreted in terms of the features [+Loc] for the
locational interpretation and [+IEPS] (for the non-evaluative one). She
finally explains that Lieber’s framework provides the grounds for accounting
for the grammaticalization process the prefix has undergone.  

In Chapter 6, “How lexical is morphology? The construction and the
quadripartite architecture of grammar”, Livio Gaeta offers a highly
theoretical chapter which discusses the relation between the two senses of the
lexicon (Aronoff, 1994) in the Bloomfieldian sense, i.e. a set containing
entrenched or idiomatic expressions versus the set of lexemes in any language.
He offers a brief literature sketch about whether morphology is lexical,
focusing on the status of words, lexemes, Lex1 (the set of expressions larger
than one word) and Lex2 (the set of all potential lexemes). The main idea is
that morphology is a separate module than syntax, as it is defined by its own
set of explicit properties. He claims that lexeme formation is based on Lex1
and Lex2 lexemes according to the Lexicality of the Input Principle (Gaeta,
2015).    

Chapter 7, entitled “On the formation and semantics of new phrasal verbs in
Danish and Swedish” by Hans Götzsche, offers a comparative analysis of the
role verb particles play in phrasal verbs in the two languages. The author
notes that phrasal verbs have undergone phonetic reduction and there is an
ongoing process regarding the formation of verbal phrases. The presence or
absence of the preposition is accounted for in terms of semantics:
verb+preposition has an imperfective, whereas verb+no preposition has a
perfective one.  

Chapter 8, “Position class neutralization to inhibit conflicting aspect values
in Cherokee” by Marcia Haag, discusses how aspect is morphologically marked in
verbal forms in Cherokee. She shows that there are four position classes and
aspectual features may be represented in several position classes attached to
the root. For example, position 4 is inflectional. Position 2 is neutralized
and its features are repeated in Position 3, if an affix is attached in
Position 3. So, the features of the affix in Position 4 should be harmonized
the affixes it attaches to. Moreover, Position 2 may also appear in longer
constructions (i.e. when derivational suffixes are attached in Position 3)
which suggests that this Position 2 is syntactically and semantically inert. 

Chapter 9, “Compound genitives in Latvian” by Andra Kalnača and Ilze Lokmane,
discusses genitives, have the following characteristics: firstly, they have
one case form (singular/plural). Secondly, they have two syntactic functions:
as a non-agreeing attribute and as a nominal predicate. Finally, they exhibit
adjectival semantics. These forms may further participate in the derivation of
adjectives (i.e. by suffixation of the morphemes – īg- and –ain-), retaining,
nonetheless, their semantics. Nouns are derived by conversion and
nominalisation in the language. She notes that compound genitives are
productive in professional language and terminology (i.e. in construction and
industry) in Latvian.     

Chapter 10, “Non-spatial relations grounded in embodied experience: polysemy
in English particle over and Polish verbal prefix nad-” by Ewa Konieczna,
examines the properties of the particle over and its counterpart Polish prefix
nad- within the Principled Polysemy Model (Tyler and Evans, 2003). She argues
in favour of the view that spatial concepts may be universal
cross-linguistically but their reconceptualisations and their reanalyses are
language-specific. She shows that the proto-senses of over and nad- are the
same in the two languages but their senses are different. The A-B-C trajectory
cluster (Tyler and Evans, 2003) in English derives the meanings of Completion,
Major, Change, Transfer, Effect, Focus of Attention, Repetition of Scene of
the preposition “over”. This cluster does not exist in Polish, as it is
expressed by the preposition “przez”. (e.g. change, transfer, effect, etc) and
consequently these meanings do not exist in the preposition “nad”.   

Chapter 11, entitled “How poor Japanese is in adjectivising derivational
affixes and why” by Akiko Nagano and Masaharu Shimada offers a comparative
account of deverbal and denominal adjectival forms in European languages
(German, Portuguese, Norwegian) versus Japanese. Japanese allows
polyfunctionality between aspect and V-to-Adj derivation, similarly to
English, and between modality and V-to-Adj derivation, contrary to English.
Moreover, there are no relational adjectives in Japanese where genitives and
qualifiers are used instead.

Chapter 12, entitled “Part-of-speech and semantic-class preferences for
certain word-formation processes: Wichi (Mataguayan)” by Verónica Nercesian,
examines word formation processes in the language based on data analysis of
two vocabularies. She looks at how processes, such as derivation, conversion,
compounding, incorporation, lexically borrowing, phrases fossilization, are
distributed across word-classes and semantic fields and what this distribution
tells us about the lexical connections. Derivation is the most productive
process and compounding comes next. Phrases fossilisation are preferred
constructions for naming places, whereas derivation for naming people. Derived
nouns are more frequent in Botany than Zoology, Ornithology, Vegetation and
animals and apiculture. She also examines the most productive processes for
inalienable nouns, events and states, and proper names. The author explains
that verbs and adverbs are mostly formed only by derivation, whereas nouns are
formed by both derivation and compounding. Specific morphological markers are
selected for derivation.   

Chapter 13, “Neoclassical word formation in English and Russian: a contrastive
analysis” by Renáta Panocová and Pius Ten Hacken, investigates if there is a
specific rule according to which word components of Ancient Greek and Latin
origin are incorporated in word formation in various European languages.
Evidence from English and Russian suggests that each language has its own
rule. In English, there is a system of neoclassical word formations. Ancient
Greek origin, i.e. metamorphosis, anthropomorfos “anthropomorphous”, were
first borrowed. A reanalysis of the constituents then occurred, i.e. morpho
(i.e. morphology, isomorphism), anthropo (anthropology, anthroponym). These
morphemes became part of the system and were added to new elements in the
language. On the other hand and based on evidence from translation and
vocabulary entries, neoclassical word formations in Russian are borrowings. 

Chapter 14, entitled “Windmills, Nizaa and the typology of binominal
compounds” by Steve Pepper, first sketches nominal compounds in Nizaa, a
Niger-Congo language. The author then discusses the position of the head in
compounds prior to making a reference to their classification in line with
Bisseto and Scalise (2005). Based on the statistical and semantic analysis of
Theil’s Nizaa word list, Pepper provides further support for the division of
determinative compounds into two subclasses: subordinative and attributive
(Bisseto and Scalise, 2005). Finally, he challenges the Canonical Head
Position Hypothesis based on the fact that compounds in Nizaa can be both left
and right headed.   

Chapter 15, “Innovative elements in newly formed Hebrew four-consonantal
verbal roots” by Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald, explains that the formation of
such forms may result from two processes: in the first case, initial radicals
(t, ?, š) may be added to roots of existing words. The affixation of these
elements carry semantic weight. They attribute an agentive, active, causative,
intensive, repetitive or continuous value to the forms. The second process by
which newly formed four-consonantal roots are constructed is by duplicating
root consonants. In this case, too, root duplication adds a semantic meaning
to the forms; that is repetitive, weakened, derogatory or negative.  
 
In Chapter 16, “Patterns of metonymical meaning construal in the Hungarian
deverbal suffix –Ó. Interrelated dynamics of figurativity, entrenchment and
productivity” by Erzsébet Tóth-Czifra, the author claims that the construals
are influenced by the level of entrenchment; constructions on the lower level
of entrenchment are located on the lower parts of the meaning extension cline
versus constructions on higher level on higher ones. –ó nouns are instantiated
by novel constructions contrary to –ó adjectives. Consequently, metonymical
patterns play a role to the productivity of the suffix.       

Chapter 17, entitled “Morphological construction for negotiating differences
in cross-stratum word-formation” by Natsuko Tsujimura, discusses the
morphological formation and the semantics of mimetic words in Japanese.
Mimetic words are also referred to as “onomatopoeia” (the formation of a word,
as cuckoo, meow, honk, or boom, by imitation of a sound made by or associated
with its referent (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/onomatopoeia)) or
“ideophones” (a sound or sounds symbolizing a complete idea or spoken word,
esp. sound-symbolic words found in African languages, a single phone or
phoneme that represents a concept
(http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ideophone)) in literature. Mimetic words in
Japanese originate from prosaic words. Prosaic words are non-mimetic forms
with fixed denotations. The semantic characterisation of  mimetic words
depends on the native speakers’ perception and experiences. The
interpretations they receive are based on morphophonological mimetic
templates.   
   
Chapter 18, “On the structure of toponyms” by Franchesco-Alessio Ursini,
offers an analysis of the morphological patterns of toponyms in English,
Mandarin, Italian, and Finnish within the framework of Type Logical Syntax
(c.f. Carpenter, 1992)). He concludes that the morphosyntactic properties of
toponyms determine their semantic interpretation. The semantic analysis is
sketched within the Type Logic Composition framework (Asher, 2011)).   

In Chapter 19, entitled “Classifiers as derivational markers in Murui
(Northwest Amazonia)” by Katarzyna I. Wojtylak, the author first offers
background information on Murui and its speakers. Classifiers are bound
suffixes attached to various words: adjectives, pronouns, demonstratives,
numerals, nouns, verbs, interrogative words and anaphoric forms. The author
shows that classifiers are divided into physical property, animate, unique,
and repeaters. Finally, she explains that classifiers have the following
functions: derivation, of nominal stems, formation of nominal modifiers and
nominalisation.

EVALUATION

The volume covers a wide range of word formation phenomena in various
languages (i.e. Bulgarian, Polish, Egyptian-Arabic, Modern Greek, Danish,
Cherokee, Swedish, Latvian, Murui, Mandarin, Italian, Finnish, Japanese,
Hungarian). The chapters are well-referenced, and the analyses are
well-supported by data and arguments. The book would have benefited if an
introduction was given after the preface to see how each chapter is related to
the overall volume. The chapters are arranged in alphabetical order, but they
could have been organised in parts, e.g. those which refer to compounding,
those which discuss affixes, etc. The book could have been enriched with a
list of contributors, language, name, and subject indexes. The book will be of
interest to researchers working in language-specific or word
formation-specific phenomena.
REFERENCES

Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Asher, N. 2011. Lexical meaning in context: A web of words. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.  

Bisseto, A. and S. Scalise. 2005. “The classification on compounds”. Lingue e
linguaggio 4 (2): 319-332.

Booij, G. 2009. Lexical integrity as a morphological universal, a
constructionist view. In Scalise, S., E. Magni and A. Bisetto (Eds.),
Universals of language today. Berlin: Springer. pp.83-100.

Booij, G. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beard, R. 1995. Lexeme-morpheme based morphology. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. 

Carpenter, K. 1992. The logic of typed feature structures. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 

Gaeta, L. 2015. “Lexeme formation in a conscious approach to the lexicon”. In
Semantics of complex words, L. Bauer, L. Körtvélyessy and P. Štekauer.
Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 115-141.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ideophone

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/onomatopoeia

Lieber, R. 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Tyler, A. and V. Evans, 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial
Scenes, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Alexandra Galani is a Senior Teaching Fellow at the University of Ioannina.
Her main research interests are in morphology, its interfaces and language
acquisition.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-3574	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/