Cover not available
Article published In:
Issues in Diachronic Construction Morphology
Edited by Muriel Norde and Graeme Trousdale
[Constructions and Frames 15:2] 2023
► pp. 234–256

English and German derivation revisited

A Diachronic Construction Morphology approach to the growing complexity of bases

ORCID logo | University of Bonn
Today, a number of etymologically related native and non-native English and German suffixes derive nouns and adjectives from entire phrases, suggesting that these suffixes have evolved clitic-like properties. By providing a diachronic analysis of dictionary entries that is underpinned by corpus searches, this paper traces how this property of the schemas of German ‑ig, ‑er and ‑ismus and of English ‑y, ‑er and ‑ism has evolved in the respective languages. The present analysis reveals that some developments appear to have taken place in parallel, while others are language-specific, which offers novel insights to our understanding of diachronic change affecting morphological schemas.
Keywords: derivation, morphological schemas, paradigms, schema growth, densification
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Common ancestry
  • 3.Case study 1: German ‑ig and English ‑y
  • 4.Case study 2: German ‑er and English ‑er
  • 5.Case study 3: German ‑ism and English ‑ism
  • 6.Theoretical implications
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 January 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00074.len
References (42)
References
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bendzko, T. (2011). Nur noch kurz die Welt retten. Bendzko, T. Wenn Worte meine Sprache wären. Meyer, S. (Producer). Sony Music Entertainment.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G., & Masini, F. (2015). The role of second order schemas in the construction of complex words. In Bauer, L., Kőrtvélyessy, L., & Štekauer, P. (Eds.). Semantics of complex words. (pp. 47–66). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (2018). Introduction and overview. In Booij, G. (Ed.). The construction of words. (pp. 3–16). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). The role of schemas in Construction Morphology. Word Structure 12 (3), 385–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G., & Politt, K. (Eds.). (2022). Paradigms regained: Theoretical and empirical arguments for the reassessment of the notion of paradigm. Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (2014). Making new words. Morphological derivation in English. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DWDS – Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (2023). Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Ed.) [URL]
Eitelmann, M.; Haugland, K., & 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 24 (4), 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics 20 (1), 93–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hein, K. (2017). Modeling the properties of German phrasal compounds within a usage-based constructional approach. In Trips, C., & Kornfilt, J. (Eds.): Further investigations into the nature of phrasal compounding (pp. 119–148) Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2019). Higher-order schemas in morphology: What they are, how they work, and where to find them. Word Structure 12 (3), 262–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthognal? In Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N., & Wiemer, B. (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 21–42) Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempf, L. (2016). Adjektivsuffixe in Konkurrenz. Wortbildungswandel vom Frühneuhochdeutschen zum Neuhochdeutsch. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C., & Smith, N. (2009). Change in contemporary English. A grammatical study. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lensch, A. (2018). Fixer-uppers: Reduplication in the derivation of phrasal verbs. In Finkbeiner, R., & Freywald, U. (Eds.) Exact repetition in grammar and discourse, (pp. 158–181) Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Onlookers, passers-by, sweeper-uppers, opt-outers and dumber-downerers. A corpus-based study of English -er nominalizations. Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz PhD dissertation.
(2022). Diggers-out, leaf clearer-uppers and stayer-onner-for-nowers: On creativity and extravagance in English ‑er nominalizations. In Eitelmann, M. & Haumann, D. (Eds.) Extravagant morphology. (pp. 73–100) John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969 2). Categories and types of Present-Day English word-formation. A synchronic-diachronic approach. Beck.Google Scholar
Meibauer, J., Guttropf, A., & Scherer, C. (2004). Dynamic aspects of German ‑er-nominals: A probe into the interrelation of language change and language acquisition. Linguistics 42 (1), 155–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M. (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M., & Trousdale, G. (2016). Exaptation from the perspective of Construction Morphology. Norde, M., & Van de Velde, F. (Eds) Exaptation and language change. (pp. 163–195). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary Online (2023). Oxford University Press. [URL]
Onysko, A. (2019). Processes of language contact in English influence on German. In Hickey, R. (Ed.) English in the German-speaking world. (pp. 185–207) Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English (2nd ed). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pounder, A. (2000). Processes and paradigms in word-formation morphology. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology 7 1, 532–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryder, M. E. (1999). Bankers and blue-chippers. Of ‑er nominalizations in Present-day English. English Language and Linguistics 3 (2), 269–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Complex ‑er nominals: Where grammaticalization and lexicalization meet? In Contini-Morava, E., & Tobin, Y. (Eds.) Between grammar and lexicon (pp. 291–332). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scherer, C. (2005). Wortbildungswandel und Produktivität. Eine empirische Studie zur nominalen -er-Derivation im Deutschen.: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sketch Engine (2023). Lexical Computing CZ s.r.o. (Ed.) [URL]
The Guardian (and the Observer) Corpus (1990–2004). provided by Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Germany.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trips, C. (2009). Lexical semantics and diachronic morphology. The development of -hood, -dom and -ship in the history of English. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werner, M. (2020). Three diachronic sources for the development of ‑erei-based synthetic compounds in German. Word Structure 13 (3), 347–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woerterbuchnetz.de (2023). Kompetenzzentrum – Trier Center for Digital Humanities (Ed.) [URL]
Wurzel, W. U. (1996). Morphologischer Strukturwandel: Typologische Entwicklungen im Deutschen. In Lang, E., & Zifonun, G. (Eds.): Deutsch typologisch (pp. 492–524). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. M., & Pullum, G. K. (1983). Cliticisation vs. inflection. Language 59 (3), 502–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar