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.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to three reviewers and particularly Harald Baayen for helpful comments and suggestions. In addition, the project reported on here as well the paper itself have benefitted from the input of many different people, including Damaris Nübling, Renata Szczepaniak, Michael Pleyer, Luise Kempf, Susanne Flach, Daniela Schröder, Lisa Dücker, Eleonore Schmitt, Melitta Gillmann, and Annika Vieregge. Remaining errors are of course mine.
References
CorporaSuche in Google Scholar
DECOW14AX=Corpora from the Web. http://www.corporafromtheweb.org/Suche in Google Scholar
DTA=Deutsches Textarchiv (German Text Archive), deutschestextarchiv.deSuche in Google Scholar
DeReKo=Deutsches Referenzkorpus (German Reference Corpus), https://cosmas2.ids-mannheim.de/cosmas2-web/Suche in Google Scholar
DWDS=Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache – Kernkorpus 20. Jahrhunderts. http://www.dwds.de/Suche in Google Scholar
FnhdC=Bonner Frühneuhochdeutschkorpus (Bonn Early New High German Corpus). https://korpora.zim.uni-due.de/Fnhd/Suche in Google Scholar
SoftwareSuche in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2015. R. A software and environment for statictical computing. Vienna: R Foundation.Suche in Google Scholar
Scripts and packages:Suche in Google Scholar
Baroni, Marco & Stefan Evert. 2007. zipfR. Lexical statistics in R. http://zipfr.r-forge.r-project.org/(accessed 26 January 2015).Suche in Google Scholar
Flach, Susanne. 2016. Collostructions. An R implementation for the family of collostructional methods. www.bit.ly/sflachSuche in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2007. Collostructional analysis: Computing the degree of association between words and words/constructions.Suche in Google Scholar
Research literatureSuche in Google Scholar
Harald. 1992. Quantitative Aspects of Morphological Productivity. In Geert E. Booij & Jaap Van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991, 109–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-2516-1_8Suche in 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.10.1007/978-94-017-3710-4_7Suche in Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2001. Word Frequency Distributions. (Text, Speech and Language Technology, 18). Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-010-0844-0Suche in 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.10.1515/9783110213881.2.899Suche in 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).Suche in Google Scholar
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.Suche in Google Scholar
Barz, Irmhild. 1998. Zur Lexikalisierungspotenz nominalisierter Infinitive. In Irmhild Barz & Günther Öhlschläger (eds.), Zwischen Grammatik und Lexikon, 57–68. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110912494.57Suche in Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486210Suche in Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00213.xSuche in Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E. 2012. The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(5). 425–455.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.003.0008Suche in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Suche in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Suche in 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.10.1075/hcp.24.16dabSuche in 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.10.1515/9783110236620.326Suche in 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: 10.1515/bgsl.2000.122.3.365.Suche in Google Scholar
Demske, Ulrike. 2001. Zur Distribution von Infinitivkomplementen im Althochdeutschen.Linguistische Berichte 9. 61–86.Suche in 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.10.21248/zaspil.27.2002.150Suche in 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.10.1515/9783110292022-015Suche in Google Scholar
Dunning, Ted. 1993. Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics 19(1). 69–74.Suche in Google Scholar
Durrell, Martin, Astrid Ensslin & Paul Bennett. 2007. The GerManC project. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 31. 71–80.Suche in Google Scholar
Ebensgaard-Jensen, Kim. 2013. Semantic coherence in English accusative-with-bare-infinitive constructions. Rask 38. 161–176.Suche in Google Scholar
Ehrich, Veronika & Irene Rapp. 2000. Sortale Bedeutung und Argumentstruktur: -ung-Nominalisierungen im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 19. 245–303.10.1515/zfsw.2000.19.2.245Suche in 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.Suche in 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.Suche in Google Scholar
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:10.1515/gcla-2015-0013.Suche in Google 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:10.1515/lingvan-2016-0057.Suche in Google Scholar
Gaeta, Livio & Davide Ricca. 2006. Productivity in Italian word-formation. Linguistics 44(1). 57–89.10.1515/LING.2006.003Suche in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2001. Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1). 131–153.10.1515/9783110335255.57Suche in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Suche in 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.Suche in Google Scholar
Hartmann, Stefan. 2014b. “Nominalization” Taken Literally: A Diachronic Corpus Study of German Word-Formation Patterns. Italian Journal of Linguistics 26(2). 123–155.10.1075/cilt.334.09harSuche in 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.10.1515/gcla-2014-0014Suche in Google Scholar
Hartmann, Stefan. 2016. Wortbildungswandel. Eine diachrone Studie zu deutschen Nominalisierungsmustern. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110471809Suche in Google Scholar
Hartmann, Stefan. 2018. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte. Grundz̈ge und Methoden. Tübingen: Francke.10.36198/9783838548234Suche in Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2006. Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(2). 243–256.10.1515/CLLT.2006.012Suche in Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139004206Suche in Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Suche in 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.Suche in 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). 385–401.10.1093/llc/fqn012Suche in Google Scholar
Kempf, Luise. 2016. Adjektivsuffixe in Konkurrenz. Wortbildungswandel vom Frühneuhochdeutschen zum Neuhochdeutschen. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110429787Suche in 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.10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_16Suche in Google Scholar
Knobloch, Clemens. 2002. Zwischen Satz-Nominalisierung und Nennderivation: -ung-Nomina im Deutschen. Sprachwissenschaft 27. 333–362.Suche in Google Scholar
Krott, Andrea, Robert Schreuder & R. Harald Baayen. 1999. Complex words in complex words. Linguistics 37(5). 905–926.10.1515/ling.37.5.905Suche in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2004. Remarks on Nominal Grounding. Functions of Language 11(1). 77–113.10.1075/fol.11.1.05lanSuche in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R. Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.195Suche in Google Scholar
Li, Wentian. 1992. Random texts exhibit Zipf’s-law-like word frequency distribution. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 38(6). 1842–1845.10.1109/18.165464Suche in Google 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.10.1090/psapm/012/9970Suche in Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach. München: Beck.Suche in 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). 176–182.10.1126/science.1199644Suche in Google 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.Suche in 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.Suche in Google Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2016. Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony. A case study. Linguistics 54(1). 149–188.10.1515/ling-2015-0043Suche in 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.10.1515/9783110219197.2.279Suche in Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. (Topics in English Linguistics, 28). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar
Römer, Christine. 1987. Transformationalistische und lexikalistische Erklärung von Wortbildungen - dargestellt am Beispiel deverbaler -ung-Substantive. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 24. 217–221.Suche in 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.10.1515/9783110226546.169Suche in 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.Suche in Google Scholar
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.Suche in Google Scholar
Scherer, Carmen. 2006. Was ist Wortbildungswandel? Linguistische Berichte 205. 3–28.10.1515/9783110914887.5Suche in 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.10.1075/cilt.284.19schSuche in Google Scholar
Schneider-Wiejowski, Karina. 2011. Produktivität in der deutschen Derivationsmorphologie. University of Bielefeld PhD thesis.Suche in 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.10.1037/15969-002Suche in Google Scholar
Schmidt, Wilhelm. 2007. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache: Ein Lehrbuch für das germanistische Studium. 10th ed. Stuttgart: Hirzel.Suche in Google Scholar
Shin, Soo-Song. 2001. On the event structure of -ung-nominals in German. Linguistics 39. 297–319.10.1515/ling.2001.012Suche in Google Scholar
Smirnova, Elena & Tanja Mortelmans. 2010. Funktionale Grammatik: Konzepte und Theorien. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110223873Suche in Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2001. Morphology. In Mark Aronoff & Janie Rees-Miller (eds.), The handbook of linguistics, 213–237. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1111/b.9781405102520.2002.00011.xSuche in Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Arnold M. Zwicky. 1998. Introduction. In Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 1–10. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9781405166348.ch0Suche in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2009. Bedeutung und Gebrauch in der Konstruktionsgrammatik: Wie kompositional sind modale Infinitive im Deutschen? Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 37. 562–592.10.1515/ZGL.2009.036Suche in 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.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0016Suche in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243.10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03steSuche in Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2012. The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290802.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Thielmann, Winfried. 2007. Substantiv. In Ludger Hoffmann (ed.), Handbuch der deutschen Wortarten, 791–822. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 6). Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.003.0004Suche in 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.10.1515/9783110905106Suche in 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.10.1515/9783110806120.259Suche in 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.10.1515/9783110291902Suche in 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). 253–290.10.1515/CLLT.2008.011Suche in 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.10.1515/9783110197709.101Suche in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Spatio-temporal deixis and cognitive models in early Indo-European
- English and Chinese children’s motion event similarity judgments
- Derivational morphology in flux: a case study of word-formation change in German
- Where metaphors really come from: Social factors as contextual influence in Hungarian teenagers’ metaphorical conceptualizations of life
- Book Review
- Nick C. Ellis Ute Römer Matthew Brook O’Donnell: Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Spatio-temporal deixis and cognitive models in early Indo-European
- English and Chinese children’s motion event similarity judgments
- Derivational morphology in flux: a case study of word-formation change in German
- Where metaphors really come from: Social factors as contextual influence in Hungarian teenagers’ metaphorical conceptualizations of life
- Book Review
- Nick C. Ellis Ute Römer Matthew Brook O’Donnell: Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar