Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T08:28:13.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Stable are Morphological Doublets? A Case Study of /[schwa]/ ∼ Ø Variants in Dutch and German

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2004

Carol Fehringer
Carol Fehringer
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle School of Modern Languages, University of Newcastle, NE1 7RU, United Kingdom [Carol.Fehringer@ncl.ac.uk]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the diachronic development and synchronic status of morphological doublets in Dutch derivation (adjectives in -(e)lijk) and German inflection (genitives in -(e)s) in the light of the commonly held view that functionally equivalent doublets are rare in morphology and, where they do exist, tend to be small in number and diachronically unstable (see, for example, Kroch 1994). It is shown here that large numbers of doublets can thrive for centuries, despite the fact that they require a high degree of arbitrary lexical information, while others tend to be eliminated systematically by organizing words into lexical “gangs” defined by phonological and morphological properties. It is also argued that the lexically conditioned nature of the inflectional doublets provides evidence for the wholesale lexical listing of German genitives.I am very grateful to Martin Durrell, and to Roel Vismans and other Dutch speakers present at the Association for Low Countries Studies Conference in Sheffield (January 2004), at which the Dutch section of this paper was presented, for their very helpful comments. I would also like to thank the two anonymous referees for their invaluable feedback.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 285 - 329
Copyright
© 2004 Society for Germanic Linguistics

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

Alegre Maria, and Peter Gordon. 1999. Rule-based versus associative processes in derivational morphology. Brain and Language 68. 347–354.Google Scholar
Aronoff Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Bauer Laurie. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Becker Thomas. 1990. Analogie und morphologische Theorie. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.
Bloomfield Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.
Bonn corpus of Early New High German (unpublished). Information available at http://www.ikp.uni-bonn.de/dt/forsch/fnhd/.
Booij Geert E. 1995. The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Booij Geert E. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Booij and van Marle 1996, 1–16. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Booij Geert E., and Jaap van Marle (eds.). 1996. Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Bybee Joan L. 1985. Morphology. A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee Joan L. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapman Carol. 1996. Perceptual salience and affix order: Noun plurals as input to word formation. In Booij and van Marle 1996, 175–184. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Clahsen Harald, Monika Rothweiler, Andreas Woest, and Gary F. Marcus. 1992. Regular and irregular inflection in the acquisition of German noun plurals. Cognition 45. 225–245.Google Scholar
Coornhert, D.V. circa 1644. Vijftigh lustighe historien oft nieuwigheden Joannis Boccatij. Available at http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/coor001vijf01/.
Cruse Alan. 1987. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drosdowski Günther et al. 1995. Duden Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 5th edition. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.
Deutsches Universalwörterbuch (Duden). 2003. 5th edition. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.
Durrell Martin. 1992a. Using German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Durrell Martin. 2002. Hammer's German grammar and usage. London: Arnold.
Eddington David. 2002. Spanish diminutive formation without rules or constraints. Linguistics 40. 395–419.Google Scholar
Ernestus Mirjam, and R. Harald Baayen. 2003. Predicting the unpredictable: Interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch. Language 79. 5–38.Google Scholar
Fehringer Carol. 2003a. Morphological “gangs”: Constraints on paradigmatic relations in analogical change. Yearbook of Morphology, ed. by Geert E. Booij and Jaap van Marle, 249– 272. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Fehringer Carol. 2003b. Prosodic conditions on allomorph selection in Dutch derivational morphology. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15. 297–324.Google Scholar
Geerts G., W. Haseryn, J. de Rooij, and M. C. van den Toorn (eds.). 1984. Algemene nederlandse spraakkunst. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Giegerich Heinz. 1985. Metrical phonology and phonological structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giegerich Heinz. 2001. Synonymy blocking and the Elsewhere Condition: Lexical morphology and the speaker. Transactions of the Philological Society 99. 65–98.Google Scholar
INL. 1996. Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie. 38 miljoen woorden corpus. Available at http://www.inl.nl/corp/corp.htm/.
Isensee-Montgomery, Bettina. 2001. Studies in German and English morphology with special reference to “linking elements.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Janda Richard D., and Maria Sandoval. 1984. “Elsewhere” in morphology. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Kiparsky Paul. 1973. “Elsewhere” in phonology. A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 93–106. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Kiparsky Paul. 1982. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. The structure of phonological representations (Part 1), ed. by Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith, 131–175. Dordrecht: Foris.
Kooij Jan G. 1982. Epenthetische schwa: Processen, regels, domeinen. Spektator 11. 315–25.Google Scholar
Kroch Anthony. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. Papers from the 30th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on variation and linguistic theory, ed. by Katharine Beals et al. 80–201,. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
Lass Roger. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26. 79–102.Google Scholar
Leidse Vertaling. 1899–1911. Available at http://www.hispage.nl/bijbel/.
Moser Hugo, Hugo Stopp, and Werner Besch (eds.). 1987. Grammatik des Frühneuhochdeutschen, 3rd volume: Flexion der Substantive by Klaus-Peter Wegera Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Paul Hermann. 1880 [1975, 9th edition]. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Perlmutter David M. 1988. The Split Morphology Hypothesis, evidence from Yiddish. Theoretical Morphology, ed. by Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan, 79–100. San Diego: Academic Press.
Pfeffer J. Alan, and Scott Morrison. 1979. The genitive singular with -s and/or -es in spoken and written German. IRAL 17. 303–311.Google Scholar
Pinker Steven. 1991. Rules of language. Science 253. 530–535.Google Scholar
Reershemius Gertrud. To appear. Einige Bemerkungen zur Bewahrung von Merkmalen des älteren Deutsch im Jiddischen. Field studies: German language, media and culture, ed. by Holger Briel and Carol Fehringer. Bern: Peter Lang.
Shannon Thomas F. 1991. On the relation between morphology and syllable structure: Universal preference laws in Dutch. The Berkeley conference on Dutch linguistics 1989, ed. by Thomas F. Shannon and Johan P. Snapper, 173–205. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Skousen Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Skousen Royal. 1992. Analogy and structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Statenvertaling. 1637. Available at http://www.hispage.nl/bijbel/.
Strauss Steven L. 1982. Lexicalist phonology of English and German. Dordrecht: Foris.
Taaladvies Online. http://taalunieversum.org/taal/advies/vraag/614/.
Toorn M. C. van den, J. A. van Pijnenburg, W. J. J. Leuvensteijn, J. M. van der Horst. 1997. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
1999. Van Dale Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal. 13th edition. Utrecht: van Dale Lexicografie.
Van den Vondel Joost. 1612. Het Pascha. Available online at http://cf.hum.uva.nl/dsp/ljc/vondel/pascha/pascha.html/.
West Jonathan. 1989. Lexical innovation in Dasypodius' dictionary. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wiese Richard. 1986. Schwa and the structure of words in German. Linguistics 24. 607–724.Google Scholar
1995. Woordenlijst Nederlandse taal (“Het Groene Boekje”). The Hague, Antwerp: SdU Uitgevers.
2003. Wortschatz Deutsch Corpus http://www.wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/.