Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:46:34.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nativization and German -ieren1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Rajendra Singh  and
Rolf Max Kully
Rajendra Singh
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
Rolf Max Kully
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Historically, languages seem to have two kinds of affixes: those that stay put as unproductive (English -ity, Hindi -at, and German -sal) and those that go on to increase their lexical domain (English -hood and non-, Hindi be-, German -ung). When a native affix attaches to non-native lexical items it could not previously attach to, we say that the lexical items in question have moved into the native classification (cf. Allen 1978; Aronoff 1976). English -hood, originally restricted to native bases, now attaches to latinate bases such as priest and state, implying that state and priest have been totally nativized. When a non-native affix increases its lexical domain, we say that the original restriction on it has been removed. Hindi be, originally restricted to [+Persian] words can now attach to almost any adjective (cf. Singh, forthcoming). Non-native affixes either stay put as unproductive (cf. English -ity) or may generalize to cover the entire lexicon (cf. English non- and Hindi be-). When they do generalize so pervasively, they can be attached productively to newly borrowed words. Attachment to newly borrowed words, however, generally implies free attachability with native bases (cf. the Russian nominal suffix -izm discussed in Shanskii, 1968, particularly pp. 100 ff).

Type
Remarks/Remarques
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , Spring 1982 , pp. 55 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1982

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

Allen, M. (1978) Morphological Investigations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Holden, K. (1976) “Assimilation rates of borrowing and phonological productivity.” Language 52:131–47.Google Scholar
Kluge, F. (1967) Etymologische Wbrterbuch der Deutschen Sprache. 20th ed., revised by Mitzka, W.. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.Google Scholar
Shanskii, N. M. (1968) Russian Word Formation. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Singh, R. (forthcoming) “Modern Hindi Be-,” Papers in Linguistics 13.Google Scholar
Singh, R. and Kully, R. M. (forthcoming) “On Sub-dividing the lexicon.”Google Scholar