Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T15:47:59.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How peculiar is evaluative morphology?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Gregory T. Stump
Gregory T. Stump
Affiliation:
Department of English, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0027, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Many languages possess morphological rules which serve to express diminution or augmentation, endearment or contempt; examples are the Breton rule relating potr ‘boy’ to potrig ‘little boy’, the Shona rule relating chibikiso ‘cooking tool’ to zichibikiso ‘huge cooking tool’ and the Italian rule relating poeta ‘poet’ to poetastro ‘bad poet’. Because of the possibility of interpreting diminution and augmentation in affective rather than purely objective terms (Wierzbicka, 1980: 53ff.; Szymanek, 1988: 106ff.), morphological expressions of diminution or augmentation are not always discrete from those of endearment or contempt; that is, diminutives and augmentatives are frequently used as expressions of endearment (such as Italian sorella ‘sister’ → sorellina ‘dear little sister’, donna ‘woman’ → donnotta ‘fine, stout woman’) or disdain (Italian uomo ‘man’ → uomicciuolo ‘contemptible little man’, donna → donnona ‘overgrown girl’).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 1 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

REFERENCES

Anderson, S. R. (1977). On the formal description of inflection. In Beach, W. A., Fox, S. E. & Philosoph, S. (eds.), Papers from the thirteenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 15–44.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1985). Inflectional morphology. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 150–201.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baksi, S. (1992). Derivation inside inflection: counterexamples from Bengali. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America annual meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Barlow, A. R. (1960). Studies in Kikuyu grammar and idiom. Edinburgh: Foreign Mission Committee of the Church of Scotland.Google Scholar
Bennett, P. R., Biersteker, A., Gikonyo, W., Hershberg, S., Kamande, J., Perez, C. & Swearingen, M. (1985). Gĩkũyũ nĩ kĩoigire: Essays, texts, and glossaries. Madison: African Studies Program of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Bochner, H. (1984). Inflection within derivation. The Linguistic Review 3. 411–421.Google Scholar
Brückner, T. & Sauter, C. (1984). Rückläufige Wortliste zum heutigen Deutsch, vol. II. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1992). Current morphology. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M. & Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Doke, C. M. (1930). Textbook of Zulu grammar, 6th edn.Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.Google Scholar
Dzokanga, A. (1979). Dictionnaire lingala–français, suivi d'une grammaire lingala. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie Leipzig.Google Scholar
Ettinger, S. (1974). Form und Funktion in der Wortbildung: die Diminutiv- und Augmentativmodifikalion im Lateinischen, Deutschen undRomanischen. Tübingen: Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik.Google Scholar
Gooch, A. (1967). Diminutive, augmentative and pejorative suffixes in modern Spanish. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. (1984). Categorial morphology. University of Groningen doctoral dissertation. [Published 1985, New York: Garland.]Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. A. (1980). Spanish diminutives. In Nuessel, F. H. Jr (ed.), Contemporary studies in Romance languages. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 142–158.Google Scholar
Jones, W. & Jones, P. (1991). Barasano syntax (Studies in the Languages of Colombia 2). Arlington, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas, Arlington.Google Scholar
LeSourd, P. S. (1992). Inflection inside derivation in Passamaquoddy. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America annual meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1980). On the organization of the lexicon. MIT doctoral dissertation. [Distributed 1981, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.]Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1989). On percolation. In Booij, G. & van Marie, J. (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2. Dordrecht: Foris. 95–138.Google Scholar
Malicka-Kleparska, A. (1985). Parallel derivation and lexicalist morphology: the case of Polish diminutivization. In Gussmann, E. (ed.), Phono-morphology: studies in the interaction of phonology and morphology. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.Google Scholar
Masica, C. (1976). Defining a linguistic area. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1972). Inflectional morphology: a theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merrifield, W. R., Naish, C. M., Rensch, C. R. & Story, G. (1974). Laboratory manual for morphology and syntax, rev. edn. Huntington Beach, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
SirMonier-Williams, M. (1899). A Sanskrit-English dictionary. 1984 reprint. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. S. (1980). Bantu class prefixes: inflectional or derivational? In Kreiman, J. & Ojeda, A. E. (eds.), Papers from the Sixteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 246–258.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1962). The morphology of the Tigre noun. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1988). The split morphology hypothesis: evidence from Yiddish. In Hammond, M. & Noonan, M. (eds.), Theoretical morphology: approaches in modern linguistics. San Diego: Academic Press. 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, F. (1981). Morphologische (Ir-)Regularitäten. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Plank, F. (1985). On the reapplication of morphological rules after phonological rules and other resolutions of functional conflicts between morphology and phonology. Linguistics 23. 45–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, K. (1985). On the placement of inflection. Lin 16. 155–161.Google Scholar
Scalise, S. (1986). Generative morphology, 2nd edn.Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scalise, S. (1988). The notion of ‘head’ in morphology. In Booij, G. & van Marie, J. (eds.), Yearbook of morphology I. Dordrecht: Foris. 229–245.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, R. D. (1973). Southern Barasano grammar (Language Data Microfiche AM3). Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Stahl, F. A. & Scavnicky, G. E. A. (1973). A reverse dictionary of the Spanish language. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Stump, G. T. (1989). A note on Breton pluralization and the Elsewhere Condition. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7. 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. T. (1990). Breton inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Hendrick, R. (ed.), The syntax of the modern Celtic languages (Syntax and Semantics 23). San Diego: Academic Press. 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. T. (1991). A paradigm-based theory of morphosemantic mismatches. Lg 67. 675–725.Google Scholar
Stump, G. T. (1992a). On the theoretical status of position class restrictions on inflectional affixes. In Booij, G. & van Marie, J. (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 211–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. T. (1992b). Position classes and morphological theory. In Booij, G. & van Marie, J. (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 129–180.Google Scholar
Stump, G. T. (to appear a). Two types of mismatch between morphology and semantics. In Schiller, E. (ed.), Developments in autolexical syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Stump, G. T. (to appear b). La morphologie bretonne et la frontière entre la flexion et la dérivation. La Bretagne linguistique 6.Google Scholar
Stump, G. T. (to appear c). The adjacency condition and the formation of diminutives in Mwera and Kikuyu. Berkeley Linguistics Society 18.Google Scholar
Szymanek, B. (1988). Categories and categorization in morphology. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.Google Scholar
Trépos, P. (1957). Lepluriel breton. Brest: Emgleo Breiz.Google Scholar
Whitney, W. D. (1889). Sanskrit grammar, 2nd edn.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1980). Lingua mentalis: the semantics of natural language. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Lin 12. 245–274.Google Scholar
Williams, S. J. (1980). A Welsh grammar. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. (1970). Studien zur deutschen Lautstruktur (Studia Grammatica VIII). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1985a). Heads. JL 21. 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1985b). How to describe inflection. Berkeley Linguistics Society 11. 372–386.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1987). Transformational grammarians and their ilk. MITWPL 9. 265–279.Google Scholar