Semantic and prosodic effects of Dutch linking elements

Hanssen, Esther; Banga, Arina; Schreuder, Robert; Neijt, A.H.

doi:10.1007/s11525-013-9212-x

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From the discussion above it can be concluded that over time, reus/reuze(n)(-) has developed a wide range of uses, and that the semantic and formal differences among all these uses are not always easy to define. Hence, we support the existence of a continuum, along which nominal, semiprefixal, adjectival, and adverbial uses are placed, with the synchronic uses reflecting the different stages of a gradual diachronic evolution of reuze(n)- , in line with Hopper's (1991) idea of layering .…”

Section: Synchronic Analysissupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Booij (2010:58), for instance, explicitly states the following: [w]e can consider these changes in the meaning of “bound lexemes” as being cases of grammaticalization (Hopper and Traugott 2003; Ramat 2001) since these prefixoids have lost their original lexical meaning more or less, and have acquired a more general and abstract meaning of intensification. However, this does not mean that the lexical meaning of these prefixoids has become completely irrelevant (…): there are cases in which the lexical meaning is still relevant, a phenomenon referred to as “persistence” (Hopper 1991). …”

Section: Synchronic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides desemanticization, other grammaticalization phenomena are involved in this process. Stevens (2005) demonstrates convincingly how changes that typically characterize grammaticalization as defined in Hopper 1991:22–31 and Hopper & Traugott 2003:99–106, 122–124, 172–174 trigger the emergence of affixoids, and, more interestingly, of German Riesen- , a counterpart of Dutch reuze , as in Riesenkrach ‘flaming row, infernal racket’, lit. ‘giant-row’.…”

Section: Synchronic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

When Two Paths Converge: Debonding and Clipping of DutchReuze

Goethem

Hiligsmann

2014

J Ger Ling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dutch reuze(n)(-) has a wide range of synchronic uses that form part of a broad categorical and semantic continuum. Derived from the noun reus ‘giant’, it is often used to express a comparison in nominal and adjectival compounds (for example, reuzegroot ‘as big as a giant’, lit. ‘giant-big’), but it can also have a merely intensifying function (for example, reuzeleuk ‘very nice’, lit. ‘giant-nice’). Moreover, it currently occurs as a free adjective and adverb while keeping its morphological linking morpheme -e- and intensifying value (for example, Het feestje was reuze ‘The party was great’). Drawing on synchronic and diachronic corpus data, this paper argues that the emergence of reuze as a free morpheme should be accounted for by debonding (an instance of degrammaticalization) and clipping.*

show abstract

Section: Synchronic Analysissupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Synchronic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Synchronic Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When Two Paths Converge: Debonding and Clipping of DutchReuze

Goethem

Hiligsmann

2014

J Ger Ling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Empirical support for the claim that Dutch linking en can be interpreted as a plural form has been frequently found (Hanssen, Banga, Schreuder, & Neijt, in press; Neijt, Krebbers, & Fikkert, 2002; Neijt, Schreuder, & Baayen, 2004; Schreuder et al, 1998). For instance, Schreuder et al (1998) investigated the function of Dutch linking en in written nominal compounds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Similarity of Plural Endings and Linking Elements in Regional Speech Variants of Dutch

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The plural suffix -en (noot+en, 'nuts') is pronounced differently by speakers coming from different regions of the Netherlands. In this study, we compared the pronunciation of the plural suffix -en in phrases (noot+en kraken, 'to crack nuts') with linking en in compounds (noot+en+kroker, 'nutcracker'), because some claim that both are similar (Schreuder, Neijt, van der Weide, & Baayen, 1998), whereas others claim that they are not (Verkuyl, 2007). The pronunciations of 109 participants coming from five regions of the Netherlands were therefore compared in a picture naming task. A systematic relation between the pronunciations of plural -en and linking en was detected: Speakers from the Northern and Eastern regions produced [(upside-down e)n] most often for both the linking elements and plural endings, while speakers from the Middle and Western regions produced [upside-down e] most often for both. For speakers from the Southern region, we found no preference to pronounce either [upside-down e] or [upside-down e n] in compounds or phrases. It is concluded that Dutch speakers often do not distinguish plural -en from linking en in their speech production. Possibly, speakers of Dutch consider linking en and plural -en as the same morpheme.

show abstract

“…It has been met, though, with extensive criticism (Baayen, Schreuder, de Jong, & Krott, 2002;Booij, 1993Booij, , 2002Haskell, MacDonald, & Seidenberg, 2003;Seidenberg, MacDonald, & Haskell, 2007).…”

Section: Regular Inflection and Word Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphological variation in the speech of Frisian-Dutch bilinguals

Hanssen¹,

Versloot²,

Hoekstra³

et al. 2015

LAB

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In standard Dutch, the plural suffix -enis homographic and homophonic with the linking suffix -en(boek+en“books”,boek+en+kast“bookcase”), both being pronounced as schwa. In Frisian, there is neither homography nor homophony (boek+en“books”, pronounced with syllabic nasal;boek+e+kast“bookcase”, pronounced with a linking schwa). Seeing that many areas of Frisian grammar are subject to interference from Dutch, we investigated whether Frisian-Dutch bilinguals exhibit interference from Dutch with respect to the linking suffix during Frisian speech production. Two types of Frisian-Dutch bilinguals emerged: Speakers who had Dutch as their first language tended to maintain the Dutch system of homophony between plural and linking suffixes when speaking Frisian, by using the Frisian plural as a linking morpheme. Speakers who had Frisian as their first language often maintained the Frisian system of no homophony when speaking Frisian. The implications for morphological theories are discussed.

show abstract

Semantic and prosodic effects of Dutch linking elements

Cited by 9 publications

References 27 publications

When Two Paths Converge: Debonding and Clipping of DutchReuze

When Two Paths Converge: Debonding and Clipping of DutchReuze

The Similarity of Plural Endings and Linking Elements in Regional Speech Variants of Dutch

Morphological variation in the speech of Frisian-Dutch bilinguals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About