Book contents
- Expressivity in European Languages
- Expressivity in European Languages
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- Uralic
- Germanic
- Hellenic
- Romance
- Celtic
- Vasconian
- Caucasian
- Comparative
- 12 Parameters of variation in the syntax of expressive suffixes: Case studies of Russian, German, Spanish and Greek
- Index
- References
12 - Parameters of variation in the syntax of expressive suffixes: Case studies of Russian, German, Spanish and Greek
from Comparative
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 August 2023
Book contents
- Expressivity in European Languages
- Expressivity in European Languages
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- Uralic
- Germanic
- Hellenic
- Romance
- Celtic
- Vasconian
- Caucasian
- Comparative
- 12 Parameters of variation in the syntax of expressive suffixes: Case studies of Russian, German, Spanish and Greek
- Index
- References
Summary
This work compares the morphosyntactic properties of expressive suffixes in four European languages: Russian, German, Spanish and Greek. It shows that although these suffixes share the same expressive meaning, they differ significantly in their syntactic structure, namely in the manner and place of attachment in the syntactic tree. Thus, the Russian and Spanish expressive suffixes that refer to the size of a referent (or size suffixes) are syntactic modifiers, while the German size suffixes are syntactic heads. And in Greek, the two most productive expressive suffixes -ak and -ul have homophonous counterparts that possess contrasting syntactic properties: syntactic heads vs. syntactic modifiers. This shows that across languages as well as within single languages, such as Greek, there is no 1:1 correspondence between the meaning and the structure of expressive forms. These findings are further supported by two novel case studies of the homophonous suffixes -its (in Greek) and -ic (in Russian).
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Expressivity in European Languages , pp. 361 - 392Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Bachrach, Asaf & Wagner, Michael. 2007. Syntactically driven cyclicity versus output–output correspondence: The case of adjunction in diminutive morphology. Presented at the 30th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Philadelphia, 24–26 February.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 2003. Heads, complements, adjuncts: Projections and saturation. In Lang, E., Maienborn, C. & Fabricius-Hansen, C. (eds.) Modifying Adjuncts. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 113–59.Google Scholar
Efremova, T. F. (Ефремова, Т. Ф.) (ed.) 2006. Современный толковый словарь русского языка [Sovremennyj tolkovyj slovar russkogo jazyka] [The modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language]. 3 volumes. Moscow: Ast, Astrel’.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 1998. Voice systems and the syntax/morphology interface. In Harley, Heidi (ed.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32: Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect, Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, 41–72.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In Ramchand, Gillian & Reiss, Charles (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 289–324.Google Scholar
Fortin, Antonio. 2011. The morphology and semantics of expressive affixes. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In Bruening, Benjamin, Kang, Yoonjung & McGinnis, Martha (eds.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30: Papers at the interface, Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, 425–49.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.) The View from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–76.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21, Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, 275–88.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf. 1998. Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon: Nominalizations, vocabulary items and the encyclopedia. In Harley, Heidi (ed.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32: Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on argument structure and aspect. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, 119–37.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf. 1999. Distributed morphology. Glot International 4(4), 3–9.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2), 201–25.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phases and words. In Choe, S. H. (ed.) Phases in the Theory of Grammar. Seoul: Dong-In Publishing, 191–222.Google Scholar
Melissaropoulou, Dimitra. 2015. Modern Greek. In Grandi, Nicola & Körtvélyessy, Lívia (eds.) Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 269–77.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 1995. PP attachment and argumenthood. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, 95–151.Google Scholar
Siddiqi, Daniel. 2010. Distributed morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(7), 524–42.Google Scholar
Steriopolo, Olga. 2008. Form and function of expressive morphology: A case study of Russian. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Steriopolo, Olga. 2009. Form and function of expressive morphology: A case study of Russian. Russian Language Journal 59, 149–94.Google Scholar
Steriopolo, Olga. 2014. Parameters of variation in the syntax of homophones. Poljarnyj vestnik: Norwegian Journal of Slavic Studies 17, 46–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steriopolo, Olga. 2015. Syntactic variation in expressive size suffixes: A comparison of Russian, German, and Spanish. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 12(1), 2–21.Google Scholar
Steriopolo, Olga. 2016. Expressives across languages: Form/function correlation. Annual Review of Linguistics 2, 293–324.Google Scholar
Steriopolo, Olga. 2017. Syntactic variation in diminutive suffixes: Russian, Kolyma Yukaghir, and Itelmen. Languages 2(4), 1–23.Google Scholar
Steriopolo, Olga, Markopoulos, Giorgos & Spyropoulos, Vassilios. 2021. A morphosyntactic analysis of nominal expressive suffixes in Russian and Greek. The Linguistic Review 38(4), 645–86.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2006. Why should diminutives count? In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huijbregts, R., Kleinhenz, U., & Koster, J. (eds.) Organizing Grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 669–79.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26(3), 639–94.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The Universal Structure of Categories: Towards a formal typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina & Steriopolo, Olga. 2007. Parameters of variation in the syntax of diminutives. In Radisic, Milica (ed.) Proceedings of the 2007 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference, 1–12.Google Scholar