Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:37:48.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Marking of Gender Agreement Using Derivational Affixes in German and Dutch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

Alan K. Scott
Alan K. Scott*
Affiliation:
The University of Manchester
*
School of Languages, Linguistics, and Cultures, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom, [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The German derivational suffix -in primarily marks female sex on nouns that denote people. This paper investigates the attachment of the suffix to masculine noun bases that refer back to feminine nouns denoting inanimate referents in the same construction, seemingly as a means of making the gender of the two nouns match. The same phenomenon is also observed in Dutch despite the absence of a masculine/feminine distinction in the standard language. It is argued that the gender matching observed is a form of agreement. Using the evidence of corpus data and other attestations, it is concluded here that, because the inanimate referents of the subject nouns in the constructions involved all appear close to animate referents on animacy hierarchies (that is, they fall just outside the suffix's usual sphere of use), the gender agreement performed by -in (and its Dutch counterparts) is an extension of the suffix's prototypical derivational role, but resembles inflection in some respects and may indicate that the suffix is undergoing grammaticalization.*

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 37 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2009

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, Stephen R. 1982. Where's morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13.571–612.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1988. Inflection. Hammond & Noonan 1988, 23–43.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, & Fuhrhop, Nanna. 2002. Restricting combinations in German and English: Closing suffixes and the monosuffix constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20.451–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audring, Jenny. 2006. Pronominal gender in spoken Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18.85–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baeskow, Heike. 2002. Abgeleitete Personennamen im Deutschen und Englischen. Kontrastive Wortbildungsanalysen im Rahmen des Minimalistischen Programms und unter Berücksichtigung sprachhistorischer Aspekte. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kathryn, Nicol, Janet, & Cutting, J. Cooper. 1999. The ties that bind: Creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language 40.330–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert E. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. Booij & van Marle 1996, 1–16.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E. 2000. Inflection and derivation. Booij et al. 2000, 360–369.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E. 2002. The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E., Lehmann, Christian, & Mugdan, Joachim (eds.). 2000. An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, vol. 1 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E., & Marle, Jaap van (eds.). 1996. Yearbook of morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, Friederike. 1996. Das große I und seine Schwestern—eine kritische Bewertung. Der Deutschunterricht 4.54–62.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology. A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2000. Lexical, morphological, and syntactic symbolization. Booij et al. 2000, 370–377.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82.711–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1999. Animacy and the notion of semantic gender. Gender in grammar and cognition. I. Approaches to gender II. Manifestations of gender, ed. by Unterbeck, Barbara & Rissanen, Matti, 99–115. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Donalies, Elke. 2002. Wortbildung im Deutschen. Ein Überblick. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Duden, . 1984. Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache (Duden Band 4). 4th edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Duden, . 1998. Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache (Duden Band 4). 6th edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Duden, . 2001. Deutsches Universalwörterbuch. Das umfassende Bedeutungswörterbuch der deutschen Gegenwartssprache mit über 250,000 Wörtern, Redewendungen und Anwendungsbeispielen. Version 3.0 [CD-ROM]. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Duden, . 2005. Die Grammatik (Duden Band 4). 7th edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Durrell, Martin. 2002. Hammer's German grammar and usage. 4th edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
E-ANS. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Versie 1.2. http://www.let.ru.nl/ans/e-ans/ [accessed 20 Oct. 2008].Google Scholar
EGB. 1996. Elektronisch Groene Boekje [CD-ROM]. Versie 0.1.25. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Eichinger, Ludwig M. 2000. Deutsche Wortbildung. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Erben, Johannes. 2000. Einführung in die deutsche Wortbildungslehre. 4th edn. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Wolfgang, & Barz, Irmhild. 1995. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache (unter Mitarbeit von Marianne Schröder). 2nd edn. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Gallmann, Peter. 2005. Der Satz. Duden 2005, 773–1066.Google Scholar
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang. 1816–1817[1981]. Italienische Reise. Herausgegeben und kommentiert von Herbert von Einem. München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang. 1962[1970]. Italian Journey [1786–1788]. Translated by Auden, W. H. and Mayer, Elizabeth. (Penguin Classics.) Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang. 1992. “Ich bin nun wie ich bin:” Goethe zum Vergnügen, ed. by Ladenthin, Volker. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael, & Noonan, Michael (eds.). 1988. Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haskell, Todd R., & MacDonald, Maryellen C.. 2003. Conflicting cues and competition in subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 48.760–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding morphology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, & Hünnemeyer, Frederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, & Reh, Mechtild. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Hoberg, Ursula. 2004. Grammatik des Deutschen im europäischen Vergleich: Das Genus des Substantivs. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irmscher, Johannes. 1988. Der Rabe—die Rabin? Zur Theorie der Wortbildung im Deutschen. Dem Wirken Wolfgang Fleischers gewidmet (Sitzungsbericht der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR Gesellschaftswissenschaften. Jahrgang 1988, Nr. 4/G), ed. by Stiller, Heinz, 53–55. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Jobin, Bettina. 2004. Genus im Wandel. Studien zu Genus und Animatizität anhand von Personenbezeichnungen im heutigen Deutsch mit Kontrastierungen zum Schwedischen. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1997. Agreement and the syntax-morphology interface in HPSG. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.49.1289 [accessed 17 Oct. 2008].Google Scholar
Kreyer, Rolf. 2003. Genitive and of-construction in modern written English. Processability and human involvement. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8.169–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2005. Pleonasm and hypercharacterization. http://www.uni-erfurt.de/sprachwissenschaft/personal/lehmann/CL_Publ/Hypercharacterization.pdf [accessed 8 June 2005].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 2005. Syntactic and notional number. Language Log http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/∼myl/languagelog/archives/001876.html [accessed 17 Oct. 2008].Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1997. The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Motsch, Wolfgang. 1999. Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Peter O. 1993. Substantiv-Derivation in den Schriften Albrecht Dürers. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OED Online. The Oxford English dictionary online. http://dictionary.oed.com/entrance.dtl.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1988. The split morphology hypothesis: Evidence from Yiddish. Hammond & Noonan 1988, 79–100.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1981. Morphologische (Ir-)Regularitäten: Aspekte der Wortstrukturtheorie. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Scott, Alan K. 2006a. Productive nominal derivation in New High German: A corpus-based investigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Manchester: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Scott, Alan K. 2006b. Das Suffix -In: Eine Ergänzung zum deutschen Wortbildungssystem. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 73.161–175.Google Scholar
Sick, Bastian. 2004. Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod. Ein Wegweiser durch den Irrgarten der deutschen Sprache. Die Zwiebelfisch-Kolumnen. Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch.Google Scholar
Sitta, Horst. 1984. Der Satz. Duden 1984, 559–755.Google Scholar
Sitta, Horst. 1998. Der Satz. Duden 1998, 609–858.Google Scholar
Sommerfeldt, Karl-Ernst, & Starke, Günther. 1998. Einführung in die Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 3rd edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stricker, Stefanie. 2000. Substantivbildung durch Suffixableitung um 1800. Untersucht an Personenbezeichnungen Goethes. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1998. Inflection. The handbook of morphology, ed. by Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold, 13–43. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2005. Word-formation and inflectional morphology. Handbook of word-formation, ed. by Štekauer, Pavol & Lieber, Rochelle, 49–71. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, & Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dale, van. 1997. Groot Elektronisch Woordenboek Hedendaags Nederlands [CD-ROM]. Versie 1.0 Win32. Utrecht, Antwerpen: Van Dale Lexicografie bv.Google Scholar
van Marle, Jaap. 1996. The unity of morphology: On the interwovenness of the derivational and inflectional dimension of the word. Booij & van Marle 1996, 67–82.Google Scholar
Wellmann, Hans. 1975. Deutsche Wortbildung. Typen und Tendenzen in der Gegenwartssprache. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des Instituts für deutsche Sprache, Forschungsstelle Innsbruck. 2. Hauptteil: Das Substantiv. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
Wellmann, Hans. 1998. Die Wortbildung. Duden 1998, 408–557.Google Scholar