Why *-ling-in? : The pertinacity of a wrong gender


Dateien zu dieser Ressource

Prüfsumme: MD5:72b18638ce5e5539d7d7a9fb570636bc

PLANK, Frans, 2011. Why *-ling-in? : The pertinacity of a wrong gender. In: Morphology. 22(2), pp. 277-292. ISSN 1871-5621. eISSN 1871-5656

@article{Plank2011*-lin-21956, title={Why *-ling-in? : The pertinacity of a wrong gender}, year={2011}, doi={10.1007/s11525-011-9188-3}, number={2}, volume={22}, issn={1871-5621}, journal={Morphology}, pages={277--292}, author={Plank, Frans} }

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/rdf/resource/123456789/21956"> <bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/21956"/> <dcterms:title>Why *-ling-in? : The pertinacity of a wrong gender</dcterms:title> <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="http://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-20140905103605204-4002607-1"/> <dcterms:issued>2011</dcterms:issued> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> <dcterms:bibliographicCitation>Morphology ; 22 (2012), 2. - S. 277-292</dcterms:bibliographicCitation> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2013-02-20T07:39:21Z</dc:date> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2013-05-14T22:25:06Z</dcterms:available> <dc:creator>Plank, Frans</dc:creator> <dc:contributor>Plank, Frans</dc:contributor> <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Co-occurrence restrictions among affixes are preferably accounted for through general structural constraints, to do with separations of word-internal domains, with hierarchical rankings of the affixes involved, with processing complexity, or with word-prosodic patterns. Disallowing particular designated affixes to combine with one another by (language-particular) stipulation is considered a theoretical option only to be taken as a last resort. Against this backdrop it is argued here that in the much-discussed German case of diminutive-pejorative-absolutive suffix -ling the preclusion of further derivational affixation, in particular suffixation with feminine motional -in, is not due to any such general constraint; rather, this must be recognised as an instance of an affix-specific selectional restriction of a morphosemantic kind. The chief theoretical interest of this particular case is diachronic. While inner suffix -ling, originally a semantically neutral nominalising suffix, was able to acquire a diminutive, pejorative, absolutive-aligned ("passive") semantics, its original gender remained masculine rather than changing to neuter, as would be semantically more suitable. Thus, with the outer, feminine-deriving suffix -in being sensitive to the gender of its nominal bases, nouns which are formally masculine, as required by -in suffixation, but on semantic grounds ought to be neuter are infelicitous.</dcterms:abstract> <dc:rights>deposit-license</dc:rights> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>

Dateiabrufe seit 01.10.2014 (Informationen über die Zugriffsstatistik)

plank_219564.pdf 327

Das Dokument erscheint in:

KOPS Suche


Mein Benutzerkonto