On Valence Morphemes in Afrikaans Gerhard B van

On Valence Morphemes in Afrikaans Gerhard B van Huyssteen Centre for Text Technology (CTex. T) Research Unit: Languages and Literature in the South African Context North-West University, Potchefstroom South Africa E-mail: ntlgbvh@puk. ac. za ICLC 2005 19 July 2005

Introduction The Phenomenon • hondebyt (‘dog-bite’) [[hond][e][byt]] [[dog][VAL][bite]] • fakulteitsraad (‘faculty board’) [[fakulteit][s][raad]] [[faculty][VAL][board]] • [VAL] = Valence Morpheme ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Introduction Valence Morpheme? • “What’s in a name? ” Phonological linking sound transition sound link phoneme in-between sound linking schwa epenthetic -s-/-e- Morphological phonomorpheme paramorpheme joining morpheme/joining-s interfix linking grapheme/morpheme linking suffix stem extender empty morph “Fogemorpheme” augment Neutral/Unsure linking element valence element linking forms linking-s Linker “Fugenelement” • Working term: valence morpheme (VAL) ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Introduction Overview • Background – Compounding in Afrikaans – Previous Studies • Characterisation of Valence Morpheme – Valence Factors • Conclusion and Implications ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Background Compounding in Afrikaans • Compounding: – productive, – concatenative – word-formation process in many Indo. European/Germanic languages • (Baroni et al, 2002; Goldsmith & Reutter, 1998) ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Background Productivity I corpus size tokens Swedish Norwegian German compounds types tokens 50 000 7% 440 10, 7% 28 000 7% Dutch ICLC 2005 type 47% 25% 2 500 37% (N) Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Background Productivity I corpus size tokens Swedish Norwegian German compounds types tokens types 50 000 7% 440 10, 7% 28 000 7% 47% Dutch 25% Dutch Afrikaans** 2 500 1991 790 37% (N) 12, 8% 26, 6% ** – Newspaper articles: Die Wêreld en Rapport, 5 June 2005, pp. 13 -15 ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Background Productivity II ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Background Productivity III ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Background Concatenative I • stem/root/word + stem/root/word – boekrak (‘book case’) [[boek][rak]] – bioloog (‘biologist’) [[bio][loog]] – erfenisreëling (‘inheritance arrangement’) [[[erf][enis]][[reël][ing]]] [[[inherit][NR]][[arrange][NR]]] ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Background Concatenative II • 2 or more constituents Compounds 70 683 2 Constituents 55 891 79. 073% 3 Constituents 13 522 19. 130% 4 Constituents 1 196 1. 692% 5 Constituents 71 0. 100% 6 Constituents 3 0. 004% • Also more: – 12 constituents lugafweerkanontrekuitdaagwedloopbyeenkoms ‘air defence canon pull race challenge gathering’ ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Background Concatenative III – stem + valence morpheme + stem • verkoopsprys (‘retail price’) [[verkoop][s][prys]] [[retail][VAL][price]] • advokatepraktyk (‘advocate’s practice’) [[advokaat][e][praktyk]] [[advocate][VAL][practice]] • see-eend (‘sea duck’) [[see][-][eend]] [[sea][-][duck]] ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Background Concatenative IV – Combrink (1990) identifies 9 “linking forms” that appear in compounds: • -n-s-e(-o-) • -en-es-er • -ens-der– Other literature: • -ns • -ere • -dere– No mention of: • hyphen ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Background All Valence Morphemes n=11 572 -s- 9 524 82. 20% dame _ s + frokkie -e- 1 191 10. 28% heks _ e + masker -ns- 126 1. 09% lyde _ ns + gebeure -er- 101 0. 87% kind _ er + moordenaar -ens- 58 0. 50% nooi _ ens + perskes -ere 30 0. 26% goed _ ere + trein -n- 12 0. 10% buite _ n + gewone -en- 3 0. 03% vertrou _ en + swendel -es- 0 0. 00% ? geest _ es + oog -o- 0 0. 00% *bibli _ o + grafie -der- 0 0. 00% been _ der + gestel -dere- 0 0. 00% been _ dere _ - + urn 541 4. 67% babatjie _ - + olifant hyphen ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Background Previous Studies • Germanic Languages • Dutch • Afrikaans: – Botha (1968) – Kempen (1969) – Combrink (1990) • No CG account ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Aim • Aim: – To describe the valence morpheme in terms of Cognitive Grammar • Focus today: – Description in terms of valence factors: (Langacker, 1987: 277; Taylor, 2002: 323) • Schematicity • Promiscuity • Conceptual and phonological autonomy and dependence • Constituency • Profile determinacy ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Schematicity • “…the extent to which the phonological and/or semantic poles of a symbolic unit are rich in content or are schematic” (Taylor, 2002: 323) • Phonological pole of VAL is schematic, while semantic pole is even more schematic • “Lightweight” constituent (Tuggy, 1992) ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Schematicity Pictorial Diagram • Convention: Tuggy (2005) ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Schematicity The Phonological Pole ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Promiscuity • “The extent to which a unit is free to combine with virtually anything as opposed to the requirement that it combines only with units of a specified kind” (Taylor, 2002: 328 -329) • Valence morpheme is choosy ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Promiscuity All Compounds • Conclusion: VAL is quite choosy in general ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Promiscuity Choosiness of -s-s- n=9 524 -ing 3031 -heid 693 -iteit 195 -ent 145 -skap 113 -ling 28 -aard 3 -sie 0 -ant 0 -ensie 0 -te 0 -sel 0 -ansie 0 • (Cf. Combrink, 1990) -ent -ling • Conclusion: -s- is also choosy with regard to morphological context 4 208 ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Promiscuity The Phonological Pole ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

A/D Asymmetry Autonomy & Dependence • “The degree to which one structure presupposes another structure for its manifestation” (Langacker, 1987: 486; 488; Taylor, 2002: 327) • VAL is semantically and phonologically highly dependent ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

A/D Asymmetry Scalar Positioning valence morpheme zero morpheme dependent inflectional affixes derivational affixes semantic root autonomous stem autonomous phonological dependent • (cf. Taylor, 2002: 328) • (cf. Tuggy, 1992: 279) ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Constituency • “The order in which component structures are successively combined to form progressively more elaborate composite structures” (Langacker, 1987: 310) left zero prefix morpheme right root stem VAL suffix zero morpheme [[hond] [e] [[moed][e][loos]] [hok]] ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Profile Determinacy • “The adoption of the profile of a component structure as the profile of the composite structure” (Langacker, 1987: 288) ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Profile Determinacy Prototypicality • All valence morphemes are equal, but some are more equal than others… – Prototypical: VAL • hondebyt (‘dog-bite’) [[hond][e][byt]] [[dog][VAL][bite]] – Less prototypical: GEN • hondekos (‘dog’s food’) [[hond][e][kos]] or [[[hond][e]][kos]] [[dog][VAL][food]] or [[[dog][GEN]][food]] – No category member: PL ICLC 2005 • hondehawe (‘kennels’) [[[hond][e]][hawe]] [[[dog][PL]][harbour]] Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Conclusion Summary: Definition • Valence morpheme is: – a choosy symbolic unit – with a schematic phonological pole and a highly schematic semantic pole, – which is both phonologically and semantically highly dependent, – and which combines: • to the right of a stem/root/word, followed by another stem/root/word, or • to the left of a suffix, preceded by a stem/root/word – without contributing to the profile of the composite structure on any level of constituency ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Conclusion Difference from Prefixes/Suffixes • Valence morpheme is: – a choosy symbolic unit – with a schematic phonological pole and a highly schematic semantic pole, – which is both phonologically and semantically highly dependent, – and which combines: • to the right of a stem/root/word, followed by another stem/root/word, or • to the left of a suffix, preceded by a stem/root/word – without contributing to the profile of the composite structure on any level of constituency ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Conclusion Difference from Prefixes/Suffixes • Valence morpheme is: – a choosy symbolic unit – with a schematic phonological pole and a highly schematic semantic pole, – which is both phonologically and semantically highly dependent, – and which combines: • to the right of a stem/root/word, followed by another stem/root/word, or • to the left of a suffix, preceded by a stem/root/word – without contributing to the profile of the composite structure on any level of constituency ICLC 2005 Gerhard B van Huyssteen

Conclusion Another Structural Category? • Valence morpheme – systematic and conceptually different from affixes • Maybe a paramorpheme (De Groot, 1966: 107)? Dependent Schematic Choosy ICLC 2005 Independent Specific Promiscuous Gerhard B van Huyssteen