1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 2, 2016
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 2, 2016

Expressives Across Languages: Form/Function Correlation

Abstract

This article presents a review of works on expressive linguistic objects in the Principles and Parameters framework (Chomsky 1995a,b; 2001). It discusses case studies of expressives in Russian, German, Halkomelem, Maale, Walman (Valman), Kolyma Yukaghir, Itelmen, Tongan, and Spanish, as well as in Breton and Yiddish. The article demonstrates that two semantic types (size and attitude) of expressives correspond to a great variety of syntactic structures across languages, as well as within a single language (e.g., Russian). It shows that there is no direct one-to-one correlation between the form and function of expressives, which has important implications for the syntactic–semantic mapping of categorization (Wiltschko 2008, 2014). This review is of interest to theoretical linguists, language-area specialists, and language typologists. It is also relevant to the fields of education and endangered Aboriginal language documentation, maintenance, and revitalization, as one-third of languages investigated here are endangered and on the verge of extinction (e.g., Halkomelem, Itelmen, Kolyma Yukaghir, Walman).

Keyword(s): diminutive, endangered languages, expressive, morphosyntax, syntactic typology
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040818
2016-01-14
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/2/1/annurev-linguistics-011415-040818.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040818&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abney S. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspects PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., MIT, Cambridge 363
  2. Acquaviva P. 2009. Roots and lexicality in Distributed Morphology. York Pap. Linguist. 10:1–21 [Google Scholar]
  3. Amha A. 2001. The Maale Language Leiden, Neth.: Res. Sch. Asian, Afr., Am. Stud., Univ. Leiden
  4. Anderson S. 1982. Where's morphology?. Linguist. Inq. 13:571–612 [Google Scholar]
  5. Arad M. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: the case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 21:737–78 [Google Scholar]
  6. Aronoff M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  7. Bachrach A, Wagner M. 2007. Syntactically driven cyclicity versus output–output correspondence: the case of adjunction in diminutive morphology Presented at Annu. Penn. Linguist. Colloq., 30th, Philadelphia
  8. Bauer L. 1997. Evaluative morphology: in search of universals. Stud. Lang. 21:533–75 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bauer L. 2004. A Glossary of Morphology Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh Univ. Press
  10. Beard R. 1998. Derivation. The Handbook of Morphology A Spencer, A Zwicky 44–65 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  11. Bierwisch M. 2003. Heads, complements, adjuncts: projections and saturation. Modifying Adjuncts E Lang, C Maienborn, C Fabricius-Hansen 113–59 Berlin/New York: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  12. Bobaljik J. 2002. Syncretism without paradigms: remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. Yearbook of Morphology 2001 G Booij, J van Marle 53–85 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer [Google Scholar]
  13. Bobaljik J. 2005. Itelmen plural diminutives: a belated reply to Perlmutter 1988. Yearbook of Morphology 2004 G Booij, J van Marle 317–19 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer [Google Scholar]
  14. Bonet E. 1991. Morphology after syntax: pronominal clitics in Romance PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., MIT, Cambridge, MA. 240 pp.
  15. Bybee J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Form and Meaning Amsterdam: Benjamins
  16. Chomsky N. 1995a. The Minimalist Program Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  17. Chomsky N. 1995b. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik R Marvin, D Michaels, J Uriagereka 8–153 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  18. Chomsky N. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Language MJ Kenstowicz 1–52 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  19. Churchward C. 1953. Tongan Grammar Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  20. Dressler W, Barbaresi M. 1994. Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages Berlin/New York: de Gruyter
  21. Dukes M. 1996. On the nonexistence of pronominals and anaphors in Tongan PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Calif., Los Angeles 248
  22. Embick D, Marantz A. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguist. Inq. 39:1–53 [Google Scholar]
  23. Embick D, Noyer R. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax–morphology interface. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces G Ramchand, C Reiss 289–324 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  24. Fábregas A. 2012. Structural and lexical aspects of the grammar of desinences. Poznań Stud. Contemp. Linguist. 48:239–84 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fortin A. 2011. The morphology and semantics of expressive affixes DPhil thesis, Dep. Linguist. Phon., Univ. Oxford, UK 200
  26. Grandi N. 2011. Evaluative affixes between inflection and derivation: a typological survey Presented at Annu. Meet. Soc. Linguist. Eur., 44th, Univ. de la Rioja, Logrono
  27. Georg S, Volodin A. 1999. Die itelmenische Sprache: Grammatik und Texte Wiesbaden, Ger: Harrassowitz
  28. Halle M. 1997. Distributed Morphology: impoverishment and fission. MIT Work. Pap. Linguist. 30:425–49 [Google Scholar]
  29. Halle M, Marantz A. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger K Hale, S Keyser 111–76 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  30. Halle M, Matushansky O. 2006. The morphophonology of Russian adjectival inflection. Linguist. Inq. 37:351–404 [Google Scholar]
  31. Harley H, Noyer R. 1999. State-of-the-article: distributed morphology. GLOT 4:3–9 [Google Scholar]
  32. Harley H, Noyer R. 2003. Distributed Morphology. The Second GLOT International State-of-the-Article Book L Cheng, R Sybesma 463–96 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  33. Hendrick R. 2005. Tongan determiners and semantic composition. Language 81:907–26 [Google Scholar]
  34. Körtvélyessy L. 2015. Evaluative Morphology from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Sch. Publ.
  35. Kramer R. 2009. Definite markers phi-features and agreement: a morphosyntactic investigation of the Amharic DP PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Calif., Santa Cruz 348
  36. Kramer R. 2014. Gender in Amharic: a morphosyntactic approach to natural and grammatical gender. Lang. Sci. 43:593–634 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lecarme J. 2002. Gender “polarity”: theoretical aspects of Somali nominal morphology. Many Morphologies P Boucher, M Plenat 109–41 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla [Google Scholar]
  38. Lowenstamm J. 2007. On little n, ROOT, and types of nouns. The Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology J Hartmann, V Hegedus, H van Riemsdjik 105–44 Amsterdam: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  39. Lewis MP, Simons GF, Fennig CD. 2015. Ethnologue: Languages of the World Dallas, TX: SIL Int, 18th. http://www.ethnologue.com
  40. Macdonald CM. 2014. Functional projections and non-local relations in Tongan nominal phrases PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Toronto, Can 286
  41. Manova S. 2004. Derivation versus inflection in three inflecting languages. Morphology and Its Demarcations WU Dressler, D Kastovsky, OE Pfeiffer, F Rainer, F Gardani, MA Pöchtrager 233–52 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  42. Marantz A. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. Univ. Penn. Work. Pap. Linguist. 4:14 [Google Scholar]
  43. Marantz A. 2001. Words Work. pap., Dep. Linguist., MIT
  44. Marvin T. 2002. Topics in the Stress and Syntax of Words Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  45. Maslova E. 2003. A Grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir Berlin/New York: de Gruyter
  46. Massam D. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 19:153–97 [Google Scholar]
  47. Matushansky O, Marantz A. 2013. Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  48. Ott D. 2011. Diminutive-formation in German: spelling out the classifier analysis. J. Comp. Ger. Linguist. 14:1–46 [Google Scholar]
  49. Perlmutter D. 1988. The split morphology hypothesis: evidence from Yiddish. Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics M Hammond, M Noonan 79–100 San Diego: Academic [Google Scholar]
  50. Pesetsky D. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  51. Postal P. 1969. On so-called pronouns in English. Readings in English Transformational Grammar RA Jacobs, PS Rosenbaum 12–25 Waltham, MA: Ginn [Google Scholar]
  52. Potts C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  53. Potts C. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theor. Linguist. 33:165–97 [Google Scholar]
  54. Potts C, Kawahara S. 2004. Japanese honorifics as emotive definite descriptions. Proc. Semant. Linguist. Theory 14:235–54 [Google Scholar]
  55. Scalise S. 1984. Generative Morphology Dordrecht, Neth: Foris
  56. Scalise S. 1988. The notion of ‘head’ in morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1988 G Booij, J van Marle 229–45 Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer Acad. [Google Scholar]
  57. Schütze C. 1995. PP attachment and argumenthood. MIT Work. Pap. Linguist. 26:95–151 [Google Scholar]
  58. Stankiewicz E. 1968. Declension and Gradation of Russian Substantives The Hague, Neth: Mouton
  59. Steriopolo O. 2008. Form and function of expressive morphology: a case study of Russian PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. B.C., Vancouver, Can 204
  60. Steriopolo O. 2009. Form and function of expressive morphology: a case study of Russian. Russ. Lang. J. 59:149–94 [Google Scholar]
  61. Steriopolo O. 2013. Diminutive affixes in the Number domain: a syntactic variation. Quest. Answ. Linguist. 1:33–56 [Google Scholar]
  62. Steriopolo O. 2015. Syntactic variation in expressive size suffixes: a comparison of Russian, German, and Spanish. SKASE J. Theor. Linguist. 12:2–21 [Google Scholar]
  63. Steriopolo O, Wiltschko M. 2010. Distributed gender hypothesis. Formal Studies in Slavic Linguistics G Zybatow, P Dudchuk, S Minor, E Pshehotskaya 155–72 New York: Lang [Google Scholar]
  64. Stump G. 1993. How peculiar is evaluative morphology?. J. Linguist. 29:1–36 [Google Scholar]
  65. Stump G. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  66. Szymanek B. 1988. Categories and Categorization in Morphology Lublin, Pol.: Red. Wydaw. Katol. Uniw. Lubelskiego
  67. Vinogradov V. 1972. Russkij Jazyk Moscow: Uchpedgiz, 2nd ed..
  68. Wierzbicka A. 1989. The semantic primitives: the expanding set. Quad. Semant. 10:309–32 [Google Scholar]
  69. Wiltschko M. 2006. Why should diminutives count?. Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk H Broekhuis, N Corver, R Huijbregts, U Kleinhenz, J Koster 669–79 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  70. Wiltschko M. 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 26:639–94 [Google Scholar]
  71. Wiltschko M. 2014. The Universal Structure of Categories Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  72. Wiltschko M, Steriopolo O. 2007. Parameters of variation in the syntax of diminutives. Proceedings of the 2007 Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference M Radisic. http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/∼cla-acl/actes2007/Wiltschko_Steriopolo.pdf
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040818
Loading
Expressives Across Languages: Form/Function Correlation
Annual Review of Linguistics 2, 293 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040818
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040818
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040818
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error