Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (3)
- Article (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Keywords
- Nominalkompositum (4) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (2)
- Postprint (1)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (1)
- Peer-Review (1)
Publisher
- Benjamins (1)
- Olms (1)
- Peter Lang (1)
- de Gruyter (1)
Early New High German N+N compounds are notoriously difficult to identify. This is mostly due to formally similar or identical pronominal genitive constructions. Furthermore, what looks like a noun at first glance might sometimes be an affixoid, an adjective or a verb stem. The precise identification of compounds is not only relevant for researchers concerned with word-formation. It has consequences for corpus lemmatisation, lexicography and our understanding of the noun phrase, to name just a few areas. Compound identification has been tackled before (mostly by Pavlov [1983] and NITTA [1987]), but modern corpus linguistics allows for a better assessment of all factors involved. This paper reevaluates and outlines strategies to identify Early New High German compounds, aiming to serve as an easily adaptable guideline for future research.
Present-day German uses two formally different patterns of compounding in N+N compounds. The first combines bare stems (e.g. Tisch+decke ‘tablecloth’) while the second contains an intervening linking element (LE) as in Geburt-s-ort ‘birth-LE-place’. The linked compounding type developed in Early New High German (1350–1650) from phrasal constructions by reanalyzing genitive attributes as first constituents of compounds. The present paper uses corpus data to explore three key stages in this development: In the initial stage, it shows how prenominal non-specific genitive constructions lent themselves to reanalysis due to their functional overlap and formal similarity. Additionally, compounds seem to have replaced not only prenominal genitives, but also structurally different postnominal genitives. In the second stage, the new compounding pattern increases in productivity between 1500 and 1710, especially compared to the older pattern without linking elements. The last stage pertains to changes in spelling practice. It shows that linked compounds were written separately in the beginning. Their gradual graphematic integration into directly connected words was reversed by a century of hyphenation (1650–1750). This is strikingly different from present-day spelling practice and shows that the linked pattern was still perceived as marked.
The present paper explores the change in distribution and potential function as well as the interplay of two phenomena that occur at the internal boundaries of nominal compounds, namely linking elements and hyphenation. About 40% of present-day German compounds contain a linking element, most prominently -s- (e.g. Geburt-s-ort ‘birth place’). Numerous theories have been brought forward to explain its function, two of which are examined here: It will be shown that the linking-s tends to mark morphologically complex constituents while the assumption that it prefers marked phonological words cannot be corroborated.
Linked compounds in present-day German use hyphenation, a strategy that is mostly employed with graphematically or phonologically marked constituents, at a much smaller rate than unlinked compounds. In Early New High German (ENHG, 1350-1650), when the linked type arose by reanalyzing prenominal genitive attributes as first constituents of compounds, the reverse held true: Linked compounds underwent a gradual graphematic integration from separate writing into directly connected words which was partly reversed by a century of hyphenation (1650-1750). While hyphenation also occurred with unlinked compounds, the linked compounds show a striking preference with hyphenation rates reaching a peak at around 90%. It will be argued that ENHG hyphenation had the same function it has today, namely structuring constituents that are perceived as marked: The change in spelling between ENHG and today reflects the integration of a formerly syntactic and thereby marked pattern into word-formation.
This paper studies the morphological productivity of German N+N compounding patterns from a diachronic perspective. It argues that the productivity of compounds increases due to syntactic influence from genitive constructions (“improper compounds”) in Early New High German. Both quantitative and qualitative productivity measures are adapted from derivational morphology and tested on compound data from the Mainz Corpus of (Early) New High German (1500–1710).