Productivity of Loan Prefixes in Compound Nouns and Adjectives in Slovenian

Authors

  • Mojca Schlamberger Brezar University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Slovenia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4312/vestnik.13.67-90

Keywords:

theory of lexemic word formation, loan prefixes, noun, adjective, productivity

Abstract

The operations of word formation in traditional Slovenian grammar are analysed within the framework of morphematic word formation model. As part of the composition of nouns and adjectives, Toporišič (2000: 194-195, 200-201) lists the following loan prefixes: a, ante, anti, eks, ekstra, hiper, hipo, infra, inter, intra, ko, kontra, meta, sin, sub, super, supra, trans, ultra.

Within the lexemic word formation, the unity is a lexeme. In the paper, the operations of word formation are analysed within the theory of lexemic word formation, particularly with regard to their productivity, based on the data of the monolingual corpus FidaPlus between 2004 and 2006 and Gigafida2.0. The research, carried out between 2004 and 2006 revealed only one productive prefix, anti, whereas recent research showed that in addition to anti, the prefixes kontra, eks, ekstra, and super can function as productive, used with both foreign lexemes and with authentic bases as neologisms. The domestic bases can be proper names (antijanša, kontrajelinčič) or composed adjectives and nouns with original Slovene base (ekstralahek, ekspolicaj), and the productivity of the prefixes can be seen also in oppositions like hipo- in hiperbarična terapija (hypo- and hyperbaric therapy). For all other prefixes, the research points out that their composition in Slovene is more or less a matter of appearance and that they should be dealt as loan words.

The two analyses, that have more than ten years between them, show that we can see the growing productivity of the prefixes. If in the first analysis only anti has shown productivity, the second analysis points out that kontra, eks, ekstra, super are also productive. The words that first appeared as neologisms are now a part of everyday language use.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

ANDERSON, Stephen R. (1992) A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

ARONOFF, Mark (1994) Morphology by itself, stems and inflectional classes. (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 22.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

BAAYEN, Harald (1993) On Frequency, Transparency and Productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1992. 181–208.

BAUER, Laurie (2001) Morphological Productivity. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

BEARD, Robert (1995) Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. Albany : State University of New York.

CENTRE NATIONAL DES RESSOURCES TEXTUELLES ET LEXICALES. Source web. https://www.cnrtl.fr. 20 octobre 2021.

CORBIN, Danielle (1987) Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

CJVT JEZIKOVNA POLITIKA. Source web. https://jezikovna-politika.si/opremljenost/jezikovni-opis/korpusi/. 20 octobre 2021.

CJVT VIRI IN ORODJA. Source web. https://www.cjvt.si/viri-in-orodja/besedilni-korpusi/. 20 octobre 2021.

CREISSELS, Denis (2015) Initiation àla linguistique du terrain. 20. octobre 2020 https://llacan.cnrs.fr/fichiers/cours/Creissels/ling_ter_Morphologie.pdf

DAL, Georgette (2003) Productivité morphologique : définitions et notions connexes. Langue française 140. 3–23.

DESMETS, Marianne/Florence VILLOING (2010) Morphologie constructionnelle et arguments sémantiques du verbe : un traitement HPSG des composés VN du français. Travaux de linguistique 2010/1 (n° 60). 65-89.

DRESSLER, Wolfgang U. (2000) Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology. Ursula DOLESCHAL/Anna M. THORNTON (éd.) : Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology. München : Lincom. 1–10.

DUBOIS, Jean et al. (2002) Dictionnaire de linguistique. Paris : Larousse-Bordas/VUEF.

FRADIN, Bernard (2003) : Fradin. Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France.

KORPUS GIGAFIDA. Source web. www.gigafida.net. 20. Octobre 2021.

MEL’ČUK, Igor A. (1993) Cours de morphologie générale (théorique et descriptive) 1. Montreal, Pariz: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, CNRS.

PERKO, Gregor, (2013) La dimension métalinguistique de la morphologie du français non conventionnel. Linguistica 53/1. 209–220.

PERKO, Gregor (2018) Sur les différentes identités de la morphologie constructionnelle en français. NIKODINOVSKI, Zvonko (éd.). Le même, le semblable et le différent au sein de la langue, de la littérature et de la culture dans les pays francophones =

Istoto, sličnoto i različnoto vo jazikot, vo kniževnosta i vo kulturata vo frankofonskite zemji : [actes du Colloque international, Skopje, 04 - 05 novembre 2016]. Skopje: Université »Sts Cyrille et Méthode«, Faculté de philologie »Blaže Koneski«: = Univerzitet »Sv. Kiril i Metodij«, Filološki fakultet »Blaže Koneski«. 333-342.

PERKO, Gregor/SCHLAMBERGER BREZAR, Mojca (2016) Tvornost tujih in prevzetih glagolskih predpon v slovenščini. KRŽIŠNIK, Erika (éd.)/ Miran HLADNIK (éd.). Toporišičeva obdobja. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete. 173-180.

RIEGEL, Martin et al. (1994) Grammaire méthodique. Paris : PUF.

SCHLAMBERGER BREZAR, Mojca (2011) Le gérondif et le participe présent et leur évolution vers la grammaticalisation : étude contrastive du slovène et du français. Linguistica. 51/1. 333-348.

SP = SLOVENSKI PRAVOPIS. Source web. http://www.fran.si. 20 octobre 2021.

SSKJ = SLOVAR SLOVENSKEGA KNJIZNEGA JEZIKA. Source web. http://bos.zrc-sazu.si. 20 octobre 2021.TOPORIŠIČ, Jože (1992) Enciklopedija slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana : Cankarjeva založba.

TOPORIŠIČ, Jože (2000) Slovenska slovnica. Maribor : Obzorja.

WIKIPEDIA. Source web. https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/FidaPLUS. 20 octobre 2021.

Published

27.12.2021

How to Cite

Schlamberger Brezar, M. (2021). Productivity of Loan Prefixes in Compound Nouns and Adjectives in Slovenian. Journal for Foreign Languages, 13(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.4312/vestnik.13.67-90

Issue

Section

Articles