Maria
Bloch-Trojnar
Contributions to journals
This paper demonstrates that a quantitative frequency analysis of the data (Baayen 1992, 1993) from the New Corpus for Ireland (Nua-Chorpas na hÉireann) can shed new light on certain problems inherent in a purely qualitative analysis of passive potential adjectives as proposed in Bloch-Trojnar (2016). The range and status of so- and in- derivatives (including derivational doublets) are discussed on the basis of their semantics, distribution and frequency and it is argued that both so- and in- should be regarded as exponents of potential or objective adjectives in Irish. The respective derivatives show no marked differences in token frequencies, which does not allow us to classify one or the other as being more entrenched or less productive, since in both we find a comparable proportion of high and low frequency items. A corpus analysis allows us to establish that the range of in- derivatives is expanding at the expense of so- derivatives, but this expansion has not yet reached the systemic level of productivity restrictions. The semantic and syntactic constraints on the rule do not allow us to disjunctively specify the exact domains of the prefixes. In the class of transitive verbs so- shows a preference for verbs of motion, and in- for verbs of measure, transfer of possession, judgement verbs and SE verbs. Another piece of evidence in favour of subsuming so- and in- under one word formation rule is that the negative prefix do- attaches indiscriminately to both so- and in- formations.
This paper demonstrates that a quantitative frequency analysis of the data (Baayen 1992, 1993) from the New Corpus for Ireland (Nua-Chorpas na hÉireann) can shed new light on certain problems inherent in a purely qualitative analysis of passive potential adjectives as proposed in Bloch-Trojnar (2016). The range and status of so- and in- derivatives (including derivational doublets) are discussed on the basis of their semantics, distribution and frequency and it is argued that both so- and in- should be regarded as exponents of potential or objective adjectives in Irish. The respective derivatives show no marked differences in token frequencies, which does not allow us to classify one or the other as being more entrenched or less productive, since in both we find a comparable proportion of high and low frequency items. A corpus analysis allows us to establish that the range of in- derivatives is expanding at the expense of so- derivatives, but this expansion has not yet reached the systemic level of productivity restrictions. The semantic and syntactic constraints on the rule do not allow us to disjunctively specify the exact domains of the prefixes. In the class of transitive verbs so- shows a preference for verbs of motion, and in- for verbs of measure, transfer of possession, judgement verbs and SE verbs. Another piece of evidence in favour of subsuming so- and in- under one word formation rule is that the negative prefix do- attaches indiscriminately to both so- and in- formations.
The paper focuses on verbs which are derived from agent nouns in Modern Irish, e.g. siúinéir 'joiner' – ag siúinéireacht 'doing joinery work', ceardaí 'craftsman' – ag ceardaíocht 'working as a craftsman'. The analysis is carried out in the model of Lexeme Morpheme Base Morphology put forward by Beard (1995), whose cornerstone is the separation of the grammatical and formal aspect of word formation rules. As far as the grammatical plane is concerned, the input and output are specified. The rule operates on lexical, denominal and deverbal agents. The article argues that the resulting verbs form a separate lexical class of defective verbs which are confined to expressing progressive aspect and should be specified as [+progressive/ imperfective]. This would imply that the imperfective aspect in Irish is not only a grammatical but also a lexical category. As far as spell-out mechanisms are concerned, the abstract morphological relation is formally realised by a rule of affixation attaching the suffix: -(e)acht [WXt]. -íocht is not a separate ending but a contextually conditioned allomorph. The paper also briefly addresses the question of a sizeable group of forms terminating in -(e)acht and -íocht which are not attested in verbal usage. Either we have to do with actional nominalizations based on potential present participles or we are dealing with representatives of a separate lexical category, i.e. Nomina Essendi, which happens to be marked with homophonous affixes -(e)acht and -íocht.
The paper focuses on verbs which are derived from agent nouns in Modern Irish, e.g. siúinéir 'joiner' – ag siúinéireacht 'doing joinery work', ceardaí 'craftsman' – ag ceardaíocht 'working as a craftsman'. The analysis is carried out in the model of Lexeme Morpheme Base Morphology put forward by Beard (1995), whose cornerstone is the separation of the grammatical and formal aspect of word formation rules. As far as the grammatical plane is concerned, the input and output are specified. The rule operates on lexical, denominal and deverbal agents. The article argues that the resulting verbs form a separate lexical class of defective verbs which are confined to expressing progressive aspect and should be specified as [+progressive/ imperfective]. This would imply that the imperfective aspect in Irish is not only a grammatical but also a lexical category. As far as spell-out mechanisms are concerned, the abstract morphological relation is formally realised by a rule of affixation attaching the suffix: -(e)acht [WXt]. -íocht is not a separate ending but a contextually conditioned allomorph. The paper also briefly addresses the question of a sizeable group of forms terminating in -(e)acht and -íocht which are not attested in verbal usage. Either we have to do with actional nominalizations based on potential present participles or we are dealing with representatives of a separate lexical category, i.e. Nomina Essendi, which happens to be marked with homophonous affixes -(e)acht and -íocht.
