Abstract
This paper aims at exploring the polysemy of the Modern Greek prepositional prefix iper- within Lieber’s (2004, 2007) semantic framework, by using corpus-based findings on its meaning and productivity. On the basis of our data, drawn from the Corpus of Greek Texts, two large meaning super-categories are identified, namely spatial localization and non-spatial localization; the latter is further distinguished into evaluative and non-evaluative, of which evaluative is further divided into several meanings. The measurement of productivity across meanings has shown that non-spatial and evaluative meanings are more productive, while spatial and non-evaluative meanings tend to be much more restricted. Following Lieber’s model, we suggest that iper- displays a unitary skeleton with the feature [+Loc], which accounts for the non-evaluative meanings of the prefix, while the evaluative meanings can be analyzed as an extension of non-evaluative meanings. The meanings identified in the corpus are regrouped in the light of this analysis and are further distinguished within each body by the different features they display in their bases. Lieber’s model is found to have cross-linguistic validity and to be useful in organizing a large variety of meanings into a few main structures. The fact that the semantic analysis is informed by corpus-based findings on the meaning and productivity of the prefix seems to provide a firmer ground than intuitive or lexicographic examples.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Stress shift can be observed in older or [+learned] neological adjectives in -os, which are derived from monosyllabic or disyllabic nominal or adjectival bases.
This category also includes non-declinable forms in -ondas/-óndas with adverbial use (e.g. iper-aplustévondas ‘oversimplifying’, iper-esioδoksóndas ‘being over-optimistic’), which have been treated in the literature in various ways: as participles (Nakas 2012), as gerunds (Holton et al. 1997) or as converbs (Moser 2006).
Adjectival participles are considered in this paper to be a separate category on the basis of morphological criteria. They are not treated as belonging to the category of adjectives, nor that of verbs, since there is no consensus among researchers that the so-called periphrastic types of the present perfect and past perfect in the passive voice (íme ‘to be’ + past participle) are included in the tense system of Greek. It has been argued, instead, that these structures are mainly stative predicates and thus closely related to the category of adjectives (see, among else, Moser 1994: 140ff.).
The phonetic transcription of all Ancient Greek examples follows their Modern Greek pronunciation.
The structure of parasynthetic constructions involves the simultaneous presence of prefixes and suffixes (see e.g. Plag 2003: 40): e.g. ipér-j-i(os) ADJ ‘aboveground’ (DPREF-earthN-DSUFF-ISUFF; *jios), iper-vitamín-os(i) N ‘hypervitaminosis’ (DPREF-vitaminN-DSUFF-ISUFF; *vitamín-osi).
This case can be considered as a bracketing paradox for the following reason: the derived adjective seems to be formally derived from the adjective astikós ‘urban’, but its meaning is formed on the meaning of the noun ásti ‘city’.
For discussion see e.g. Ralli (2004).
As an anonymous reviewer rightly points out, the coexistence of locational and non-locational meanings in the Modern Greek iper- may also be explicable as a result of layering of meanings, i.e. a principle of grammaticalization, which concerns the continual emergence of new layers. According to Hopper (1991: 22), new layers do not necessarily discard older layers, but remain to coexist and interact with them. It is true that older, spatial meanings co-exist today with more recent, more subjective meanings. Note, however, that the picture concerning the semantics of iper- is more complicated; in our data (see Sect. 4) the locational meaning of spatial localization appears mostly in [+learned] formations usually translated from French and English (e.g. iperáktios ‘offshore’, iperivikós ‘suprapubic’) or in words of Ancient Greek origin (e.g. iperíptame ‘to overfly’, ipérjios ‘aboveground’). In our opinion, this suggests that the initial locational meaning of iper- may have been rejuvenated in Modern Greek through terms adopted from foreign languages.
The corpus is available at http://sek.edu.gr.
For the terms corpus-based and corpus-driven see e.g. Tognini-Bonelli (2001: 17).
For the semantic description of our data, we use the labels employed in Amiot (2004), namely spatial localization, non-spatial localization, high degree, excess and superiority.
See our comment on bracketing paradoxes in Sect. 2.
See Lieber (2004: 24).
According to Lieber (2004: 26–27), substances/things/essences which are processual in nature (e.g. author, chef) bear some value of the feature [dynamic] as well as [material].
The skeleton of -er contains the features [+material, +dynamic], because the suffix creates concrete processual nouns (Lieber 2004: 36–37).
In Lieber’s (2004: 128) analysis, body-2 accounts for the completive sense of over-.
Perhaps other combinations of body characteristics are needed for the description of the homophonous MGr preposition, but we will leave this issue open, as its examination goes beyond the scope of this paper.
This feature was developed in Lieber (2007).
A more detailed treatment of parasynthetic derivatives and bracketing paradoxes must be postponed, since the (compulsory) co-occurrence of prefixes and suffixes in these structures and the interaction of their meaning with the properties of the base need a special account. Furthermore, the simultaneous presence (or the absence) of a number of arguments in the skeleton of prefixes and suffixes gives rise to a number of problems that relate to the principle of coindexation (for a discussion on the assumption that prefixes come with arguments see Andreou, this issue). This is also an subject that requires further research.
For a discussion of derivational redundancy, see Lieber (2004: 161–166).
Interestingly enough, this analysis accords with Tyler and Evans’ (2001) suggestions about the origin of the intensifying meaning, as well as Efthymiou’s (2015) remark that in Modern Greek deadjectival adjectives the meaning of intensification is almost always expressed by prepositional prefixes or prefixoids.
This proposal is reminiscent of Lieber’s (2004) account of -ize; her analysis is based on the assumption that performative and simulative classes arise as sense extensions of the more robust semantic patterns.
References
Amiot, D. (2004). Haut degré et préfixation. In F. Lefeuvre & M. Noailly (Eds.), Travaux linguistiques du Cerlico: Vol. 17. Intensité, Comparaison, Degré (pp. 91–104). Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Amiot, D. (2005). Between compounding and derivation: elements of word formation corresponding to prepositions. In W. U. Dressler, D. Kastovsky, O. Pfeiffer, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Morphology and its demarcations (pp. 183–195). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Amiot, D. (2012). De la localisation à l’evaluation: des verbs prefixes évaluatifs au sens bien particulier. Corela [En ligne]. HS-12. http://corela.revues.org/2775. Accessed October 10, 2014.
Anastassiadis-Symeonidis, A., & Masoura, E. (2012). Word ending-part and phonological memory: a theoretical approach. In T. Stolz, H. Otsuka, A. Urdze, & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), Irregularity in morphology (and beyond) (pp. 127–140). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Athanasiadou, A. (2007). On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences, 29, 554–565.
Baayen, R. H. (1992). A quantitative approach to morphological productivity. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991 (pp. 109–149). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Baayen, R. H. (1993). On frequency, transparency and productivity. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992 (pp. 181–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Baayen, R. H. (2001). Word frequency distributions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Baayen, H., & Lieber, R. (1991). Productivity and English derivation: a corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29, 801–843.
Baayen, H., & Renouf, A. (1996). Chronicling “The Times”: productive innovations in an English newspaper. Language, 72, 69–96.
Babiniotis, G. (2002). Dictionary of Modern Greek. Athens: Lexicology Centre [in Greek].
Baroni, M., & Evert, S. (2006). The zipfR package for lexical statistics: A tutorial introduction. http://zipfr.r-forge.r-project.org/materials/zipfr-tutorial.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2014.
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bierwisch, M. (1996). How much space gets into language? In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 31–76). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Booij, G. (2005). Compounding and derivation. Evidence from construction morphology. In W. U. Dressler, D. Kastovsky, O. Pfeiffer, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Morphology and its demarcations (pp. 109–132). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booij, G., & Lieber, R. (2004). On the paradigmatic nature of affixal semantics in English and Dutch. Linguistics, 42, 327–357.
Bortone, P. (2010). Greek prepositions. From antiquity to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cacchiani, S. (2011). Intensifying affixes across Italian and English. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 47(4), 758–794.
Corbin, D. (1987). Morphologie dérivationelle et structuration du lexique. Vols. 2. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Crocco Galèas, G., & Iacobini, C. (1993). The Italian parasynthetic verbs: a particular kind of circumfix. In L. Tonelli & W. U. Dressler (Eds.), Natural morphology. Perspectives for the nineties (pp. 127–142). Padova: Unipress.
Darmesteter, A. (1894). Traité de la formation des mots composes dans la langue française comparée aux autres langues romanes et au Latin (2nd ed.). Paris: Barillon.
Dressler, W., & Merlini-Barbaresi, L. (1994). Morphopragmatics: diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German and other languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Efthymiou, A. (2003). Prefixes and first constituents denoting intensity in Modern Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 23, 519–528 [in Greek].
Efthymiou, A. (2013). Modern Greek parasynthetic constructions with iper- and para-: Do they contain more phonological material than needed? Paper presented at the 9th Mediterranean morphology meeting, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 15–18 September 2013.
Efthymiou, A. (2015). Modern Greek diminutive and augmentative adjectives (in a cross-linguistic perspective). Skase Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 21(1), 57–71.
Efthymiou, A., Fragaki, G., & Markos, A. (2012). Productivity of verb forming suffixes in Modern Greek: a corpus-based study. Morphology, 22(4), 515–545.
Efthymiou, A., Fragaki, G., & Markos, A. (2014a). Exploring the meaning and productivity of a polysemous prefix. The case of the Modern Greek prepositional prefix para-. Paper presented at the 16th international morphology meeting, Budapest, Hungary, 29 May–1 June 2014.
Efthymiou, A., Fragaki, G., & Markos, A. (2014b). Aspects of productivity of the Modern Greek prefix iper-: a corpus-based study. In G. Kotzoglou, K. Nikolou, E. Karantzola, K. Frantzi, I. Galantomos, M. Georgalidou, V. Kourti-Kazoullis, Ch. Papadopoulou, & E. Vlachou (Eds.), Selected papers from the 11th international conference on Greek linguistics (pp. 373–383). Rhodes: University of the Aegean.
Fradin, B., Dal, G., Grabar, N., Namer, F., Lignon, S., Tribout, D., & Zweigenbaum, P. (2008). Remarques sur l’usage des corpus en morphologie. Langage, 171, 34–59.
Gaeta, L., & Ricca, D. (2003). Frequency and productivity in Italian derivation: a comparison between corpus-based and lexicographical data. Rivista Di Linguistica, 15(1), 63–98.
Gavriilidou, Z. (2013). Aspects of intensity in Modern Greek. Thessaloniki: Kiriakidis [in Greek].
Goutsos, D. (2010). The corpus of Greek texts: a reference corpus for Modern Greek. Corpora, 5(1), 29–44.
Grandi, N., & Montermini, F. (2005). Prefix-suffix neutrality in evaluative morphology. In G. Booij, E. Guevara, A. Ralli, S. Sgroi, & S. Scalise (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Mediterranean meeting of morphology. Available at http://mmm.lingue.unibo.it/mmm-proc/MMM4/143-156-Grandi-Montermini-MMM4.pdf.
Hathout, N., & Namer, F. (2014). Discrepancy between form and meaning in word formation: the case of over- and under-marking in French. In F. Rainer, F. Gardani, H. Ch. Luschützky, & W. U. Dressler (Eds.), Morphology and meaning. Selected papers from the 15th international morphology meeting, Vienna, February 2012 (pp. 177–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: a conceptual framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 547–594.
Holton, D., Mackridge, P., & Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1997). Greek: a comprehensive grammar of the modern language. London: Routledge.
Hopper, P. J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticalization. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (Vol. I, pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Iacobini, C. (1999). Distinguishing derivational prefixes from initial combining forms. In G. Booij, A. Ralli, & S. Scalise (Eds.), Proceedings of the first Mediterranean morphology meeting (pp. 132–140). Patras: University of Patras.
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81(2), 1–37.
Körtvélyessy, L. (2012). Evaluative morphology from cross-linguistic perspective. Budapest: ELTE.
Landau, B. (1996). Multiple geometric representations of objects in languages and language learners. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 317–364). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Liddell, H. G., & Scott, R. (1961). A Greek-English lexicon. A new edition, revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford: Clarendon.
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lieber, R. (2005). English word-formation processes. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 375–428). Dordrecht: Springer.
Lieber, R. (2007). The category of roots and the roots of categories: what we learn from selection in derivation. Morphology, 16(2), 247–272.
Lieber, R. (2009). A lexical semantic approach to compounding. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 78–104). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lieber, R. (2010). Introducing morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malikouti-Drachman, A., & Drachman, G. (1992). Greek clitics and lexical phonology. In W. U. Dressler, H. C. Luschützky, O. E. Pfeiffer, & J. R. Rennison (Eds.), Phonologica 1988 (pp. 197–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moser, A. (1994). The interaction of lexical and grammatical aspect in Modern Greek. In I. Philippaki-Warburton, K. Nicolaidis, & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Themes in Greek linguistics (pp. 137–144). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Moser, A. (2006). The Greek forms in -ontas: a study in “converbiality”, temporality, aspectuality and finiteness. Glossologia, 17, 43–67.
Nakas, Th. (2012). On the Modern Greek “gerund” or “gerundium” or “gerundivum” (in other words, “far from the madding gerund”!). In Z. Gavriilidou, A. Efthymiou, E. Thomadaki, & P. Kambakis-Vougiouklis (Eds.), Selected papers of the 10th international conference on Greek linguistics (pp. 990–999). Komotini: Democritus University of Thrace [in Greek].
Paradis, C. (2008). Configurations, construals and change: expressions of degree. English Language and Linguistics, 12(2), 317–343.
Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1970). On the verb in Modern Greek. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications.
Plag, I. (1999). Morphological productivity. Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plag, I. (2006). Productivity. In B. Aarts & A. McMahon (Eds.), Handbook of English linguistics (pp. 537–556). Oxford: Blackwell.
Plag, I., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Baayen, H. (1999). Morphological productivity across speech and writing. English Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 209–228.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English syntax. London: Longman.
Rainer, F. (2014). Polysemy in derivation. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology (pp. 338–353). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ralli, A. (2004). Stem-based versus word-based morphological configurations: the case of Modern Greek preverbs. Lingue E Linguaggio, 2004(2), 241–275.
Ralli, A. (2007). Compounding: cross-linguistic morphological approach. Athens: Patakis [in Greek].
R Development Core Team (2015). R: a language and environment for statistical computing, version 3.1.2. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Scalise, S. (1984). Generative morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Scalise, S. (1988). The notion of ‘head’ in morphology. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1988 (pp. 229–246). Dordrecht: Foris.
Schneider, K. P. (2004). Diminutives in English. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Scott, M. (2008). WordSmith tools, version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
Smirniotopoulos, J., & Joseph, B. (1998). Syntax versus the lexicon: incorporation and compounding in Modern Greek. Journal of Linguistics, 34, 447–488.
Spencer, A. (1988). Bracketing paradoxes and the English lexicon. Language, 64, 663–682.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation. Linguistic perspectives (pp. 31–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002 [1992]). Regularity in semantic change (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Triandafyllidis, M. (1991 [1941]). Modern Greek grammar of the demotic. Thessaloniki: Institute of Hellenic Studies, Manolis Triandafyllidis Foundation [in Greek]
Triandafyllidis Dictionary (1998). Standard Modern Greek dictionary. Thessaloniki: Institute of Hellenic Studies, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki [in Greek]
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: the case of over. Language, 77(4), 724–765.
Williams, E. (1981). Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review, 1, 81–114.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Ingo Plag, Sabine Arndt-Lappe and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. We would also like to thank Rochelle Lieber and the audience at the conference “Semantics of Derivational Morphology: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Modeling” (30 June–1 July 2014, Düsseldorf, Germany) for their valuable comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Efthymiou, A., Fragaki, G. & Markos, A. Exploring the polysemy of the Modern Greek prefix iper-. Morphology 25, 411–438 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-015-9269-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-015-9269-9