Agentive Suffixes and Agent Nouns in Old English
3
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
An agent noun is the cognitive category frequently expressed by agentive affixes (e.g., baker) and the notion of agentivity has been the subject of much discussion in the linguistic literature (Torrego 1996, Fradin 2005, Luschützky and Rainer 2011, Rainer 2015, among others). Despite the wealth of morphological information of agent nouns, there have still been disagreements about the concept of agentivity among scholars, and questions like what semantic features comprise the sense of agentivity, and how agent nouns are different from each other have not been answered yet. In this article, I present a bundle of semantic features composing the sense of agentivity, and attempt to offer a semantic analysis of Old English agent nouns. It is shown that by means of the semantic features, a variety of Old English agent nouns are clearly distinguished from each other, and classified into ten groups on the scale of agentivity. I argue that the similarity or dissimilarity between agent nouns, and between agentive suffixes is systematically captured and well-explained by using the semantic features proposed in the article.
Abstract
An agent noun is the cognitive category frequently expressed by agentive affixes (e.g., baker) and the notion of agentivity has been the subject of much discussion in the linguistic literature (Torrego 1996, Fradin 2005, Luschützky and Rainer 2011, Rainer 2015, among others). Despite the wealth of morphological information of agent nouns, there have still been disagreements about the concept of agentivity among scholars, and questions like what semantic features comprise the sense of agentivity, and how agent nouns are different from each other have not been answered yet. In this article, I present a bundle of semantic features composing the sense of agentivity, and attempt to offer a semantic analysis of Old English agent nouns. It is shown that by means of the semantic features, a variety of Old English agent nouns are clearly distinguished from each other, and classified into ten groups on the scale of agentivity. I argue that the similarity or dissimilarity between agent nouns, and between agentive suffixes is systematically captured and well-explained by using the semantic features proposed in the article.
참고문헌 (14)
- Bauer, L, "What You can Do with Derivational Morphology", Morphology 2000: Selected Papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, pp.37~48 (2000), John Benjamins
- Booij, G., "Form and Meaning in Morphology: The Case of Dutch ‘Agent Nouns’", Linguistics, 24, pp.503~517 (1986)
- "Online Anglo-Saxon Dictionary" (2010)[URL]
- Fradin, B., "Morphology and its Demarcations (Selected Papers from the 11th Morphology Meeting)", pp.161~182 (2005), John Benjamins
- Jespersen, O., "A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VI: Morphology" (1942), George Allen and Unwin
- Kastovsky, D., "Historical Semantics:Historical Word-formation", pp.221~261 (1985), Mouton Publishers
- Kim, Y., "Godaeyoungeo Pasaengjeopsa" (2020), Hankuk Publishing
- Koziol, H, "Handbuch der Englischen Wortbildungslehre", pp.201~210 (1937), Universitätsverlag Winter
- Luschützky, H. C., "Agent Noun Polysemy in Slavic: Some Examples", Special issue of Sprach-typologie und Universalienforschung, 64(1), pp.75~97 (2011)
- Marchand, H., "The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation: A Synchronic-diachronic Approach" (1969), C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung
- Rainer, F, "Word-formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe Volume 2", pp.1304~1317 (2015), De Gruyter Mouton
- Sweet, H., "A New English Grammar: Logical and Historical" (1891), Clarendon Press
- Torrego, M. E, "Conditions Syntaxiques pour la Formation des Noms d’agent en Latin", Aspects of Latin. Papers from the Seventh International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, pp.181~192 (1996), Institut für Sprachwissenschaft
- Wright, J., "Old English Grammar" (1925), Oxford University Press