{"title":"论汉语后缀“- - R”、“- -”和“- -”的词性","authors":"G. Arcodia, Bianca Basciano","doi":"10.6519/TJL.2012.10(2).3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The notion of ‘productivity’ is an essential one in the study of linguistic morphology, but its definition is indeed challenging, and there are different ways to measure different aspects of the productivity of a morphological process. In this paper we shall adopt Baayen’s P measure of productivity for a corpus-based study of the productivity of three Mandarin derivational suffixes, namely the nominalizer/diminutive −兒 −r, −化 −hua ‘−ise, −ify’ and −頭 −tou, a ‘dummy’ nominal suffix (Lin 2001:82), in order to assess how this index relates to our received knowledge about the productivity of such forms, and, also, to compare our results with a previous study by Nishimoto (2003) on a small corpus of Modern Chinese. Moreover, in a diachronic perspective, we shall compare data from the Academia Sinica Tagged Corpus of Early Mandarin Chinese and from the Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus of Modern Chinese. We shall show that our P values mostly reflect what descriptive works tell us about the productivity of the affixes considered here in two different periods of the history of the language; when corpus data for previous stages of a language are available, they appear as a better basis for assessments on the profitability of a morphological process than dictionary data.","PeriodicalId":41000,"journal":{"name":"Taiwan Journal of Linguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Productivity of the Chinese Suffixes−兒−R, −化−Huà and −頭−Tou\",\"authors\":\"G. Arcodia, Bianca Basciano\",\"doi\":\"10.6519/TJL.2012.10(2).3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The notion of ‘productivity’ is an essential one in the study of linguistic morphology, but its definition is indeed challenging, and there are different ways to measure different aspects of the productivity of a morphological process. In this paper we shall adopt Baayen’s P measure of productivity for a corpus-based study of the productivity of three Mandarin derivational suffixes, namely the nominalizer/diminutive −兒 −r, −化 −hua ‘−ise, −ify’ and −頭 −tou, a ‘dummy’ nominal suffix (Lin 2001:82), in order to assess how this index relates to our received knowledge about the productivity of such forms, and, also, to compare our results with a previous study by Nishimoto (2003) on a small corpus of Modern Chinese. Moreover, in a diachronic perspective, we shall compare data from the Academia Sinica Tagged Corpus of Early Mandarin Chinese and from the Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus of Modern Chinese. We shall show that our P values mostly reflect what descriptive works tell us about the productivity of the affixes considered here in two different periods of the history of the language; when corpus data for previous stages of a language are available, they appear as a better basis for assessments on the profitability of a morphological process than dictionary data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Taiwan Journal of Linguistics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Taiwan Journal of Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6519/TJL.2012.10(2).3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Taiwan Journal of Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6519/TJL.2012.10(2).3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
On the Productivity of the Chinese Suffixes−兒−R, −化−Huà and −頭−Tou
The notion of ‘productivity’ is an essential one in the study of linguistic morphology, but its definition is indeed challenging, and there are different ways to measure different aspects of the productivity of a morphological process. In this paper we shall adopt Baayen’s P measure of productivity for a corpus-based study of the productivity of three Mandarin derivational suffixes, namely the nominalizer/diminutive −兒 −r, −化 −hua ‘−ise, −ify’ and −頭 −tou, a ‘dummy’ nominal suffix (Lin 2001:82), in order to assess how this index relates to our received knowledge about the productivity of such forms, and, also, to compare our results with a previous study by Nishimoto (2003) on a small corpus of Modern Chinese. Moreover, in a diachronic perspective, we shall compare data from the Academia Sinica Tagged Corpus of Early Mandarin Chinese and from the Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus of Modern Chinese. We shall show that our P values mostly reflect what descriptive works tell us about the productivity of the affixes considered here in two different periods of the history of the language; when corpus data for previous stages of a language are available, they appear as a better basis for assessments on the profitability of a morphological process than dictionary data.
期刊介绍:
Taiwan Journal of Linguistics is an international journal dedicated to the publication of research papers in linguistics and welcomes contributions in all areas of the scientific study of language. Contributions may be submitted from all countries and are accepted all year round. The language of publication is English. There are no restrictions on regular submission; however, manuscripts simultaneously submitted to other publications cannot be accepted. TJL adheres to a strict standard of double-blind reviews to minimize biases that might be caused by knowledge of the author’s gender, culture, or standing within the professional community. Once a manuscript is determined as potentially suitable for the journal after an initial screening by the editor, all information that may identify the author is removed, and copies are sent to at least two qualified reviewers. The selection of reviewers is based purely on professional considerations and their identity will be kept strictly confidential by TJL. All feedback from the reviewers, except such comments as may be specifically referred to the attention of the editor, is faithfully relayed to the authors to assist them in improving their work, regardless of whether the paper is to be accepted, accepted upon minor revision, revised and resubmitted, or rejected.