Abstract
In the theoretical literature, it is generally assumed that place names are morphologically simplex, at least from a synchronic perspective. This derives from the observation that constituents of complex place names often become opaque over time. Along these lines, place names like Dutch Amsterdam cannot be synchronically compositional because Amster- does not exist as an independent morpheme in Dutch. Contrary to this view, this paper argues that many (Dutch) place names are in fact synchronically complex, in spite of their semantic non-transparency. Evidence comes from the phonological behavior of the names in question: in Dutch, place names are often the sole apparent exceptions to otherwise strong restrictions on stress assignment and phonotactics. Yet under close inspection, it becomes evident that these names are not phonologically exceptional at all: they display regular phonological behavior that is characteristic of morphologically complex words, derived via suffixation or compounding. Furthermore, it is argued that the complex structures found in Dutch place names are by no means idiosyncratic to this group of words: similar patterns are found in place naming in various other languages as well as in the formation of some types of nominal compounds in Dutch (such as the formation of names for ball games).
Highlights
Proper names are an essential linguistic category
The evidence indicates that the seemingly systematic violations of strong phonological principles in many place names may be no violations at all: rather, these forms show clear characteristics of morphological complexity; they either behave like compounds or like base words combined with stress-neutral suffixes
Following Zwart, I assume that the surnames displaying stress shift are ‘more atomic’ than corresponding place names; yet, while Zwart’s solution suggests a cophonology for names to derive the relevant stress patterns, I would like to tentatively suggest that the difference may be representational: as I have argued in this paper, many place names are composed of a referential morpheme and a place name classifier
Summary
Proper names are an essential linguistic category. From what we know so far, it seems safe to accept the hypothesis that “all languages have names” (Anderson 2007:169). As a last example, Harvey (1999) reports that some Australian languages use name-specific suffixes to mark place names Such names are overtly derived from common nouns; yet there are cases where the initial constituents are synchronically opaque, as attested in Warray (Gunwinyguan); see Harvey (1999:181) for discussion. I shall argue that they rather constitute morphologically complex forms that participate in regular, predictable patterns of derivation An analysis along these lines gives this large group of words a place in the Dutch grammar, it is entirely in line with the patterns observed in the brief cross-linguistic survey on related phenomena in other languages.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
