Posted: September 7th, 2024

Lexicology

HANDBOOK OF WORD-FORMATION Research in Pure Language and Linguistic Idea VOLUME 64 Managing Editors Marcel den Dikken, Metropolis College of New York Liliane Haegeman, College of Lille Joan Maling, Brandeis College Editorial Board Guglielmo Cinque, College of Venice Carol Georgopoulos, College of Utah Jane Grimshaw, Rutgers College Michael Kenstowicz, Massachusetts Institute of Know-how Hilda Koopman, College of California, Los Angeles Howard Lasnik, College of Maryland Alec Marantz, Massachusetts Institute of Know-how John J.
McCarthy, College of Massachusetts, Amherst Ian Roberts, College of Cambridge The titles revealed on this collection are listed on the finish of this quantity. HANDBOOK OF WORD-FORMATION Edited by PAVOL STEKAUER Pre o College, Pre ov, Slovakia ov e and ROCHELLE LIEBER College of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, U. S. A. A C. I. P. Catalogue file for this guide is out there from the Library of Congress. ISBN-10 ISBN-13 ISBN-10 ISBN-10 ISBN-13 ISBN-13 1-4020-3597-7 (PB) 978-1-4020-3597-5 (PB) 1-4020-3595-Zero (HB) 1-4020-3596-9 (e-book) 978-1-4020-3595-1 (HB) 978-1-4020-3596-Eight (e-book) Revealed by Springer, P.
O. Field 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. www. springeronline. com Printed on acid-free paper All Rights Reserved © 2005 Springer No a part of this work could also be reproduced, saved in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any type or by any means, digital, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or in any other case, with out written permission from the Homework help – Writer, except any materials provided particularly for the aim of being entered and executed on a pc system, for unique use by the purchaser of the work. Printed within the Netherlands. CONTENTS PREFACE CONTRIBUTORS vii 1 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY: BASIC TERMINOLOGY 1. The notion of the linguistic signal 1. 1 EVIDENCE FOR THE MORPHEME-AS-SIGN POSITION IN SAUSSURE’S COURS 1. 2 EVIDENCE FOR THE WORD-AS-SIGN POSITION IN SAUSSURE’S COURS Morpheme and phrase 2. 1 CASE STUDY: ENGLISH NOUN PLURAL FORMS (PART 1) 2. 2 CASE STUDY: THE PERFECT PARTICIPLE FORMS OF ENGLISH VERBS 2. three CASE STUDY: ENGLISH NOUN PLURAL FORMS (PART 2) 2. Four COMPLEMENTARY DISTRIBUTION AND INFLECTION VERSUS DERIVATION ‘Morphemes’ for the reason that 1960s 5 5 7 Eight 10 11 14 17 18 20 25 25 2. three. ELLEN M. KAISSE: WORD-FORMATION AND PHONOLOGY 1. Introduction vi 2.

CONTENTS Results of lexical class, morphological construction, and affix kind on phonology 2. 1 EFFECTS OF LEXICAL CATEGORY AND OF MORPHOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY 2. 2 COHERING AND NON-COHERING AFFIXES Morphology restricted by the phonological type of the bottom of affixation Lexical phonology and morphology and its ills More moderen developments of lexical phonology and morphology How do associated phrases have an effect on one another? The cycle, transderivational t results, paradigm uniformity and the like Do the cohering affixes f rm a coherent set? Break up bases, SUBCATWORD fo and phonetics in morphology Conclusion 26 26 28 32 34 38 39 41 45 . Four. 5. 6. 7. Eight. GREGORY STUMP: WORD-FORMATION AND INFLECTIONAL MORPHOLOGY 1. 2. three. Four. 5. 6. 7. The conceptual distinction between inflection and word-formation The inflectional classes of English Sensible standards for distinguishing inflection from word-formation Sensible standards for distinguishing inflectional periphrases Some similarities between inflection and word-formation Complicated interactions between inflection and word-formation Inflectional paradigms and word-formation paradigms 7. 1 PARADIGMS AND HEAD MARKING IN INFLECTION AND DERIVATION 7. 2 PARADIGMS AND BLOCKING IN INFLECTION AND DERIVATION 9 49 50 53 59 60 61 65 65 67 CONTENTS ANDREW SPENCER: WORD-FORMATION AND SYNTAX 1. 2. Introduction Lexical relatedness and syntax 2. 1 MORPHOTACTICS IN CLASSICAL US STRUCTURALISM 2. 2 MORPHOLOGY AS SYNTAX 2. three LEXICAL INTEGRITY Syntactic phenomena inside phrases Argument construction realization Four. 1 DEVERBAL MORPHOLOGY Four. 1. 1 Motion nominals Four. 1. 2 Nominals denoting grammatical features Four. 1. three -able adjectives Four. 2 SYNTHETIC COMPOUNDS AND NOUN INCORPORATION Theoretical approaches to phrase formation Abstract and afterword vii 73 73 74 74 74 78 82 83 83 83 87 88 88 89 93 99 three. Four. 5. 6.
DIETER KASTOVSKY: HANS MARCHAND AND THE MARCHANDEANS 1. 2. Introduction Hans Marchand 2. 1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2. 2 SYNCHRONIC APPROACH 2. three MOTIVATION 2. Four MORPHONOLOGICAL ALTERNATIONS 2. 5 THE CONCEPT OF SYNTAGMA 2. 6 GENERATIVE-TRANSFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE 2. 7 ANALYSIS OF COMPOUNDS 2. Eight PRECURSOR OF LEXICALIST HYPOTHESIS 99 100 100 100 101 102 102 104 105 106 three. Klaus Hansen 107 three. 1 GENERAL 107 three. 2 WORD-FORMEDNESS VS. WORD-FORMATION 107 three. three WORD-FORMATION PATTERN VS. WORD-FORMATION TYPE108 three. Four ONOMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH VS. SEMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH 109 viii Four. CONTENTS Herbert Ernst Brekle Four. GENERAL Four. 2 FRAMEWORK Four. three BREKLE’S MODEL Four. Four PRODUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF COMPOUNDS Leonhard Lipka 5. 1 GENERAL 5. 2 THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT Dieter Kastovsky 6. 1 GENERAL 6. 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 6. three WORD-FORMATION AT THE CROSSROADS OF MORPHOLOGY, SYNTAX, SEMANTICS, PRAGMATICS AND THE LEXICON Gabriele Stein (Girl Quirk) Conclusion 109 109 110 110 112 112 112 113 114 114 115 116 116 118 125 125 126 127 128 130 132 133 133 134 136 138 141 142 143 143 5. 6. 7. Eight. TOM ROEPER: CHOMSKY’S REMARKS AND THE TRANSFORMATIONALIST HYPOTHESIS 1. Nominalizations and Core Grammar 1. CORE CONTRAST 1. 2 TRANSFORMATIONS The Topic Enigma 2. 1 PASSIVE -ABILITY NOMINALIZATIONS 2. 2 -ING NOMINALIZATIONS Case Project three. 1 COPING WITH EXCEPTIONS three. 2 THEMATIC-BINDING Intriguing Points: Aspectual Differentiation of Nominalization Affixes The place do Affixes Connect? Elaborated Phrase Construction and Nominalizations 6. 1 BARE NOMINALS: PREDICTABLE RESTRICTIONS 6. 2 HIGH -ING 6. three ACCUSATIVE AND -ING NOMINALIZATIONS 2. three. Four. 5. 6. CONTENTS 7. Conclusion ix 144 SERGIO SCALISE AND EMILIANO GUEVARA: THE LEXICALIST APPROACH TO WORD-FORMATION AND THE NOTION OF 147 THE LEXICON 1. . three. Four. A definition A Transient Historical past 2. 1 LEES (1960) The Lexicon Lexicalism Four. 1 HALLE (1973) Four. 2 ARONOFF (1976) Four. 2. 1The Phrase-based Speculation Four. 2. 2 Phrase-Formation Guidelines Four. 2. three Productiveness Four. 2. Four Restrictions on WFRs Four. 2. 5 Stratal options Four. 2. 6 Restrictions on the output of WFRs Four. 2. 7 Situations Four. 2. Eight Abstract on Phrase-Formation Guidelines Some Main Points 5. 1 STRONG AND WEAK LEXICALISM Extra on the Notion of Lexicon Lexicalism Right now 7. 1 INFLECTIONAL MORPHOLOGY 7. 2 SYNTACTIC MORPHOLOGY 7. three THE SYNTACTIC INCORPORATION HYPOTHESIS 7. Four WORD-FORMATION AS SYNTAX 7. DISTRIBUTED MORPHOLOGY Conclusion 147 148 150 151 153 153 157 157 158 159 159 161 162 162 166 166 170 171 173 174 176 176 178 180 181 189 5. 6. 7. Eight. ROBERT BEARD AND MARK VOLPE: LEXEME -MORPHEME BASE MORPHOLOGY 1. Introduction 189 x 2. CONTENTS The Three Fundamental Hypotheses of LMBM 2. 1 THE SEPARATION HYPOTHESIS 2. 2 THE UNITARY GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION HYPOTHESIS 2. three THE BASE RULE HYPOTHESIS Varieties of Lexical (L-) Derivation three. 1 COMPETENCE: GRAMMATICAL L-DERIVATION three. 1. 1 Function Worth Switches three. 1. 2 Useful Lexical-Derivation three. 1. three Transposition three. 1. Expressive Derivations Conclusion 189 190 191 192 194 194 194 195 198 199 200 201 207 207 208 209 209 211 211 212 214 217 219 221 225 226 226 227 229 three. Four. Appendix PAVOL STEKAUER: ONOMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO WORD-FORMATION 1. 2. three. Introduction Strategies of Onomasiological Analysis Theoretical approaches three. 1 MILOS DOKULIL three. 2 JAN HORECKY three. three PAVOL STEKAUER three. three. 1 Phrase-formation as an impartial element three. three. 2 The act of naming three. three. three Onomasiological Sorts three. three. Four Conceptual (onomasiological) recategorization three. three. 5 An Onomasiological Strategy to Productiveness three. . 6 Headedness three. three. 7 Abstract three. Four BOGDAN SZYMANEK three. 5 ANDREAS BLANK three. 6 PETER KOCH DAVID TUGGY: COGNITIVE APPROACH TO WORD-FORMATION 233 1. Fundamental notions of Cognitive grammar (CG) 1. 1 THE GRAMMAR OF A LANGUAGE UNDER CG 1. 2 LEXICON AND SYNTAX 233 233 235 CONTENTS 2. Schemas and prototypes 2. 1 SCHEMAS AND ELABORATIONS 2. 2 PARTIAL SCHEMATICITY AND THE GROWTH OF SCHEMATIC NETWORKS 2. three PROTOTYPICALITY AND SALIENCE 2. Four ACCESS TO THE STORE OF CONVENTIONAL KNOWLEDGE, INCLUDING NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES 2. 5 SANCTION Schemas for phrase formation three. 1 SCHEMAS FOR WORDS three. SCHEMAS FOR CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE WORD PIECES: STEMS AND AFFIXES AND CONSTRUCTIONAL SCHEMAS M three. three COMPLEX SEMANTIC AND PHONOLOGICAL POLES three. Four SCHEMAS FOR COMPOUNDS three. 5 STRUCTURAL DESCRIPTIONS, CREATIVITY AND PRODUCTIVE USAGE three. 6 SANCTION (OF VARIOUS KINDS) FROM COMPONENTS three. 7 COMPONENTS AND PATTERNS FOR THE WHOLE; OVERLAPPING PATTERNS AND MULTIPLE ANALYSES R A three. Eight CONSTITUENCY Overview of different points Four. 1 VALENCE Four. 2 THE MORPHOLOGY-SYNTAX BOUNDARY Four. three INFLECTION VS. DERIVATION What’s particular about English phrase formation? Conclusion: Implications of accounting for morphology by schemas i 235 235 236 238 238 239 240 240 244 246 248 251 254 256 257 258 258 259 260 261 262 267 267 268 268 268 270 271 272 274 274 276 three. Four. 5. 6. WOLFGANG U. DRESSLER: WORD-FORMATION IN NATURAL MORPHOLOGY 1. 2. Introduction Common, system-independent morphological naturalness 2. 1 PREFERENCES 2. 2 PREFERENCE FOR ICONICITY 2. three INDEXICALITY PREFERENCES 2. Four PREFERENCE FOR MORPHOSEMANTIC TRANSPARENCY 2. 5 PREFERENCE FOR MORPHOTACTIC TRANSPARENCY 2. 6 PREFERENCE FOR BIUNIQUENESS 2. 7 FIGURE-GROUND PREFERENCES 2. Eight PREFERENCE FOR BINARITY xii CONTENTS 2. 9 OPTIMAL SHAPE OF UNITS 2. Zero ALTERNATIVE NATURALNESS PARAMETERS 2. 11 PREDICTIONS AND CONFLICTS 276 276 277 278 279 279 280 281 285 285 285 286 287 287 290 294 298 298 301 303 304 307 311 315 315 316 317 three. Four. Typological adequacy System-dependent naturalness Four. 1 SYSTEM-ADEQUACY Four. 2 DYNAMIC VS. STATIC MORPHOLOGY Four. three UNIVERSAL VS. TYPOLOGICAL VS. SYSTEM-DEPENDENT NATURALNESS PETER ACKEMA AND AD NEELEMAN: WORD-FORMATION IN OPTIMALITY THEORY 1. Introduction 1. 1 OPTIMALITY THEORY 1. 2 COMPETITION IN MORPHOLOGY Competitors between completely different morphemes 2. 1 THE BASIC CASE 2. 2 HAPLOLOGY 2. MARKEDNESS Competitors between parts three. 1 ELSEWHERE CASES three. 2 COMPETITION BETWEEN MODULES THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE THE ELSEWHERE PRINCIPLE Competitors between completely different morpheme orders Four. 1 CONFLICTS BETWEEN LINEAR CORRESPONDENCE AND TEMPLATIC REQUIREMENTS Four. 2 CONFLICTS BETWEEN LINEAR CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE CONSTRAINTS Conclusion 2. three. Four. 5. LAURIE BAUER: PRODUCTIVITY: THEORIES 1. 2. three. Introduction Pre-generative theories of productiveness Schultink (1961) CONTENTS Four. 5. 6. 7. Eight. 9. Zimmer (1964) Aronoff Pure Morphology Kiparsky (1982) Van Marle (1985) Corbin (1987) iii 318 318 321 322 323 324 324 326 327 328 330 332 335 335 335 335 336 336 339 340 340 340 341 344 345 347 348 349 349 10. Baayen 11. Plag (1999) 12. Hay (2000) 13. Bauer (2001) 14. Some threads 15. Conclusion FRANZ RAINER: CONSTRAINTS ON PRODUCTIVITY 1. 2. Introduction Common constraints 2. 1 CONSTRAINTS SUPPOSEDLY LOCATED AT UG 2. 2 PROCESSING CONSTRAINTS 2. 2. 1 Blocking 2. 2. 2 Complexity Based mostly Ordering 2. 2. three Productiveness, frequency and size of bases Language-specific constraints three. 1 LEVEL ORDERING three. 2 AFFIX-SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS three. 2. 1 Phonology three. 2. 2 Morphology three. 2. three Syntax three. 2. Four Argument construction three. 2. Semantics three. 2. 6 Pragmatics and Sociolinguistics three. xiv Four. Ultimate remarks PREFACE 349 PETER HOHENHAUS: LEXICALIZATION AND I INSTITUTIONALIZATION TITUTIONALIZATION 1. 2. Introduction Lexicalization 2. 1 LEXICALIZATION IN A DIACHRONIC SENSE 2. 2 LEXICALIZATION IN A SYNCHRONIC SENSE: LISTING/LISTEDNESS 2. three THE LEXICON AND THEORIES OF WORD-FORMATION Institutionalization three. 1 TERMINOLOGY three. 2 IDEAL AND REAL SPEAKERS AND THE SPEECH COMMUNITY three. three DE-INSTITUTIONALIZATION: THE END OF A WORD’S LIFE Issues Four. 1 NONCE-FORMATIONS AND NEOLOGISMS Four. 2 (NON-)LEXICALIZABILITY Four. three WHAT IS IN THE (MENTAL) LEXICON AND HOW DOES IT GET THERE? . Four UNPREDICTABLE & PLAYFUL FORMATIONS, ANALOGY, FADS, AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS Four. 5 LEXICALIZATION BEYOND WORDS 353 353 353 353 356 357 359 359 360 362 363 363 365 367 369 370 375 375 375 376 378 379 379 383 390 391 393 400 402 three. Four. ROCHELLE LIEBER: ENGLISH WORD-FORMATION PROCESSES 1. 2. Introduction Compounding 2. 1 DETERMINING WHAT COUNTS AS A COMPOUND 2. 2 ROOT COMPOUNDING 2. three SYNTHETIC COMPOUNDING 2. Four STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION Derivation three. 1 PREFIXATION three. 1. 1 Damaging prefixes (un-, in-, non-, de-, dis-) three. 1. 2 Locational prefixes three. 1. three Temporal and aspectual prefixes three. 1. Quantitative prefixes three. CONTENTS three. 1. 5 Verbal prefixes three. 2 SUFFIXATION three. 2. 1 Private nouns three. 2. 2 Summary nouns three. 2. three Verb-forming suffixes three. 2. Four Adjective-forming suffixes three. 2. 5 Collectives three. three CONCLUSION Four. 5. Conversion Conclusion xv 402 403 403 406 410 413 417 418 418 422 429 429 430 431 BOGDAN SZYMANEK: THE LATEST TRENDS IN ENGLISH WORD-FORMATION 1. 2. three. Four. 5. 6. 7. Eight. 9. Introduction Derivational neologisms Analogical formations, native analogies Adjustments within the relative significance of sorts of word-formation processes 431 Secretion of recent affixes ‘Lexicalisation’ of affixes 435 436
Adjustments within the productiveness, relative productiveness and scope of particular person 436 affixes Semantics: modifications in formative features 438 Tendencies within the type of complicated phrases 441 9. 1 CHOICE OF RIVAL AFFIXES – MORPHOLOGICAL DOUBLETS 441 9. 2 PHONOLOGICAL FORM – STRESS 443 449 459 465 SUBJECT INDEX NAME INDEX LANGUAGE INDEX PREFACE Following years of full or partial neglect of points regarding phrase formation (by which we imply primarily derivation, compounding, and conversion), the yr 1960 marked a revival – some would possibly even say a resurrection – of this essential discipline of linguistic research.
Whereas written in utterly completely different theoretical frameworks (structuralist vs. transformationalist), from utterly completely different views, and with completely different targets, each Marchand’s Classes and Varieties of Current-Day English Phrase-Formation in Europe and Lees’ Grammar of English Nominalizations instigated systematic analysis within the discipline. Because of this, numerous seminal works emerged over the subsequent many years, making the scope of wordt formation analysis broader and deeper, thus contributing to higher understanding of this thrilling space of human language.
Elements of this improvement have been captured in texts or ‘overview’ books (e. g. P. H. Matthews’ Morphology: An Introduction to the Idea of Phrase-Construction (1974), Andrew Spencer’s Morphological Idea: An Introduction to Phrase Construction in Generative Grammar (1991), Francis Katamba’s Morphology (1993), r Spencer and Zwicky’s Handbook of Morphology (1998)), however these books have a tendency to debate each inflectional and derivational morphology, and to take action principally from the generative standpoint.
What appeared missing to us was a quantity meant for superior college students and different researchers in linguistics which might hint the numerous strands of research – each generative and non-generative – which have developed from Marchand’s and Lees’ seminal works, on each side of the Atlantic. The ambitions of this Handbook of Phrase-formation are four-fold: 1. To map the cutting-edge within the discipline of word-formation. 2. To keep away from a biased strategy to word-formation by presenting completely different, mutually complementary, frameworks inside which analysis into wordformation has taken place. vii xviii three. Four. PREFACE To current the particular matters from the attitude of consultants who’ve considerably contributed to the respective matters mentioned. To look particularly at particular person English phrase formation processes and overview a few of the developments which have taken place since Marchand’s complete remedy 45 years in the past. Thus, the Handbook supplies the reader with the cutting-edge within the research of ok phrase formation (with a particular view to English phrase formation) on the eginning of the third millennium. The Handbook is meant to offer the reader a transparent thought of the ok massive variety of points examined inside word-formation, the completely different strategies and approaches used, and an ever-growing variety of duties to be disposed of in future analysis. On the identical time, it offers proof of the good theoretical achievements and the vitality of this discipline that has turn out to be a full-fledged linguistic self-discipline. We want to specific our gratitude to all of the contributors to the Handbook. The editors CONTRIBUTORS
Peter Ackema is lecturer in linguistics on the College of Edinburgh. He has labored extensively on points concerning the morphology-syntax interface, on which he has revealed two books, Points in Morphosyntax (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999), and Past Morphology (Oxford: Oxford College Press, 2004, co-authored with Advert Neeleman). He has additionally revealed on a variety of syntaxinternal and morphology-internal matters. Laurie Bauer holds a private chair in Linguistics at Victoria College of Wellington, New Zealand.
He has revealed broadly on worldwide types of English, particularly New Zealand English, and on facets of morphology, together with English Phrase-formation (Cambridge College Press, 1983), Morphological Productiveness (Cambridge College Press, 2001), Introducing Linguistic Morphology (Edinburgh College Press, 2nd edn, 2003), A Glossary of Morphology (Edinburgh College Press, 2004). Robert Beard obtained his PhD in Slavic linguistics from the College of Michigan and taught for 35 years at Bucknell College.
In 2000 he retired because the Ruth Everett Sierzega Professor of Linguistics at Bucknell to discovered the web-based firm of language services, yourDictionary. com, the place he’s at present CEO. He’s the writer of The Indo-European Lexicon (Amsterdam: NorthHolland, 1981) and Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology (New York: SUNY Press, 1995). Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy is Professor within the Division of Linguistics on the College of Canterbury, New Zealand. He’s the writer of Allomorphy in Inflexion (London: Croom Helm, 1987), Present Morphology (London and New York: Routledge, 1992) and An Introduction to English Morphology (Edinburgh:
Edinburgh College Press, 2002). He’s additionally excited by language evolution, and has revealed The Origins of Complicated Language: An Inquiry into the Evolutionary Beginnings of Sentences, Syllables and Reality (Oxford: OUP, 1999). 1 2 CONTRIBUTORS Wolfgang Dressler is Professor of linguistics, Head of the Division of r Linguisics on the College of Vienna and of the Fee for Linguistics of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. He’s the writer of Morphonology (Ann Arbor: Karoma Press, 1985) and Morphopragmatics (with Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi) (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1994).
Emiliano Guevara is lecturer of Normal Linguistics on the College of Bologna and is member of the Mor-Bo reserach group on the Division of International languages in Bologna. His publications embody “V-Compounding in Dutch and Italian” (Cuadernos de Linguistica, Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset, 1-21 (with S. Scalise) and “Choice in compounding and derivation” (to seem) (with S. m Scalise and A. Bisetto). Peter Hohenhaus is lecturer in fashionable linguistics on the College of Nottingham (UK).
He obtained his PhD in English Linguistics from the College of Hamburg and has revealed on standardization and purism, humorology, computer-mediated communication in addition to English and German word-formation, particularly nonce word-formation, together with the quantity Advert-hoc-Wortbildung – Terminologie, Typologie und Theorie kreativer Wortbildung im Englischen (Frankfurt, Bern and so on. : Lang, 1996). Ellen M. Kaisse is Professor of Linguistics, College of Washington, Seattle. Her most important fields of analysis embody morphology-phonology and syntaxphonology interfaces, intonation, historic phonology, and Spanish phonology.
She is an writer of Linked speech: the interplay of syntax and phonology (Orlando: t Educational Press, 1985), Research in Lexical Phonology (ed. with S. Hargus, Orlando: y Educational Press, 1993), “Palatal vowels, glides, and consonants in Argentinian Spanish” (with J. Harris) (Phonology 16, 1999, 117-190), “The lengthy fall: an intonational melody of Argentinian Spanish” (In: Options and interfaces in Romance, ed. by Herschensohn, Mallen and Zagona, 2001, 147-160), and “Sympathy meets Argentinian Spanish” (In: The character of the phrase: essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky, ed. by Ok. Hanson and S. Inkelas, MIT Press, in press).
Dieter Kastovsky is Professor of English Linguistics on the College of Vienna and Director of the Middle for Translation Research. His most important fields of curiosity embody English morphology and word-formation (synchronic and diachronic), semantics, historical past of linguistics, and language typology. He’s the writer of Outdated English Deverbal Substantives Derived by Technique of a Zero Morpheme (Esslingen/N. : Langer, 1968), Wortbildung und Semantik (Tubingen/Dusseldorf: ok Francke/Bagel, 1982), and greater than 80 articles on English morphology and wordformation (synchronic and diachronic), semantics, historical past of linguistics, and language typology.
Rochelle Lieber is Professor of English on the College of New Hampshire. Her publications embody: Morphology and Lexical Semantics HANDBOOK OF WORD-FORMATION three (Cambridge: Cambridge College Press 2004), Deconstructing Morphology (Chicago: College of Chicago Press 1992), and An Built-in Idea of Autosegmental Processes (New York: SUNY Press 1987), in addition to quite a few articles on numerous facets of phrase formation and the interfaces between morphology and syntax, and morphology and phonology. Advert Neeleman is Reader in Linguistics at College School London.
His most important analysis pursuits are case concept, the syntactic encoding of thematic dependencies, and the interplay between syntax and syntax-external techniques. His most important publications embody Complicated Predicates (1993), Versatile Syntax (1999, with Fred Weerman), Past Morphology (Oxford: Oxford College Press 2004, with Peter Ackema), in addition to articles in Linguistic Inquiry, Pure Language and Linguistic Idea, and Yearbook of Morphology. Franz Rainer is Professor of Romance languages on the Vienna College of Economics and Enterprise Administration.
He’s the writer of Spanische Wortbildungslehre (Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1993) and co-editor (with Maria Grossmann) of La formazione delle parole in italiano (Tubingen: Niemeyer, 2004), each of those publications being complete therapies of the word-formation within the respective languages. Tom Roeper, Professor of Linguistics on the College of Massachusetts, has written broadly on morphology and language acquisiton, together with compounds, nominalizations, implicit arguments, and derivationial morphology.
Within the discipline of language aquisition, he’s additionally Managing Editor of Research in Theoretical Psycholinguistics (Kluwer), a Founding editor of Language Acquisition (Erlbaum), and in addition the writer of Understanding and Producing Speech (London: Fontana, g 1983, co-authored with Ed Matthei), Parameter Setting (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1987, with E. Williams), Theoretical Points in Language Acquisition (Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1992, with H. Goodluck and J. Weissenborn), and the forthcoming The Prism of Grammar (MIT Press). Sergio Scalise is Professor of Normal Linguistics on the College of Bologna. He’s the editor of the journal Lingue e Linguaggio.
His pulications embody Generative Morphology (Dordrecht: Foris, 1984), Morfologia (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1994), and Le lingue e il Linguaggio (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2001 (with Giorgio Graffi)). Andrew Spencer is Professor of Linguistics within the Division of Language and Linguistics on the College of Essex. He has labored on numerous issues of phonological and morphological concept. Along with English, his main language space is Slavic. He’s the writer of Morphological Idea (Oxford: Blackwells, 1991) and co-editor (with Arnold Zwicky) of the Handbook of Morphology (Oxford: Blackwells, 1998). CONTRIBUTORS Pavol Stekauer is Professor of English linguistics within the Division of British and American Research, Presov College, Slovakia. His analysis has targeted on an onomasiological strategy to word-formation and on the historical past of analysis into word-formation. He’s the writer of A Idea of Conversion in English (Frankfurt am Foremost: Peter Lang, 1996), An Onomasiological Idea of English Phrase-Formation (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998)), and English Phrase-Formation. A Historical past of Analysis (1960-1995).
Tubingen: Gunter Narr, 2000), and the forthcoming Which means Predictability in Phrase-Formation (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins) Gregory T. Stump is Professor of English and Linguistics on the College of Kentucky. His analysis has targeted on the event of Paradigm Operate Morphology. He’s the writer of The Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985), Inflectional Morphology: A Idea of Paradigm Construction (Cambridge: CUP, 2001). He’s at present serving as an Affiliate Editor of Language and as a Consulting Editor for Yearbook of Morphology.
Bogdan Szymanek is Professor of English linguistics, Head of the Division of Trendy English, Catholic College of Lublin, Poland. His main analysis pursuits embody morphology and its interfaces with different grammatical parts, lexicology, English and Slavic languages. He’s the writer of Classes and categorization in morphology (RW KUL Lublin, 1988) and d Introduction to morphological evaluation (PWN Warsaw, 1998 (third ed. )). David Tuggy has labored in Mexico with the Summer season Institute of Linguistics since 1970.
His most important areas of curiosity embody Nahuatl, Cognitive f grammar, translation, lexicography, and inadvertent blends and different bloopers. He’s an writer of The transitivity-related morphology of Tetelcingo Nahuatl; An exploration in House grammar (UCSD Doctoral dissertation, 1981), “The affix-stem r distinction; A Cognitive grammar evaluation of knowledge from Orizaba Nahuatl” (Cognitive Linguistics three/three, 237-300), “The factor is is that folks discuss that method. The query is is why? ” (In: E. Casad (ed. ). 1995.
Cognitive linguistics within the redwoods; the enlargement of a brand new paradigm in linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 713-752. ), and “ “Abrelatas and scarecrow nouns: Exocentric verb-noun compounds as illustrations of fundamental rules of Cognitive grammar” ( (Worldwide Journal of English Research (2004) III, 25-61). Mark Volpe is a Ph. D candidate at SUNY at Stony Brook anticipating to defend his dissertation on Japanese morphology in early spring 2005. He’s at present a visiting lecturer within the Division of Humanities at Mie Nationwide College in Tsu, Japan.
He has revealed independently in Lingua and Snippets and has coauthored with Paolo Acquaviva, Mark Aronoff and Robert Beard. BASIC TERMINOLOGY ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY 1. THE NOTION OF THE LINGUISTIC SIGN On this introductory chapter I’ll focus on the notions ‘morpheme’ and ‘signal’ in relation to word-formation. The starting-point might be Ferdinand de Saussure’s notion ‘signal’ (signe) (Saussure 1973), which for the reason that early twentieth century has influenced enormously how linguists have analysed phrases and elements of phrases as grammatical items.
There might be no tidy conclusion, partly as a result of Saussure himself was obscure on essential factors, and partly as a result of amongst modern linguistic theorists there’s little settlement about even probably the most basic facets of how word-formation needs to be analysed and what terminology needs to be utilized in describing it. However I hope that this chapter will alert readers to a few of the most important dangers of bewilderment that they’re positive to come across later. 1 A handbook of English syntax within the twenty-first century wouldn’t be prone to start with a dialogue of Saussure. Why then does it make sense for a handbook on word-formation to take action?
There are two causes. The primary is that syntax is centrally involved not with particular person indicators in Saussure’s sense however with combos of indicators. That makes it sound as if word-formation, in contrast, is worried not with combos of indicators however solely with particular person indicators. As as to if that implication is enticing or not, readers can sooner or later type their very own opinions. For the current, it is sufficient to say that, within the opinion of most however not all linguists, the way in which by which significant components are mixed in syntax is completely different from how they’re mixed in complicated phrases.
The second motive has to do with Saussure’s distinction between language as social conference (langue) and language as ( utterance (parole). Every language as langue belongs to a group of audio system and, as a result of it’s a social conference, people don’t have any management over it. However, language as parole is one thing that particular person audio system have management over; it consists of the use that people freely make of their langue within the sentences and phrases that they utter.
Therefore, as a result of syntax is worried with the construction of sentences and phrases, Saussure appears to have thought-about the research of syntax as belonging to the research of parole, not langue (the exception being these sentences or phrases which are idioms or cliches and which subsequently belong to langue as a result of they’re typical quite than freely constructed). So, as a result of his focus was on langue quite than parole, Saussure had little to say about syntax. 1 I’ll use ‘Saussure’ on this chapter as shorthand for ‘Saussure’s view as introduced within the Cours de linguistique generale’.
The Cours is a posthumous compilation based mostly on notes of assorted collection of lectures that Saussure delivered over a variety of years. Obvious inconsistencies within the Cours could also be resulting from developments in Saussure’s considering over time or defective note-taking on the a part of the compilers or each. Nonetheless, it’s the Cours as an entire that has influenced subsequent linguists, and on that foundation it’s truthful to debate it as if it have been created by one writer as a single coherent work. 5 Stekauer P. and R. Lieber (eds. ), Handbook of Phrase-Formation, 5—23. 2005 Springer. Printed within the Netherlands. 6 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY Saussure launched his notion ‘signal’ with a well-known instance: a diagram consisting of an ellipse, the higher half containing an image of a tree and the decrease half containing the Latin phrase arbor ‘tree’ (Saussure Cours, half 1, chapter 1; 99; r 67). 2 The higher half of the diagram is supposed to symbolize an idea, or what the signal signifies (its signifie), whereas the decrease half represents the unit of expression in Latin that signifies it (the signifiant).
As Saussure acknowledges, the time period ‘signal’ in its regular utilization appears nearer to the signifiant than the signifie, and at first one is t inclined to ask what the purpose is in distinguishing the signifiant from the signal as a t complete. Saussure’s reply lies largely in his view of how indicators are associated to one another. Indicators (he says) don’t perform in isolation however quite have a ‘worth’ (valeur) as a part of a system (half 2, chapter Four; 155-69; 110-20). Ideas (signifies) don’t exist on the earth indepently of language however solely as parts of the indicators to which they belong.
By this Saussure doesn’t imply that (for instance) bushes don’t have any actual existence other than language, however quite that the time period for the idea ‘tree’ will differ in valeur from one language to a different relying on whether or not or not that r language has, for instance, contrasting phrases for the idea ‘bush’ (a small tree) or the idea ‘timber’ (wooden from bushes to be used in constructing or furniture-making). three Every signifie has a wider or narrower scope, in line with how few or what number of are the associated indicators that its signal contrasts with.
And with signifiants, too, what issues most shouldn’t be the sounds or letters that compose them however their function in distinguishing one signal from one other. Thus the Attic Greek verb kinds ephe:n ‘I used to be saying’ and este:n ‘I stood’ each have the identical construction (a prefix e-, a root, and a suffix -n), however their valeur inside their respective verbal paradigms is completely different: ephe:n is an r ‘imperfect’ tense type whereas este:n is ‘aorist’. Up to now, so good, maybe.
The Latin phrase arbor and the English phrase tree are r easy phrases, not analysable into smaller significant elements, and every is in Saussure’s phrases an indication. However contemplate the phrase unhelpfulness, which appears clearly to consist of 4 components, un-, assist, -ful and -ness, every of which contributes in a l clear strategy to the that means of the entire. Take into account additionally the phrases Londoner, Muscovite, Parisian, Roman, and Viennese, all that means ‘inhabitant of … ’, and all consisting of a stem adopted by a suffix. What issues depend as indicators right here: the entire phrases, or the weather composing them, or each?
It’s at this level that Saussure’s exposition turns into frustratingly unclear, as I’ll reveal presently. Allow us to name these components ‘morphemes’. That is in line with the utilization of Baudouin de Courtenay, the inventor of the time period, who speaks of ‘the unification of the ideas of root, affix, prefix, ending, and the like beneath the frequent time period, morpheme’ (Baudouin de Courtenay 1972: 151) and defines it as ‘that a part of a phrase which is endowed with psychological autonomy and is for the exact same motive not 2
As a result of readers are prone to have entry to Saussure’s Cours in numerous completely different editions and translations, I’ll give first a reference to the related half and chapter, then a web page reference to the 1973 version by Tullio de Mauro, and at last a web page reference to the 1983 translation by Roy Harris. I quote passages from the Cours within the translation by Harris. I take advantage of Saussure’s unique technical phrases langue, parole, signifiant and signifie, for which no constant English equivalents have turn out to be t established. three This illustration is mine, not Saussure’s, however is within the spirit of
Saussure’s dialogue of how two English phrases sheep and mutton correspond to 1 French phrase mouton. BASIC TERMINOLOGY 7 additional divisible’ (1972: 153). It is usually in line with rough-and-ready definitions of the type supplied in introductory linguistics programs, the place morphemes are characterised as individually significant items that are minimal within the sense that they aren’t divisible into smaller significant items. Four The query simply posed now turns into: Do morphemes depend as indicators, or do solely phrases depend, or each?
A lot of the divergence in how the time period ‘morpheme’ is used might be seen as resulting from implicit or express makes an attempt to deal with morphemes as indicators, regardless of the difficulties that rapidly come up when one does so. These are difficulties that Saussure by no means confronts, as a result of the time period ‘morpheme’ by no means seems within the Cours. In Saussure’s defence, one can pretty plead that he couldn’t be anticipated to cowl each facet of his notion of the register introductory lectures. But the query that I’ve simply posed about morphemes is one which naturally arises nearly as quickly because the notion of the signal is launched.
A case might be made for attributing to Saussure two diametrically opposed positions referring to the function of indicators in word-formation. I’ll name these the morpheme-as-sign place and the word-as-sign place. I’ll first current proof from the Cours for morphemes as indicators, then current proof for phrases as indicators. 1. 1 Proof for the morpheme-as-sign place in Saussure’s Cours The excellence between langue and parole is way from the one essential binary distinction launched by Saussure in his Cours.
One other is the excellence between syntagmatic relationships (involving components in linear succession) and associative relationships (involving components that distinction on a dimension of selection). 5 Components that may be associated syntagmatically embody indicators, and particularly the signifiants of indicators, that are ‘introduced one after one other’ in order to ‘type a series’ (half 1, chapter 1, part three; 103; 70). Chains of things that type syntagmatically associated combos are known as syntagmas (syntagmes) (half 2, chapter 5; 170-5; 121-5). Some syntagmas have meanings which are conventionalised or idiomatic.
This conventionalisation renders them a part of langue. An instance is the phrase prendre la mouche (actually ‘to take the fly’), which implies ‘to take offence’ (half 2, chapter 5, part 2; 172; 123). Nevertheless, the good majority of phrases and sentences have meanings which are clear, not idiomatic. As such, they belong to parole, to not langue. As examples of syntagmas that belong to parole, Saussure cites contre tous ‘in opposition to all’, la vie humaine ‘human life’, Dieu est bon ‘God is sweet’, and s’il fait beau temps, nous sortirons ‘if it’s high-quality, we’ll exit’ (half 2, chapter 5, part 1; 170; 121).
These phrases and sentences don’t represent indicators as wholes; quite, t Four 5 This resembles Bloomfield’s traditional definition: ‘a linguistic type which bears no partial phoneticsemantic resemblance to some other type’ (1933: 161). One implication of the specification ‘partial’ is that two morphemes could show whole phonetic identification (in order to be homonyms) or whole semantic identification (in order to be synonyms). Within the technical terminology of linguistics, the time period ‘paradigmatic’, promoted by Louis Hjelmslev (1961), has come to switch ‘associative’ because the counterpart of ‘syntagmatic’.
However I’ll persist with Saussure’s time period on this chapter. Eight ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY they’re made up of smaller indicators, particularly the phrases or idiomatic expressions that they comprise. On this foundation, the query ‘Do morphemes depend as indicators? ’ might be refined as ‘Can morphemes as such compose syntagmas that belong to parole quite than to langue? ’ At first sight, the reply is sure. In the exact same passage the place Saussure offers the examples simply quoted, he cites the phrase re-lire ‘to learn once more’.
Saussure makes use of the hyphen to attract consideration to the divisibility of this phrase into two components, re- ‘once more’ and lire ‘to learn’. The phrase relire thus has a that means that’s as clear as that of unhelpfulness. Right here, not less than, it appears clear that Saussure intends us to analyse the morpheme re- as an indication, forming a part of a syntagma that belongs to parole quite than to langue. Additional proof for this ‘morpheme-as-sign’ place appears to be provided by Saussure’s dialogue of suffixes equivalent to -ment and -eux, and of zero indicators.
The t phrases enseignement ‘instruction’, enseigner ‘to show’ and enseignons ‘we educate’ t r clearly share what Saussure calls a ‘frequent component’. Equally, the suffixes -ment and -eux are ‘frequent components’ within the set of phrases enseignement, armement ‘armament’ and changement ‘change (noun)’, and within the set desir-eux ‘desirous’ t (from desir ‘want’), chaleur-eux ‘heat’ (from chaleur ‘heat’), and peur-eux r r ‘fearful’ (from peur ‘concern’) (half 2, chapter 5, part three; 173-5; 123-5). 6 These r frequent components are morphemes, when it comes to our rough-and-ready definition.
Are in addition they indicators, in Saussure’s sense? Saussure hints on the reply ‘sure’ when he discusses a set of situations the place overt suffixes distinction with zero. In Czech, the noun zena ‘girl’ illustrates a widespread sample by which the genitive plural type zen is differentiated from the opposite case-number kinds, such because the accusative singular zenu and the nominative plural zeny, just by the absence of a suffix. Right here the genitive plural has as its exponent ‘zero’ or ‘the signal zero’ (half 1, chapter three, part three; 123-Four; 86).
Absolutely then (one is inclined to assume) the accusative singular suffix -u and the nominative plural suffix -y, each being morphemes in our sense, should have not less than as a lot proper as zero has to depend as indicators. It’s tempting to conclude that, in complicated phrases, Saussure recognises particular person morphemes as indicators supplied that the complicated phrase is recurrently fashioned and semantically clear. A reader of the Cours who appears for express affirmation of this tempting conclusion might be annoyed, nonetheless.
Many complicated phrases aside from re-lire and types of zena are mentioned, however all the time it’s in contexts that emphasise the associative relationships of the phrase as an entire, quite than the syntagmatic relationship between the morphemes that compose it. These discussions level away from morphemes as indicators and in direction of phrases as indicators, subsequently. 1. 2 Proof for the word-as-sign place in Saussure’s Cours Carefully parallel in construction to relire is the verb de-faire ‘to undo’, additionally mentioned by Saussure (half 2, chapter 6, part 2; 177-Eight; 127-Eight). Once more he makes use of a hyphen to attract consideration to its inner construction.
The that means of defaire, not less than in lots of 6 The inconsistency in the usage of hyphens right here is Saussure’s. BASIC TERMINOLOGY 9 contexts, appears simply as clear as that of relire, on the premise of the meanings of faire ‘to do’ and de- implying reversal. Certainly, Saussure attracts our consideration to this transparency by citing the parallel formations decoller ‘to unstick’, deplacer ‘to r r take away’ (actually ‘to un-place’) and decoudre ‘to unsew’. Nevertheless, evaluating the dialogue of relire, we discover an essential distinction in emphasis right here. With relire, the emphasis was on syntagmatic relationships.
With defaire, nonetheless, the emphasis is on the associative relationships that it enters into: not simply with decoller, deplacer and decoudre but additionally with faire itself, refaire ‘to redo’, and contrefaire ‘to caricature’. Now, it’s clear that contrefaire is one thing of an outsider on this checklist, as a result of its that means can’t be predicted from that of its components faire and contre ‘in opposition to’. One would possibly subsequently have anticipated Saussure to say one thing like this: “Due to its unpredictable that means, the syntagma contrefaire is conventionalised and belongs as a unitary signal to langue, in order that contre and faire don’t depend as indicators on this context.
Nevertheless, the meanings of the opposite complicated phrases I’ve cited are predictable, so they’re examples of syntagmas that belong to parole, and in them the morphemes re- and de-, in addition to the verb stems that accompany them, are indicators. ” However what Saussure really says is nearly the alternative of that. The phrase defaire is decomposable into ‘smaller items’, he says, solely to the extent that’s ‘surrounded by’ these different kinds (decoller, refaire and so forth) on the axis of affiliation. Furthermore, a phrase equivalent to desireux is ‘a product, a mix of interdependent components, their worth [i. . valeur] deriving solely from their mutual contributions inside a bigger unit’ (half 2, chapter 6, part 1; 176; 126). Recall that valeur is a property of indicators, depending on their place throughout the signal system as a r complete. Saussure’s phrases right here suggest, subsequently, that in desireux, the ‘smaller unit’ or ‘component’ -eux, although clearly identifiable, shouldn’t be an indication. Saussure hints that even the basis desir, within the context of this phrase, doesn’t depend as an indication both, though it clearly does so when it seems as a phrase by itself. We’re thus left with a contradiction.
The phrase relire is cited in a context that invitations us to deal with it as a unit of parole, not langue, composed of indicators, identical to the sentence If it’s high-quality, we’ll exit. However, the dialogue surrounding defaire insists on its standing as a unit of langue, an indication as an entire, composed of ‘components’ or ‘smaller items’ that aren’t indicators. On the premise of my presentation to this point, the proof for the 2 positions (morpheme-as-sign and word-as-sign) could appear pretty evenly balanced. However there are strong causes to assume that the word-as-sign place extra intently displays Saussure’s true view.
Take into account the French quantity phrase dix-neuf ‘nineteen’ (actually f ‘ten-nine’). In such a clear compound as this, the 2 morphemes dix and neuf, being phrases (and therefore indicators) on their very own, should certainly nonetheless depend as indicators f (one might imagine). However no, says Saussure: dix-neuf doesn’t comprise elements which are indicators f any greater than vingt ‘twenty’ does (half 2, chapter 6, part three; 181; 130). The t distinction between dix-neuf and vingt, as he presents it, includes a brand new distinction: f t between indicators which are motivated and indicators which are unmotivated.
The signal vingt is unmotivated in that it’s purely arbitrary: the sounds (or letters) that make it up give f no clue to its that means. The signal dix-neuf nonetheless, incorporates subunits which give clues to its that means that might hardly be stronger. Even so, in line with Saussure, 10 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY dix-neuf continues to be a single signal on the identical airplane as vingt or neuf or soixante-dix f t f ‘seventy’ (actually ‘sixty-ten’). It’s the valeur of dix-neuf within the system of French r f quantity phrases that imposes on it the standing of a unitary signal, regardless of its semantic transparency. Saussure may additionally have added that this transparency, actual although it’s, is dependent upon a conference that belongs to French langue, not parole: the conference that concatenation of dix and neuf means ‘ten plus 9’, not ‘ten occasions f 9’ or ‘ten to the ninth energy’, for instance. His neglect of this level displays his common neglect of syntactic and syntagmatic conference. 7 Equally, the English plural type ships is motivated as a result of it ‘recall[s] an entire collection like flags, birds, books, and so on. ’, whereas males and sheep are unmotivated as a result of they ‘recall no parallel instances’.
The plural suffix -(e)s is, within the English-speaking world, among the many first halfdozen ‘morphemes’ that each starting pupil of linguistics is launched to. But for Saussure it doesn’t depend as signal; it’s merely a motive for classifying the phrases that it seems in (ships, flags and so on. ) as comparatively motivated indicators quite than purely d arbitrary ones. There’s thus a putting discrepancy between the word-centred strategy to complicated phrases, predominant within the work of the pioneer structuralist Saussure, and the morpheme-centred strategy that (as we will see) predominated amongst his structuralist successors.
In part 2 I’ll define the points of interest and pitfalls of morpheme-centred approaches. 2. MORPHEME AND WORD Saussure recognised a few of the difficulties inherent in utilizing ‘phrase’ as a technical time period (half 2, chapter 2, part three). Nonetheless, when illustrating his notion ‘signal’, he selected linguistic items that in bizarre utilization could be labeled as r r phrases, equivalent to Latin arbor ‘tree’ and French juger ‘to guage’ (half 1, chapter 1, part 1; half 2, chapter Four, part 2).
This can be largely as a result of the languages from which he drew his examples have been almost all well-studied European languages with an extended written historical past and a convention of grammatical and lexical evaluation in f phrases of which the identification of phrases (in some sense) was uncontroversial. Nevertheless, accompanying the theoretical developments in linguistics within the early twentieth century was an explosion in fieldwork on non-Indo-European languages, notably within the Americas and Africa. In these languages, missing a European-style custom of grammatical description, figuring out phrases as linguistic items usually appeared problematic.
In actual fact, there was a robust present of opinion in line with which the phrase deserves no particular standing in linguistic description, and particularly no particular standing warranting a distinction between the interior construction of phrases (‘morphology’) and the interior construction of phrases and sentences (‘syntax’). As Malinowski put it, ‘remoted phrases are in truth solely linguistic figments, the merchandise of a complicated linguistic evaluation’ (Malinowski 1935: 11, cited by Robins 1990: 154). So what items are acceptable as instruments for a preliminary linguistic evaluation?
It appeared pure to reply: these items which are clearly indivisible grammatically and t 7 I owe this level to Harris (1987: 132). BASIC TERMINOLOGY 11 lexically, or, in different phrases, items of the type that we provisionally labelled ‘morphemes’ in part 1. Thus, regardless of Saussure’s leaning in direction of the word-assign place, the expertise of fieldwork on languages unfamiliar to most European and American students imposed a choice for a model of the morpheme-as-sign place. The place, then, does the morpheme-as-sign place leads us?
Allow us to recall first the Saussurean norm of what constitutes a signifiant: a sequentially ordered string of sounds, equivalent to Latin [arbor] (spelled arbor) or French [ y e] (spelled juger), such that each unit of parole is analysable exhaustively as a string of signifiants (half 1, chapter 1, part three). What we are going to observe is a temptation in direction of indicators with signifiants that deviate progressively farther from this norm. The analyses that I’ll focus on are based mostly on an strategy to morphemes that was expounded particularly by Zellig S. Harris (1942), Charles F.
Hockett (1947), Bernard Bloch (1947) and Eugene A. Nida (1948). None of those explicitly espouses the morpheme-as-sign place, as a result of none of them cites Saussure. Nevertheless, the problems that they focus on can all be seen as prima facie difficulties for that place. The truth that all these references are clustered greater than half a century in the past displays the substitute of f morphology by syntax on the centre of grammatical theory-construction. Nonetheless, I’ll remark in part three on makes use of of the time period ‘morpheme’ since about 1960. 2. Case research: English noun plural kinds (half 1) f For Saussure, as we have now seen, the -s suffix of flags and ships shouldn’t be an indication however a component that renders these phrases comparatively motivated, in contrast with males and sheep. Allow us to say as an alternative that this -s suffix is certainly an indication, with the signifie ‘plural’. What’s its signifiant? As far as English spelling is worried, the reply is straightforward. After we flip to phonology, nonetheless, we encounter our first stumbling-block. In a standard phonemic transcription for these two phrases, the suffix will seem in two completely different shapes, /z/ and /s/, (/fl? , ps/), and there’s but a 3rd form, both / z/ or / z/, in line with dialect, present in phrases equivalent to roses, horses, church buildings and judges. Eight Should we then recognise three completely different indicators with the identical signifie? Such an evaluation would place these three indicators on a par with units of synonyms equivalent to courgettes and zucchini, or almost and nearly. That’s hardly passable, as a result of it neglects the function of phonology in figuring out the complementary distribution of the three shapes: / z/ seems after strident coronal sounds, whereas elsewhere /z/ seems after voiced sounds and /s/after unvoiced ones.
It was in relation to patterns equivalent to this that the time period ‘allomorph’ was first launched in morphology. The meant parallel with the notions ‘phoneme’ and ‘allophone’ is clear. Simply as sounds which are phonetically related and in Eight In my dialect, the third form is / z/, in order that taxes sounds the identical as taxis, however roses sounds completely different from Rosa’s. For a lot of audio system of different dialects, the homophony sample is the opposite method spherical. The examples that I’ll focus on match my very own dialect, however related examples can simply be constructed to t make the identical level for audio system with the opposite homophony sample. 2 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY complementary distribution depend as allophones of 1 phoneme, so individually significant items that aren’t divisible into smaller significant items, supplied that they’re synonymous and in complementary distribution, depend as allomorphs of 1 morpheme. And simply as it’s the allophones of a phoneme that get pronounced, quite than the phoneme itself, a morpheme is likewise not pronounced straight, however represented within the speech chain by whichever of its allomorphs is acceptable for the context.
This is applicable even to morphemes which have the identical form in all contexts, as a result of there is no such thing as a motive in precept why a morpheme shouldn’t have just one allomorph, simply as a phoneme could have just one allophone. Discover, nonetheless, that that phrase ‘individually significant items that aren’t divisible into smaller significant items’ is lifted from my provisional definition of ‘morpheme’ in part 1. It appears, then, that our exploration of the morpheme-assign place has led us already to a dilemma.
If the items / z/, /z/ and /s/ are l Saussurean indicators, identical to the items / n/ (un-), /assist/ (assist), /f l/ (-ful) and /n s/ (-ness) that served to introduce the ‘morpheme’ notion in part 1, then we should concede that the items that deserve ‘signal’ standing, as an alternative choice to phrases, are usually not in any case morphemes however allomorphs of morphemes. 9 Moreover, if / z/, /z/ and /s/ are all signifiants of indicators whose signifie is ‘plural’, the morpheme that all of them belong to appears by some means superfluous from the standpoint of the Saussurean t signal, constituting neither a signifiant nor a signifie.
However, if we want to proceed to say that it’s morphemes which are indicators, quite than allomorphs, we should depart from the Saussurean doctrine that a signifiant is a linearly ordered string t throughout the speech chain (/ z/, for instance), and say as an alternative that it’s, or could also be, a set d of linearly ordered strings in complementary distribution (/ z/, /z/ and /s/, on this occasion). The truth that the distribution of those allomorphs is phonologically conditioned could counsel an escape from this dilemma.
If the selection between the three allomorphs is set purely by constraints of English phonology, then maybe we will say that, in phonological phrases not less than (though not phonetic), we actually are coping with just one string throughout the speech chain, not three. In that case, the issue of a number of signifiants disappears, and the plural -s suffix conforms to the norm for a Saussurean signal. The stumbling-block shouldn’t be fairly so simply surmounted, nonetheless. English phonological constraints don’t provide a conclusive verdict on which allomorph is acceptable in all contexts.
There are numerous contexts the place greater than one of many three allomorphs is phonologically admissible, and a few contexts the place all three are. Take into account the noun pen /pen/. Its plural type is /penz/, complying with the generalisation that the voiced type of the suffix seems after voiced sounds (aside from coronal stridents). However this isn’t as a result of the choice suffix shapes yield unhealthy phonotactic combos. Each /pens/ and / pen z/ are phonologically wellformed, and certainly each exist as phrases (pence and pennies). So one thing greater than pure ( phonotactics is at work within the selection between the three allomorphs.
Solely when it comes to a phonological concept extra subtle than any obtainable in Saussure’s time (for 9 That is the view defended by Me uk (1993-2000). BASIC TERMINOLOGY 13 instance, modern Optimality Idea) can we encourage a single phonological underlier for all three. Across the center of the 20th century, issues such because the one we have now simply encountered have been sometimes dealt with by positing a degree of study in some extent distinct from each phonology and morphology, known as morphophonology (typically abbreviated to morphonology) or morphophonemics.
The phrases ‘morphophonology’ and ‘morphophonological’ are typically used to imply merely ‘(pertaining to) the interface between morphology and phonology’. Nevertheless, morphophonemics has a extra particular sense, implying a unit known as a morphophoneme. On this occasion, one would possibly posit a morphophoneme /Z/ (say), realised phonologically as / z/, /z/ or /s/, in line with the context. 10 This permits us to posit a single signifiant underlying / z/, /z/ and /s/, however on the value (once more) of t recognising a signifiant which departs from Saussure’s norm in that it isn’t t pronounceable straight.
The morphophoneme /Z/, as simply described, is realised by allomorphs which are distributed on a phonological foundation. However complementary distribution could also be based mostly on grammar quite than phonology. English nouns equivalent to spouse, loaf and tub provide f f f an illustration of this. Within the singular, they finish in a unvoiced fricative: /waif/, /louf/, / /ba /. Within the plural, nonetheless, their stems finish in a voiced fricative (/waiv/, /louv/, /ba /). (This distinction between the singular and plural stems is mirrored orthographically in wives and loaves, although not in paths. The allomorph of the plural suffix that accompanies them is subsequently, as anticipated, the one which seems after voiced sounds: /z/. Do the singular and plural stems subsequently belong to distinct morphemes? To say so could be in line with Baudouin de Courtenay’s utilization. Nevertheless, more moderen linguists, influenced by the identification in that means and the nearcomplete identification in sound in pairs equivalent to has spouse and wive-, have all the time handled them as allomorphs of 1 morpheme.
But there’s nothing phonological in regards to the plural suffix that enforces the number of the voiced-fricative allomorph. The noun spouse itself can carry the possessive marker -’s to yield a type spouse’s /waifs/ with a unvoiced fricative in a phonologically wellformed cluster. Furthermore, not all nouns whose stems finish in unvoiced fricatives exhibit this voicing within the plural; for instance, it doesn’t happen within the plural kinds fifes, oafs or breaths.
So the voicing is restricted each lexically (it happens in some nouns solely) and grammatically (it happens solely when the plural suffix /Z/ follows). Some morphologists have dealt with this by positing morphophonemes equivalent to /F/ and / /, items which are realised as a voiced phoneme within the plural and a unvoiced one within the singular (Harris 1942). These nouns 10 The conference of utilizing capital letters to symbolize morphophonemes was fairly widespread within the mid twentieth century (see e. g. Harris 1942). However capital letters have been additionally used to symbolize a purely phonological notion, the archiphoneme.
An archiphoneme is a unit that replaces two or extra phonemes in a context the place the distinction between them is unavailable, as for instance in German the m distinction between /t/ and /d/ is unavailable in syllable codas. The [t] that seems in codas in German was usually stated to grasp not /t/, which might suggest a distinction with /d/, however an archiphoneme /T/, t d implying no such distinction. It is necessary to not be misled by notation into complicated t morphophonemes with archiphonemes. 14 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY an then be represented morphophonologically (quite than phonologically) as /waiF/, /louF/ and /ba /. The morphophoneme might be seen as a tool which allows a morpheme to be t analysed as having a single signifiant (and thus as constituting a single Saussurean signal) even when when it comes to its phonology it appears essential to recognise a number of allomorphs and therefore a number of signifiants – a chance that Saussure doesn’t enable for. However is the morphophoneme system able to dealing with all multipleallomorph patterns satisfactorily? The reply isn’t any, as I’ll reveal within the subsequent subsections. . 2 Case research: the proper participle types of English verbs I take advantage of ‘excellent participle’ to check with the shape by which the lexical verb seems when accompanied by the auxiliary have, as in I’ve waited, I’ve performed, I’ve swum. The common English excellent participle suffix -(e)d has three shapes, /t/, /d/ and d 11 / d/. These are distributed in a trend intently parallel to the allomorphs of the noun plural suffix: / d/ seems after coronal plosives, whereas elsewhere /d/ seems after voiced sounds and /t/ after unvoiced ones.
However, simply as with the noun plural suffix, phonology alone doesn’t all the time assure the right selection of suffix. For d t instance, /’ok? n d/, /ok? nd/ and /ok? nt/ are all phonologically attainable phrases and certainly precise phrases: canid ‘member of the subgroup of mammals to which wolves d and canines belong’, canned ‘contained in a can’ and cant ‘hypocrisy’. These suffix d t shapes subsequently illustrate the identical stumbling-block and the identical dilemma because the three shapes of the plural suffix.
A technique of dealing with this, as with the plural suffix, is to posit a morphophoneme (say, /D/), realised as /t/, /d/ or / d/, in line with the phonological context. Nevertheless, the proper participle reveals problems, one in every of which isn’t paralleled in noun plurals. Some verbs have an ideal participle type with the suffix t d /t/ (orthographically -t quite than -ed) which seems even the place /d/ could be anticipated, as a result of the final sound of the verb stem is voiced, or the place / d/ could be anticipated, as a result of what precedes is a coronal plosive.
Examples of those ‘orthographic-t’ verbs are construct (excellent participle constructed), bend (bent), really feel (felt), preserve d t d t l t (saved), spell (spelt), lose (misplaced), educate (taught), and purchase (purchased). Comparable to t l t t t every of those it’s attainable to discover a verb with the same stem form however whose excellent participle is fashioned with /t/, /d/ or / d/ in line with the common sample: (1) Orthographic-t verbs Base Good participle construct constructed bend bent really feel felt Common verbs Base gild have a tendency peel Good participle gilded tended eeled 11 In lots of dialects aside from mine, the third allomorph shouldn’t be / d/ however / d/. This doesn’t have an effect on my d d argument, nonetheless. BASIC TERMINOLOGY 15 seeped heaved felled oozed bleached lied preserve depart spell lose educate purchase saved left spelt misplaced taught purchased seep heave fell ooze bleach lie As is evident, an extra attribute of orthographic-t verbs is that they almost t all the time show a stem type that differs from the bottom or present-tense stem. What instantly considerations us is the suffix, nonetheless.
Is it or is it not a definite morpheme from the common /t/ (spelt -ed) which is in complementary distribution with / d/ and d /d/? If we reply ‘sure’, we implicitly declare that the truth that /t/ is a typical allomorph of the -ed morpheme in addition to the only allomorph of the -t morpheme is d t a mere coincidence. However, simply as with spouse and wive-, it goes in opposition to the grain to posit two distinct morphemes with the identical that means and such related shapes. Thus the consensus in analyses of English verb morphology is that ‘orthographic-t’ in an allomorph of the identical morpheme that common /t/, /d/ and / d/ belon

Order | Check Discount

Tags: PSY Papers, Psych Research Paper Sample, Psychology Assignment, Psychology Dissertation Writing, Psychology research paper