?tekauer Pavol, Lieber Rochelle. Handbook of Word-Formation
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
HANS MARCHAND AND THE MARCHANDEANS
11
7
with the other Marchandeans, but Marchand’s theories have clearly also shaped he
r
l
inguistic thinking to a great extent. Stein started out with contributions to word-
formation (partly French, partly English), but then also got interested in syntax
(
especiall
y
the passive),
a
n
d finall
y
her main research interest became En
g
lish
l
exico
g
raph
y
, especiall
y
the earl
y
develop
m
e
nt of lexico
g
raphic practice, where she
n
ow is one of the leadin
g
experts.
Her first
p
ublication in word-formation
(
Stein 1970
)
dealt with the rise of new
s
uffixes in French, English and German from a
typological
point of view. In this she
l
a
pp
lied Coseriu’s distinction between modification (which does not involve any
s
yntactic function, as with diminutives such as T
ischlein
,
dukelet
),
t
d
evelopmen
t
(which involves one basic element, changi
n
g its word-class affiliation on the basis of
s
ome syntactic function, in which it is involved, e.g.
white
ĺ
whiteness
‘state
,f
act
o
f bein
g
white’), and composition
(
which involves two basic elements and thei
r
sy
ntactic functions:
g
eneric (prolexematic) composition, e.
g
. A
g
ent + predicate;
s
in
g
-er
,
and specific (lexematic) composition, e.
g
.
whet
-
stone
)
. On the basis of this
s
ubclassification Stein investigates the develo
p
ment of suffixes from inde
p
endent
l
exical items
,
but also from other sources.
In her Ph. D. dissertation (Stein 1971), Stein investigates the relationship
between primary, i.e. underived ad
j
ectives and derived ad
j
ectives with regard to
t
heir linguistic behaviour in French and English, again primarily based on Coseriu’s
t
heor
y
of lexematics, but with a
g
reat deal of Marchand’s theoretical considerations
as well. Stein distinguishes four different
types of word-formation, viz. derivation
t
with the subcate
g
ories of modi
f
ication
,
expansion an
d
prolexematic derivation an
d
compoundin
g
,
represented by lexemic compounding (involving the combination of
l
exemes). She then subjects the bases
o
f the adjectival derivatives to a
classematic-
semantic analysis
i
n order to establish a principled account for existing and non-
e
xisting (or possible and impossible) derivatives in the respective languages. Thus
French cannot derive an ad
j
ective from a noun denoting a human being (cf.
*
homme
,
*hommeux
) as against English (cf.
manned
). She then provides a detailed description
dd
o
f the semantic fields which allow the derivation of ad
j
ectives takin
g
also into
c
onsideration whether the base is simple or complex. This leads to an interestin
g
c
omparison as to what extent the two lan
g
ua
g
es make use of the options available.
One of her most valuable contributions to the study of English word-formation is
Stein
(
1973
)
, a com
p
rehensive
b
ibliograph
y
of
p
ublications in this field between ca.
1770 and 1973. This has become an indispensable research tool especially fo
r
finding older public
a
t
ions, which are sometimes very difficult to trace.
Another area that
S
tein has tackled is so-called combining forms
(
Stein 1978
)
,
e
.g
.
astronaut, biolog
y
,
i.e. combinations containing Neo-Latin elements whose
m
orpholo
g
ical status is unclear. Here the question arises whether these should be
t
reated as stem-compounds or as affixal formations. Stein opts for the forme
r
so
l
u
ti
o
n
.
In Stein (2002), she returns to word-formation again, looking into the options
o
ne has to separate constituents of complex lexical items especially in cases of co-
o
rdination
,
such as ein- und auszuschalten, Kartoffel- und grüner Salat, a spoon- or
a cupful of raisins, etc. This partial separability apparently requires a redefinition of
t
he category of word, which is generally defined on the basis of being indivisible.
1
1
8
DIETER KA
S
T
OVS
KY
8. CONCL
U
SION
I
n this chapter I have tried to characterise the contribution to the study of
(
English) word-formation by those who may be regarded as having belonged to an
i
n-group which one of the editors of this book has called ‘Marchandeans’. As I have
s
aid at the be
g
innin
g
, it is rather difficult to reall
y
decide who should fi
g
ure as a
m
ember of this set, since Marchand’s influence did not onl
y
affect those workin
g
i
mmediatel
y
with him. Restrictin
g
m
y
self to those who did so does not mean that
o
thers might not have been included as well, but this would not have been possible
i
n this context. I would also like to add a personal note. Having been a member of
t
his in-group myself, I found it somewhat difficult to write this
p
a
p
er, because it
i
ncludes my own past, and writing about
o
ne’s own past one shouldn’t do before
o
ne’s eightieth birthday. I hope I have giv
e
n
all th
ose
that I ha
ve d
i
scussed
a fai
r
d
eal, and I also hope that at least between th
e
lin
es
th
e
r
e
a
der
s
may glimpse a little
bit of the wonderful atmosphere en
g
end
e
r
ed b
y
the cooperation of Coseriu,
Marchand and Wandruszka on the one hand, but also b
y
their man
y
pupils on the
o
th
e
r han
d
in th
e
1
9
60
s
an
d
1
97
0
s.
I think that
o
n
be
half
o
f all th
e
Mar
c
han
de
an
s
I
c
an say that we are grateful for this experience.
D
ieter Kastovsky
Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanisti
k
1
090 Wien, Spitalgasse 2, Hof 8
A-1090
W
ien
Institut für Translationswissenschaft
1
190 Wien, Gymnasiumstraße 50
A-1190
W
ien
A
ust
r
ia
e-mail: dieter.kastovsky@univie.ac.a
t
REFERENCES
B
acchielli, Rolando
(
ed.
)
. 1994.
H
istorical English word-formation. Papers read at the Sixth National
Con
f
erence o
f
the Histor
y
o
f
En
g
lish. Urbino:
Q
uattroVenti.
B
ach
,
Emmon and Harms
,
Robert T. 1968. Universals in lin
g
uistic theor
y.
New York: Holt
,
Rinehart and
W
inston.
B
ahner, Werner; Schildt, Joachim; and Viehweger, Dieter (eds.). 1990. Proceedings of the XIVth
I
nternational Con
g
ress o
f
Lin
g
uists, Berlin 1987. Berlin: Akademie-Verla
g
.
B
ally, Charles. 1944.
Linguistique générale et
linguistique française.
t
2
e
éd.
B
e
rn
e:
Fran
c
k
e.
B
ausch, Karl-Richard and Gau
g
er, Hans-Martin (eds.). 1971.
I
nterlin
g
uistica: Sprachver
g
leich und
Ü
bersetzun
g
. Festschri
f
t zum 60. G
e
b
urtsta
g
von Mario Wandruszka. Tübin
g
en: Nieme
y
e
r
.
B
ierwisch, Manfred and Heidolph, Karl E. (eds.). 1970. Pro
g
ress in lin
g
uistics. The Ha
g
ue: Mouton.
B
raunmüller, Kurt and Kürschner, Wilfried
(
eds.
)
. 1976.
A
kten des 10. Linguistischen Kolloquiums,
T
übin
g
en 1975.
V
ol. 2
.
G
rammati
k
.
Tübin
g
en: Nieme
y
er.
H
ANS MARCHAND AND THE MARCHANDEANS
119
B
rekle, Herbert Ernst. 1966. “Syntaktische Gruppe (Adjektiv + Substantiv) vs. Kompositum i
m
Modernen Englisch. Versuch einer Deutung auf kla
sse
n-
u
n
d
r
e
lati
o
n
s
l
ogischer Basis.”, Linguistics
23,
5-
29
.
Brekle, Herbert Ernst. 1968. “On the syntax of ad
jectives determining agent-nouns in Present-day
d
En
g
lish.” In: H. E. Brekle and L. Lipka (eds.), 20-31.
B
rekle
,
Herbert Ernst. 1970. Generative Satzsemantik und trans
f
ormationelle S
y
ntax im S
y
stem der
en
g
lischen Nominalkomposition.
(
Internationale Bibliothek für A
l
l
g
emeine Lin
g
uistik 4). München:
F
ink
.
Brekle, Herbert Ernst. 1975. “Zur Stellung der Wortbildung in der Grammatik.” In: H. Rix (ed.), A
kten
d
er V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Reg
e
n
sburg 9.-14. September 1993.
W
iesbaden: Harrasowitz
,
26-39.
Brekle
,
Herbert Ernst. 1976. Generative Satzsemantik im System
d
er englischen Nominalkomposition.
(
Internationale Bibliothek für Allgemeine Linguistik 4
)
. München: Fink. [2nd ed. of Brekle 1970]
.
Brekle
,
Herbert Ernst. 1978. “Refl
ec
ti
o
n
so
n th
eco
n
d
iti
o
n
s
f
o
r th
e
c
oining, use and understanding of
n
ominal compounds.” In: W. U. Dressler and Werner Meid (eds.). Proceedings of the Twelfth
International Congress of Linguist
s
. Vienna, Aug. 28 – Sept. 2
t
t
.
Innsbruck: University of Innsbruck,
68-77
.
Brekle
,
Herbert Ernst
;
Boase-Beier
,
Jean
;
Toman
,
Jindrich; Beier, Dieter; and Stöhr, In
g
o. 1984.
Nominalkomposita
.
Pro
j
ekt-Endbericht. Re
g
ensbur
g
: Re
g
ensbur
g
Universit
y
.
B
rekle, Herbert Ernst and Kastovsky, Dieter (eds.). 1977.
P
erspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung.
Beiträge zum Wuppertaler Wortbildungskolloquium vom 9.-10. Juli 1975. Anlässlich des 70.
Geburtstages von Hans Ma
r
chand am 1. Oktober 1977.
(
Wuppertaler Schriftenreihe Linguistik 1).
Bo
nn
:
B
ouv
i
e
r
.
B
rekle, Herbert Ernst and Lipka, Leonhard (eds.). 1968. Wortbildung, Syntax und Morphologie.
Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von
Hans
M
a
r
chand am
1
. Oktober 1967.
(
Janua Linguarum. Series
Maior 36). The Hague/Paris: Mouton.
B
ritton, Derek
(
ed.
)
. 1996.
E
nglish historical linguistics 1994.
(
Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 135).
A
msterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben
j
amins.
C
arls, Uwe and Lucko, Peter
(
eds.
)
. 1999. Form, function and variation in
E
nglish. Studies in honour of
Klaus
H
ansen.
Frankfurt am Main, etc.: Peter Lan
g
.
C
homsk
y
, Noam. 1957.
Sy
ntactic structures.
T
he Ha
g
ue: Mouton.
C
ortés Rodri
g
uez, Francisco J. (ed.). 1998. Lexical studies towards the
y
ear 2000. Special number of
Revísta Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 36
.
C
oseriu, Eugenio. 1962. “Sistema, norma y habla.” In: E. Coseriu (ed.), Teoría de lenguaje y lingüística
g
eneral. Cinco estudios
.
Madrid: Biblioteca Románica His
p
ánica II, 11-113.
D
ietrich, Wolf and Geckeler, Horst
(
eds.
)
. 1981. Logos semantikos. Studia linguistica in honorem
E
ugenio Coseriu. Vol. III. Berlin and Madrid: de Gruyter and Gredos.
D
okulil, Miloš. 1964. “Zum wechselseitigen V
e
r
hältnis zwischen Wortbildung und Syntax.” Tr
avaux
l
in
g
uistiques de Pra
g
ue
1, 21
5-
224
.
D
okulil
,
Miloš. 1968. “Zu
r
Theorie der Wortbildun
g
.” Wissenscha
f
tliche Zeitschri
f
t der Karl-Marx
-
Universität Leipzi
g
.
Gesellschafts- und sprachwiss
e
n
schaftliche Reihe 17
,
203-211.
Fillmore
,
Charles J. 1968. “The case for case.” In: E. Bach and R. T. Harms
(
eds.
)
, 1-88.
Fisiak, Jacek
(
ed.
)
. 1985.
H
istorical semantics. Historical word-
f
ormation
.
(Trends in Lin
g
uistics. Studies
and Mono
g
raphs 29). Berlin: Mouton de Gru
y
ter.
F
ries, Udo and Heusser, Martin
(
eds.
)
. 1989.
M
eaning and beyond. Ernst Leisi zum 70. Geburtstag
.
Tübingen: Narr.
Gau
g
er, Hans Martin. 1968. “Determinatum und Determi
n
ans im ab
g
eleiteten Wort?” In: H. E. Brekle
and L. Lipka (eds.), 93-108.
Gauger, Hans Martin. 1971a. Durchsichtige Wörter. Zur Theorie der Wortbildung. Heidelberg: Winter.
Grabes, Herbert
(
ed.
)
. 2001. Innovation and continuity in En
g
l
ish studies. A critical jubilee. Frankfurt/M.
,
etc.: Lang.
Grosser, Wolfgang; Hubmayer, Karl; Wagner, Franz; and Wieden, Wilfried (eds.). 1989. Phonophilia.
Untersuchungen zur Phonetik
und Phonologie. Festschrift für Franz Zaic.
k
Salzburg: Abakus.
Hansen
,
Barbara
;
Hansen
,
Klaus
;
Neubert
,
Albrecht
;
and Schentke
,
Manfred. 1985.
E
nglisch
e
Lexikolo
g
ie. Ein
f
ührun
g
in die Wortbildun
g
und lexikalische Semantik. 2. ed. Leipzi
g
: VEB Verla
g
Enz
y
klopädie. [1st ed. Leipzi
g
: 1982; 3rd ed. 1990].
1
2
0
DIETER KA
S
T
OVS
KY
H
ansen
,
Klaus. 1964. Abri
ß
der modernen en
g
lischen Wortbildun
g
.
(
Lehrbriefe für das Fernstudium de
r
Lehrer / Lehrmaterial zur Ausbildung von Diploml
e
h
rern ENGLISCH
)
. Potsdam: PH Potsdam. [2nd
e
d. 1968, 3rd ed. 1971
]
.
H
ansen, Klaus. 1966. “Die Bedeutung de
r
W
orttypenlehre für das Wörterbuch.” Zeitschrift für Anglisti
k
und Amerikanistik
14, 160-178.
k
H
ansen, Klaus. 1968. “Zur Analyse englischer Komposita.” In: H. E. Brekle and L. Lipka (eds.), 115-126.
H
ansen, Klaus. 1969. “Zur Wortbildungsanalyse im modernen Englisch.” Fremds
p
rachenunterrich
t
13
,
380
-
39
5
.
H
ansen, Klaus. 1977a. “Gegenstand und Beschreibungsaspekte der Wortbildungslehre (am Beispiel des
E
nglischen).” Linguistische Studien.
(
Reihe A. Arbeitsberichte 36
)
. Berlin, 37-68.
H
ansen, Klaus. 1977b. “Probleme der Sprachkonfrontation (Deutsch – En
g
lisch) im Bereich de
r
W
ortbildun
g
.”
Z
eitschri
f
t
f
ür An
g
listik und Amerikanisti
k
25
,
293-306.
H
ansen
,
Klaus. 1980. “Probleme der Konstituent
e
nanal
y
se von Wortbildun
g
en im En
g
lischen.”
Linguistische Studien
.
Reihe A. Arbeitsberichte 67
)
. Berlin
:
Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR.
Z
entralinstitut für S
pr
achwissenschaft
,
12-26.
H
ansen, Klaus. 1985. “Wortbildung.” In: B. Hansen
et al.
,
1985
,
27-152.
H
arris, Zellig S. 1942. “Morpheme alt
e
r
nants in linguistic analysis.” Language 18
,
169-180
H
arris, Zellig S. 1951. Structural linguistics. (Phoenix Books). Chicago: Chicago University. Jespersen,
O
tto
(
1942
)
.
A
Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles
.
Part 6
.
M
orphology. L
o
n
do
n an
d
C
openhagen: Munksgaard.
H
attori, Shirô and Kazuko, Inoue
(
eds.
)
. 1983. Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress o
f
Linguists, Tokyo, August 29 – September 4, 1982. Tokyo: Proceedings Publishing Committee.
H
ladk
ý
, Josef (ed.). 2003. Lan
g
ua
g
e and
f
unction. To the
m
emor
y
o
f
Jan Firbas. Am
s
t
e
r
d
am an
d
Philadelphia: John Ben
j
amins.
H
o
gg
, Richard M. (ed.). 1992.
T
he Cambrid
g
e histor
y
o
f
the En
g
lish lan
g
ua
g
e.
V
ol. 1.
T
he be
g
innin
g
s to
1066.
Cambrid
g
e: Cambrid
g
e Universit
y
Press.
H
oinkes, Ulrich
(
ed.
)
. 1995.
Panorama der lexikalischen Semantik
. Thematische Festschrift aus Anlaß
k
k
d
es 60. Geburtstags von Horst Geckeler
.
Tübingen: Narr.
H
undsnurscher
,
Franz. 1968. Das System der Partikelverben mit 'AUS' in der Gegenwartssprache.
G
öppingen: Kümmerle.
J
ankowsky, Kurt R (ed.). 1996.
M
ultiple perspectives on the his
t
o
rical dimensions of language
.
M
ü
n
s
t
e
r
:
N
odus.
J
espersen, Otto. 1942.
A
Modern En
g
lish
g
rammar on historical principles
.
Part
6.
M
orpholo
gy
. L
o
n
do
n
and Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1968.
O
ld English deverbal substantives derived by means of a zero morpheme.
[Tübin
g
en Universit
y
Ph. D. dissertation 1967]. Esslin
g
en/N.: Lan
g
er.
Kastovsk
y
, Dieter. 1971.
S
tudies in morpholo
gy
. Aspects o
f
En
g
lish and German verb in
f
lection.
(
Tübin
g
er Beiträ
g
e zur Lin
g
uistik 18). Tübin
g
en: Narr.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1973. “Causatives", Foundations of Languag
e
10
:
255-315
.
Kastovsky, Dieter.1974. “Word-formation,
c
ase grammar and denominal adjectives.”
A
nglia 92
,
1-54.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1976a. “Zur Analyse von Nomina Ac
t
ionis.” In: K. Braunmüller and W. Kürschne
r
(
eds.
)
, 77-90. [Re
p
r. in: L. Li
p
ka and H. Günther
(
eds.
)
, 1981, 377-390].
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1976b. “Intensification and semantic analysis. Some notes on Bolinger's Degre
e
wo
r
ds
.
”
[
Review article
]
, Foundations of Languag
e
14
,
377-398.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1980. “Zero in morphology. A
m
eans of making up for phonological losses?” In: J.
Fisiak
(
ed.
)
, 213-250.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1982. Wortbildung und Semantik. (Studienreihe Englisch 14). Tübingen/Düsseldorf:
Francke/Ba
g
el.
Kastovsk
y
, Dieter. 1985a. “T
y
polo
g
ical chan
g
es in the nominal inflectional s
y
stem of En
g
lish and
G
erman.” Studia
g
ramat
y
czn
e
7
,9
7-
11
7.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1985b. “Deverbal nouns in Old Engli
s
h
and Modern English: from stem-formation to
word-formation.” In: J. Fisiak
(
ed.
)
, 221-262.
Kastovsk
y
, Dieter. 1986. “Problems in the morphol
og
ical anal
y
sis of complex lexical items.”
Acta
Lin
g
uistica Academiae Scientiarum Hun
g
arica
e
36
,
93-107.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1989a. “Typological changes in the
h
istory of English morphology.” In: U. Fries and
M. Heusser
(
eds.
)
, 159-178.
HANS MARCHAND AND THE MARCHANDEANS
121
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1989b. “Morphophonemic alternations
a
n
d the history of English: examples from Old
English.” In: M. Markus (ed.), 112-123.
Kastovsky, Dieter (1989c). “Old English morphonologi
c
al processes and morphology.” In: W. Grosser,
K. Hubmayer, F. Wagner and W. Wieden (eds.), 83-94.
Kastovsk
y
, Dieter (1990a). “The inte
r
action of semantic and formal structures in the lexicon.” In:
J
.
T
omaszcz
y
k and B. Lewandows
k
a-Tomaszcz
y
k (eds.), 75-91.
Kastovsk
y
, Dieter. 1992a. “T
y
polo
g
ical r
e
o
rientation as a result of level interaction: the case of En
g
lish
m
orphology.” In: G. Kellermann and M. D. Morrissey (eds.), 411-428.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1992b. “Semantics and vo
c
abulary.” In: R. M. Hogg (ed.), 290-407.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1992c. “The formats change - the problems remain: Word-formation theory between
1960 and 1990.” In: M. Pütz
(
ed.
)
, 285-310.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1994a. “Typological differences between English and German morphology and their
c
auses.” In: T. Swan, E. Mørk and O. Jansen Westvi
k
(
eds.
)
, 135-157.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1994b. “Historical English word-formation. From a monostratal to a polystratal
system.” In: R. Bacchielli (ed.), 17-31.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1995a. “The syntactic aspects of word-formation: where are we today?” In: G.
Melchers and B. Warren
(
eds.
)
, 157-169.
Kastovsk
y
, Dieter. 1995b. “Wortbildun
g
ssemantik, ein hist
o
rischer La
g
ebericht.” In: U. Hoinkes (ed.),
385-398.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1996a. “Verbal derivation in En
g
l
ish: A historical survey. Or: Much ado about
nothing.” In: D. Britton (ed.), 93-117.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1996b. “The place of word-formation
i
n grammar: A historical survey.” In: K. R.
Jankowsky (ed.), 227-243.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1997b. “Sign-oriented vs. fo
r
m-oriented linguistics and word-formation.”
S
tudia
Anglica Posnaniensia 31
,
79-90.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1999a. “Hans Marchand’s theory of
word-formation: Genesis and development.” In:
f
U
. Carls and P. Lucko
(
eds.
)
, 19-39.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1999b. “On writi
n
g a history of English: The ‘local’ and the ‘global’.”
T
he European
E
nglish Messenger 8/1
,
13-15.
Kastovsk
y
, Dieter. 2001. “Local and
g
lobal t
y
polo
g
i
c
al chan
g
es in the histor
y
of En
g
lish: Two
c
omplementar
y
perspectives.” In: H. Grabes (ed.), 275-287.
Kastovsk
y
, Dieter (ed.). 1967.
E
u
g
enio Coseriu
,
Pr
obleme de
r r
omanische
n
Semantik. Vorlesun
g
g
ehalten im WS 1965/1966 an de
r
Universität Tübingen
.
Autorisierte Nachschrift besorgt von Dieter
Kastovsky und Wolfgang Müller. Tübingen: Selbstverlag.
Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.). 1973.
E
ugenio Coseriu
,
P
robleme der strukturellen Semanti
k
. (Tübinger Beiträge
z
ur Linguistik 40). Tübingen: Narr. [2. Aufl. 1976].
Kellermann, Günter and Morrissey, Michael D. (eds.). 1992.
D
iachrony within synchrony: Language
history and cognition. (Duisburger Arbeiten zur Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 14). Frankfurt/M.:
Lan
g
.
Kiparsk
y
, Paul and Kiparsk
y
, Carol. 1970. “Fact.” In: M. Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph (eds.), 143-173.
Koerner, Ernst F. K.
(
ed.
)
. 1975.
T
he trans
f
ormational-
g
enerative paradi
g
m and modern lin
g
uistic
theor
y
.
A
msterdam: John Ben
j
amins.
Koziol
,
Herbert. 1937.
H
andbuch der en
g
lischen Wortbildun
g
slehre
.
Heidelber
g
: Winter.
Kürschner
,
Wilfried. 1974.
Zur syntaktischen Beschreibung deut
scher Nominalkomposita. Auf der
t
t
Grundlage generativer Transformationsgrammatiken. (Linguistische Arbeiten 18). Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Kürschner
,
Wilfried. 1977. “Generative Trans
f
ormationsgrammatik und die Wortbildungstheorie von
f
f
H
ans Marchand.” In: H. E. Brekle and D. Kastovsky (eds.), 129-139.
L
ees
R
obe
rt
Β
. 1960.
T
he
g
rammar o
f
En
g
lish nominalisations. Bloomin
g
ton, Indiana.
Lees, Robert B. (1966). “On a transformational anal
y
sis of compounds: A repl
y
to Hans Marchand.”
Indogermanische Forschungen
71
,
1-13
L
ieber
,
Rochelle. 1981.
O
n the or
g
anisation o
f
the lexicon. Bloomin
g
ton: Indiana Universit
y
Lin
g
uistics
C
lub.
L
i
p
ka, Leonhard. 1966. Die Wortbildun
g
st
y
pen WATERP
R
OO
F und
G
RA
SS
-
G
REE
N
und ihre
E
ntsprechungen im Deutschen.
B
amberg: Bamberger Fotodruck.
L
i
p
ka, Leonhard. 1969. “Assimilation
a
nd dissimilation as regulating factors in English morphology.”
Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanisti
k
17
,
159-173.
12
2
D
IETER KA
S
T
OVS
KY
L
ipka, Leonhard. 1970.
E
rkundungen zur Theorie der Semantik.
(
Translation of Weinreich 1966
)
.
Tübin
g
en: Nieme
y
er.
Lipka, Leonhard. 1971. “Ein Grenz
g
ebiet zwischen
W
ortbildun
g
und Wortsemantik: die Partikelverben
i
m En
g
lischen und Deutschen.” In: K.-R. Bausch and H.-M. Gau
g
er (eds.), 180-189.
L
i
p
ka, Leonhard. 1972.
S
emantic structure and word-formation. Verb-
p
article constructions in
contemporary English.
(
International Library of Gener
a
l
Linguistics 17). München: Fink.
L
ipka, Leonhard. 1974. “Probleme der Analyse engli
s
c
her Idioms aus struktureller und generative
r
S
icht.”
Linguistik und Didaktik
20
,
274-285.
k
L
ipka, Leonhard. 1976. “Topicalisation, case gramma
r
, and lexical decomposition in English.” Ar
chivum
Linguisticum
7,
118-141.
L
ipka, Leonhard. 1977. “Lexikalisierun
g
, Idioma
t
isierun
g
und H
y
postasierun
g
als Probleme einer
sy
nchronischen Wortbildun
g
slehre.” In: H. E
.
Brekle and D. Kastovsk
y
(eds.), 155-164.
L
ipka, Leonhard. 1981a. “On the interrelation of syntagmatic modification and paradigmatic lexical
s
tructurin
g
in En
g
lish.” In: W. Dietrich and H. Geckeler (eds.), 373-383.
L
ipka, Leonhard. 1981b. „Zur Lexikalisierun
g
im Deut
s
chen und En
g
lischen.“ In: L. Lipka and H.
Günther
(
eds.
)
, 119-132.
L
i
p
ka, Leonhard. 1982. “Causatives and inchoatives in English and their treatment
i
n recent lexicographic
p
ractice.” Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 14
,
3-16.
L
i
p
ka, Leonhard. 1983. “A multi-level a
pp
roach to word-formation: com
p
lex lexemes and word-
s
emantics.” In: S. Hattori and I. Kazuko
(
eds.
)
, 926-928.
L
ipka, Leonhard. 1985. “Inferential features in historical semantics.” In
:
J
. Fisiak
(
ed.
)
, 339-354.
L
ipka, Leonhard. 1990. “Metaphor and metonymy as p
r
o
ductive processes on the level of the lexicon.”
In:
W
. Bahner
et al
.
(
eds.
)
, 1207-1210.
L
ipka, Leonhard. 1992a. “Lexikalization and institutionalization in En
g
lish and German.” Lin
g
uistica
Pra
g
ensia
3
5
,1
-
13
.
L
ipka, Leonhard. 1992b. “Lexikalization and institutionalization in En
g
lish and German. Or:
P
ie
f
ke,
Wendehals, smog, perestroika, AIDS
e
t
c.
”
S
Zeitschri
f
t
f
ür An
g
listik und Amerikanisti
k
4
0
,
101-111.
Li
p
ka, Leonhard. 1992c.
A
n outline o
f
En
g
lish lexicolo
gy
. Lexica
l
structure, word semantics, and word
-
f
ormation.
(
Forschun
g
& Studium An
g
listik 34).
T
ü
bin
g
en: Nie
y
me
y
er. [1st ed. 1990].
Li
p
ka, Leonhard. 1994a. “Lexicalisation and in
s
t
ititutionalization.” In: R. E. Asher
(
ed.
)
,
The
encyclopaedia of language and linguistics
.
Vol. 4. Oxford and New York: Pergamon, 2164-2167.
Lipka, Leonhard. 1994b. “Wortbildung, Metapher und Metonymie – Prozesse, Resultate und ihre
Beschreibung.” In: B. Staib (ed.), 1-15.
Lipka, Leonhard. 1996. “Words, metapho
r
s and cognition: a bridge betwee
n
domains.” In:
J
.
S
vartvi
k
(
ed.
)
, 49-69.
Lipka, Leonhard. 1998. “Word-formation, metaphor
a
n
d meton
y
m
y
– processes, results and thei
r
description.” In: F. J. Cortés Rodri
g
uez (ed.), 97-112.
L
ipka, Leonhard. 1999.
“
Blairites, teletubbies, spice
g
irls an
d
wheelie bins
– neolo
g
isms, the word of the
year, and the nomination-function of ‘words’.” In: U. Carls and P. Lucko, 41-48.
L
i
p
ka, Leonhard. 2002a.
E
nglish lexicolog
y
.
Lexical structure, word semantics, and word-formation.
T
übingen: Narr.
L
ipka, Leonhard. 2002b. “English (and general) word-formation – The state of the art in 1999.” In: B.
Reitz and S. Rieuwerts, 5-20.
L
ipka, Leonhard. 2002c. “Names, onomasiology and sema
n
t
ics: Functional and semiotic lexicology.” In:
S
.
S
cholz
et al
.
(
eds.
)
, 217-225.
Lipka, Leonhard. 2003. “Observational linguistics a
n
d semiotics.” In: J. Hladký (ed.), 211-222.
Marchand
,
Hans. 1949. “L'étude des ono
m
atopées: quelques points méthodiques.” Dialogues 1
,
124-134.
Marchand, Hans. 1951. “Phonolo
gy
, mo
r
phonolo
gy
, and word-formation.” Neuphilolo
g
ische
M
itteilungen 5
2, 8
7-
9
5.
Marchand, Hans. 1955. “Synchronic analysis and word-formation.”
C
ahiers Ferdinand de
S
aussure
13,
7-18. [Repr. In Marchand 1974: 171-184].
Marchand
,
Hans. 1960.
T
he cate
g
ories and t
y
pes o
f
Present-da
y
En
g
lish word-
f
ormation.
W
iesbaden:
Hara
ssow
itz
.
Marchand, Hans. 1963a. “On a questi
o
n of contrar
y
anal
y
sis with derivationall
y
connected but
m
orphologically uncharacterized words.”
E
nglish Studies 44, 176-187. [Re
p
r. in Marchand 1974:
224-241
]
.
H
ANS MARCHAND AND THE MARCHANDEANS
123
Marchand, Hans. 1963b. „Die Ableitung desubstantivis
c
her Verben mit Nullmor
p
hem im Französischen
und die entsprechenden Verhältniss
e
im Englischen und Deutschen.“
Z
eitschrift für französische
Sprache und Literatur
7
3, 164
-
1
7
9
.
r
Marchand, Hans. 1965a. “The analysis
o
f
ve
r
b
al n
e
x
us subs
tanti
ves.
”
I
ndogermanische Forschungen 7
0,
5
7-71. [Repr. in Marchand 1974: 276-291].
Marchand, Hans. 1965b. “On the anal
y
sis of sub
s
t
antive compounds and suffixal derivatives not
c
ontainin
g
a verbal element.”
I
ndo
g
ermanische Forschun
g
en 70, 117-145. [Repr. in Marchand 1974:
292-322
]
.
Marchand, Hans. 1966. “On attributive and
p
redicative
d
erived adjectives and some problems related to
th
ed
i
s
tin
c
ti
o
n
.
” Anglia 84, 131-149. [Re
p
r. in Marchand 1974: 349-369].
Marchand, Hans. 1967. “Expansion, transposition, and derivation.” La Linguistiqu
e
1, 13-26. [Repr. in
Marchand 1974: 322-337
]
.
Marchand, Hans. 1969.
T
he categories and types of Present-day English word-formation
.
2n
d
r
ev. ed.
M
ü
n
c
h
e
n
:
B
ec
k
.
Marchand
,
Hans. 1974.
S
tudies in syntax and word-formation.
S
elected articles by Hans Marchand.
Published in honour of his 65th birthday. Ed. by D. Kastovsky. München: Fink.
Markus, Manfred
(
ed.
)
. 1989.
H
istorical En
g
lish. On the occa
s
ion o
f
Karl Brunner's 100th birthda
y
.
(
Innsbrucker Beiträ
g
e zur Kulturwissenschaft. An
g
l
istische Reihe 1
)
. Innsb
r
uck: University of
r
r
Inn
sb
r
uc
k
.
Melchers, Gunnel and Warren, Beatrice
(
eds.
)
.
(
1995
)
. Studies in Anglistics
.(
Stockholm Studies in
English 85). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Pennanen
,
Esko V. 1971. Conversion and zero-derivation in English.
T
am
p
ere: Acta Universitatis
Tamperensis. Ser. A vol. 40.
Pütz, Martin
(
ed.
)
. 1992.
T
hirty years of linguistic evolution
.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Reitz, Bernhard and Rieuwerts, Sigrid (eds.). 2000. Anglistentag 1999 Mainz. Proceedings. Tri
e
r
:
W
issenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Rix, Helmut
(
ed.
)
. 1975. Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen
Gesellschaft. Regensburg, 9.-14. September 1973.
W
iesbaden: Reichert.
Rohrer
,
Christian. 1967. Die Wortzusammensetzungen im modernen Französischen
.
Ph
.
D
.d
i
sse
rtati
o
n
.
Tübin
g
en. Tübin
g
en: Narr [2nd ed. 1977].
Rohrer, Christian. 1974. “Some
p
roblems of word-formation.” In: Ch. Rohrer and N. Ruwet
(
eds.
)
,
Actes
d
u Colloque Franco-Allemand de
g
rammaire trans
f
ormationelle. Tübin
g
en: Nieme
y
er, 113-123.
Scholz, Sybil; Klages, Monika; Hanston, Evelyn; Römer, Ute
et al.
(
eds.
)
. 2002. Language: Context and
cognition. Papers in honour of Wolf
-
Dietrich Bald’s 60th birthday. München: Langenscheidt-
L
ongman.
Sebeok
,
Thomas A. 1966. Current trends in linguistics.
V
ol. 3.
T
heoretical foundations. The Hague:
M
ou
t
o
n
.
Staib, Bruno
(
ed.
)
. 1994. Wortbildungslehre. (Münstersches Logbuch zur Linguistik 5). Münster:
U
niversit
y
of Münster.
Stein, Gabriele. 1970. “Die T
y
pol
og
ie der Suffixentstehun
g
. (Franz
ö
sisch, En
g
lisch, Deutsch).”
I
ndo
g
ermanische Forschun
g
en 75
, 131
-
16
5.
Stein
,
Gabriele. 1971a.
P
rimäre und sekundäre Ad
j
ektive im Französischen und En
g
lischen. Tübin
g
en:
Narr
.
S
tein
,
Gabriele. 1971b. “La déri
v
ation française et le problème des consonnes intercalaires.”
C
ahier de
Lexicologi
e
18
,
43-64.
S
tein
,
Gabriele. 1973.
E
nglish word-formation over two centuries. In honour of Hans Marchand on the
occasion o
f
his sixt
y
-
f
i
f
th birthda
y
.
T
übin
g
en: Narr.
S
tein, Gabriele. 1976. “Semi-productive lexical rules: A note on
-ed
-adjectives.”
J
ournal of English
Linguistics 10, 30-33,
Stein, Gabriele. 1977. “The
p
lace o
f
word-formation in linguistic descrip
t
i
o
n
.
” In
:
H
.
E
.
Br
e
kl
e
an
d
D
.
Kastovsky (eds.), 219-235.
Stein, Gabriele. 1978. “English combining forms.” Linguistica
9, 140
-
14
7.
Stein, Gabriele. 2002. “The word and its inseparability.” In: S. Schol
z
et al.
(
eds
)
, 289-299.
Štekauer
,
Pavol. 1996. A theory of conversion in English
.
Frankfurt am Main, etc.: Peter Lang.
Štekauer
,
Pavol. 2000.
E
n
g
lish word-
f
ormation. A histor
y
o
f
research (1960-1995)
.
Tübin
g
en: Narr.
Svartvik, Jan
(
ed.
)
. 1996. Words. Proceedin
g
s o
f
an international s
y
mposium.
L
u
nd, 25-26 Au
g
ust 1995
.
Stockholm: Kun
g
l. Vitterhets och Antikvitests Akademien.
12
4
DIETER KA
S
T
OVS
KY
Swan
,
Toril
;
Mørk
,
Endre
;
and Westvik
,
Olaf Janse
n
(
eds.
)
. 1994. Lan
g
ua
g
e chan
g
e and lan
g
ua
g
e
structure: older Germanic lan
g
ua
ge
s in a com
p
arative
p
ers
p
ective. Berlin: Mouton de Gru
y
ter.
Tomaszcz
y
k, Jerz
y
and Lewandowska-
T
omaszcz
y
k, Barbara (eds.). 1990.
M
eanin
g
and lexico
g
raph
y.
(Linguistic and Literary Studies in Easter
n Europe 28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
r
r
W
einreich, Uriel. 1966. “Ex
p
lorations in sema
n
t
ic theory.” In: T. A. Sebeok (ed.), 395-477.
W
illiams
,
Edwin. 1981. “On the notions ‘Lexi
c
ally related’ and ‘Head of a word’.” Linguistic Inquiry 12
,
245-274
125
Š
tekauer, P. and R. Lieber (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 125—146
.
©
2005 Sprin
g
er. Printed in the Netherlands.
CHOMSKY’S REMARKS AND THE
TRANSFORMATIONALIST HYPOTHESIS
T
O
M R
O
EPER
1. N
O
MINALIZATI
O
N
S
AND
CO
RE
G
RAMMAR
Nominalizations have remained both in the center and at the frin
g
e of lin
g
uistics
s
ince the first work of Robert Lees in 1960. The
y
have been at the center since man
y
people have the intuition that the right level of abstraction in grammar would equally
c
a
p
ture a descri
p
tion of both sentences and
n
ominalizations, but they have been at
t
he fringe because every theory of
p
hrase-structure fails
t
o ca
p
ture the facts in a
natural way To put it more succinctly: where theories fail to extend naturally to
i
nclude the effects of category-changing deri
v
ational affixes
,
the theories themselves
fail to be natural. Numerous proposals, w
i
th increasingly subtle distinctions have
been advanced (Randall 1984, Sproat 1985, Zucchi 1989) and extensions to man
y
o
ther lan
g
ua
g
es). In each instance, the propo
s
al
vee
r
se
ith
e
r t
o
ward an exceptional
t
reatment of nominalizations
,
or toward an abstraction that makes nominalizations
seem just like sentences. The former solu
t
ion seems conceptually inadequate while
t
he latter solutions usually fail to capture many of the facts. In a sense then,
nominalizations are the perfect prism through which to see modern grammar. Thus
C
homsky’s
R
emarks on
N
ominalizations thr
ew
att
e
nti
o
n
o
n th
e
n
o
minalizati
o
n
s
in
o
pposite ways: both syntactic and lexical. The lexical emphasis led to extensive
discussions of subcategorial factors that affected productivity. Nonetheless, we
argue that, once the puzzling idiosyncrasi
e
s are cleared away, it is precisely
nominalizations that may well point to the right level of syntactic abstraction for all
c
onstructions. We will characterize both the lexical and syntactic perspectives before
we ex
p
lore numerous details.
W
ith regard to the syntactic perspective, Chomsky’s proposal was that a
c
ommon abstract syntactic notation,
X
-bar theor
y
,
could represent both the structure
o
f nominalizations and of sentences. A simpl
e
addition or subtraction of an N or a
V
f
e
at
u
r
e
mark
ed
th
ew
h
o
l
es
tr
uc
t
u
r
e.
Thi
sv
i
ew
initiat
ed o
th
e
r
e
ff
o
rt
s
t
o
a
ss
imilat
e
th
e
l
exicon to syntax. Vergnaud (1973) proposed that the passive could be a lexical
t
ransformation and Roeper and Siegel (1978) proposed that compounds reflected a
t
ransformation that occurred in the lexicon. Hale and Keyser (2002) extended the
i
dea to transformational o
p
erations that were entailed in lexical causatives, with
m
an
y
proposals in between. For instance Lie
b
er
(
1992
)
elaborated a mechanism that
allows information to ‘percolate’ hi
g
her within lexical structures.
The X-bar syntactic perspective has remained as an assumption in
G
overnmen
t
Binding theor
y
,
without much refinement. It is a central feature of Head-driven
grammars which focused on even more subtle variation in how phrase-structure
n
odes were represented. It has also become a core property of modern
Minimalism
12
6
T
O
M R
O
EPER
w
h
e
r
e
n
odes
ar
e
tr
e
at
ed
a
s
th
e
l
ocus o
f F
eatu
r
e
B
undles
of various kinds
(
Collins
2001, Chomsky 1995, 2001, Halle and Marantz 1992).
From the lexical perspective, Chomsky’s
Rema
r
ks
c
a
used so
m
e
r
ese
ar
c
h
e
r
s
t
o
e
xamine the ways in which syntactic rules or principles either fail to capture
i
diosyncratic features of the lexicon, or to apply at all. Unlike syntactic operations
t
hat operate upon categorical labels, the internal content of lexical roots and thei
r
affixes sharpl
y
limit the productivit
y
and scope of rules. For instance, these are
co
mm
o
n
obse
r
v
ati
o
n
s
a
bou
t l
e
xi
c
al r
es
tri
c
ti
o
n
s:
• Lexical rules partly resist
a
nd partly accept binding relations:
?
dog
i
-
love
r
s
cannot part with them
i
(See Lieber 1992 for a
g
ood discussion).
•
I
nside nominal compounds we find no wh-operations (do
g
-lover =/=>
*
what a
r
e
y
ou a lover/* what-lover are
y
ou
).
•
Thematic roles limit incorporation where dative verbs are involved. While we
find compound nominalizations like
teache
r-
lover
we do not find *
r
teache
r-
thanke
r
.
Both roots and affixes are surprisingly limited.
•
A
ffected objects do not allow pre-posing
*
algebra’s knowledge
.(
Anderson
1983
)
nor do certain affixes:
*
the city’s destroying
(Kayne 1984).
g
•
N
ominalizations have led to the close stud
y
of lexical semantics as well as
transformational rules
(
Bauer 1983
)
. It is clear that derivational affixes attach not
j
ust to a specific lexical cate
g
or
y
(N, V, A) but respond to the semantic content
o
f roots
(
help, know, push, inspire, implement
accept different affixes). We shall
t
r
eturn to these to
p
ics.
1
.1 Core Contras
t
The challen
g
e in a nutshell lies in connectin
g
the underl
y
in
g
structure between a
c
lassic sentence and its corresponding nominalization:
(1) a. the enemy destroyed the city
b. the enemy’s destruction of the city.
Phrase-structure rules, which form the heart of Lees account, pro
j
ect the cate
g
or
y
o
f
S
which rewrites as NP and
V
P
.
(
2
)
Sentence => NP VP
NP => D
e
t
e
rmin
e
r N
H
ow then can we express the notion of a
n
NP that
see
m
s
t
obede
ri
v
ati
ve
fr
o
m a
V
P where not onl
y
the verb itself, but its ar
g
uments are carried over, ‘inherited’ b
y
t
he noun
p
hrase? In order to do so, one must break the basic rule of
p
hrase-structure:
allow the cate
g
ories to chan
g
e labels. S becomes another kind of NP or the S is
dominated by NP. In other words, eithe
r
we allow the phrase structure rule NP=>S
o
r we fit the properties of a S into the categories of the N in some other way: