?tekauer Pavol, Lieber Rochelle. Handbook of Word-Formation
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
1
98
R
O
BERT BEARD
&
MARK
VO
LP
E
F
u
n
c
ti
o
nal L
e
xi
c
al-D
e
ri
v
ati
o
n
so
f
t
he
G
rammatical Functions
GO
AL and
POSSESSION, respectively (cf. Hale and Keyser, 1993).
3
.
1
.
3
Transposition
In addition to grammatical functions, lexi
c
al it
e
m
sbe
ar a f
e
at
u
r
eo
r f
e
at
u
r
es
which determine their lexical class (N, V, A) and subclasses (e.g., ±Transitive Verbs
±Animate Nouns, and ±Gradable Adjectives). It is assumed that:
The Lexicon may transpose any member of any major lexical class (N, V, A) by
providing it only with the lexical grammatical features (G-features) of the target
c
lass and neutralizin
g
the inherent G-features (Beard, 1995: 177).
Theoreticall
y
lan
g
ua
g
es can contain the followin
g
transpositions:
V
erbalizations Adjectivizations Nominalizations
N
ĺ
V
N
ĺ
A
V
ĺ
N
A
ĺ
V
V
ĺ
A
A
ĺ
N
Ta
b
l
e2
Possible Trans
p
ositions
A Transposition common to man
y
lan
g
ua
g
es is A
ĺ
N, whereb
yg
radable
Ad
j
ectives become abstract Nouns. The Separation H
y
pothesis predicts that
i
dentical derivations ma
y
be realized b
y
a variet
y
of Morphemes. Consider the
following Transpositions and their rea
l
izations in English and Japanese:
English Japanese
new
-
ness ata
r
ashi
-
sa
i
mportan-ce
jûyô
-sa
l
eng-th naga-sa
b
eauty-Ø utsukushi-sa
Ta
b
l
e3
A ĺ N Transpositions
L
MBM denies the existence of a separate morpholo
g
ical process such as
conve
r
sion
(cf. Lieber, 1992), whereby words are moved from one lexical class to
another without affixation, as an ex
p
lanation of exam
p
les such as those in
(
7
):
7
(
7
)
a. slow to slow
b.
thin t
o
thin
c. w
arm t
ow
ar
m
Assuming the Separation Hypothesis, we simply classify such A
ĺ
V
Transpositions together with those that have morphological realizations, as in (8):
7
Lieber (1992) ar
g
ues for the inclusion of conv
e
r
sion amon
g
the t
y
pes of morpholo
g
ical derivation.
LEXEME
-
MORPHEME BASE MORPHOLOGY
199
(
8
)
a. wide to wide-n
b. legal to legal-ize
c. pure to pur-ify
This way, only one derivation rule is requi
r
ed for
(
7
)
and
(
8
)
and those in
(
7
)
are
s
imply marked for no phonological realization at the morphological level.
3.1.4 Expressive Derivations
Arguably the most enigmatic of morphological derivations are the
E
x
p
ressive
D
e
r
ivations
.
Cross-linguistically Expressive Derivations are limited to
Augmentatives, Diminutives, Pejoratives, Aff
ectionates, and Honorifics. Expressive
f
f
D
erivations are unique in that, in contr
a
s
t with e.g., Number, Gender and Tense,
t
hey are optional operations that often apply recursively. In contrast with typical
derivational operations, Expr
e
ss
i
ve
D
e
ri
v
ati
o
n
s
n
eve
r i
n
volve the Transposition of
l
exical cate
g
or
y
. Additionall
y
the
y
are p
r
a
g
matic in that the
y
express neither a
g
rammatical function nor a lexical meanin
g
but merel
y
a sub
j
ective evaluation of the
s
peaker, the interpretation of which is contextuall
y
determined.
A
n exam
p
le of an Ex
p
ressive Derivation in Ja
p
anese is Subject Honorification
(
s
onkei-g
o
). Morphologically, Subject Honorification has both suppletive verb forms
and a productive paradigm that acts as the default in the absence of a suppletive
form. The default consists of the paradigm:
o-
V
-ste
m
-
ni na
r
u
,
where -
ni
i
s
an
e
nclitic
,
o-
a prefix with a general meaning of honorification, and
na
r
u
a light verb
m
eanin
g
‘become’:
Base Verb Su
pp
letive Verbs Default
iru
,
kuru
,
iku ‘be, come, go’
i
r
assha
r
u
*
o
-
i
-
ni na
r
u
iu
‘say’
ossha
r
u
*
o
-
ii
-
ni na
r
u
su
r
u
‘
do
’
nasa
r
u
*o
-
shi
-
ni na
r
u
yomu
‘r
e
a
d
’
∅
o-
y
omi-ni naru
kaku
‘
w
rit
e
’
∅
o
-
kaki
-
ni na
r
u
Ta
b
l
e
4
Subject Honorification: Suppl
etive Verbs / Default
The verb ‘do’ has the su
pp
letive verb for
m
nasa
r
u
.
Example (9b) is the Subject
Honorific of the polite form in (9a) There is no change of tr
u
th
v
al
ue
an
d
in th
es
am
e
c
ontext, the use of example (9a) would b
e
equally acceptable. The difference is in
t
he speaker’s attitude towards the sub
j
ect
:
(
9
)
a. Sensei-wa shi-mashi-ta
.
8
t
e
a
c
h
e
r-T
O
P
do
-P
O
LITE
-
PA
S
T
8
The morpheme
-mashi-
is an addressee-oriented marker of politeness.
200
R
O
BERT BEARD
&
MARK
VO
LP
E
‘The teacher did (something).’
b.
S
ensei-wa nasai-mashi-ta
t
e
a
c
h
e
r-
TOP
do
-
H
ONORIFI
C
-
POLITE
-
PAST
‘The teacher deemed to do (something)’
I
n Example (10) we see Sub
j
ect Honorification applied recursively. Recursive
forms consist of a suppletive V-stem, here
nasa
r
i-
‘do’, submitted to the productive
paradi
g
m:
(
10
)
Sensei-wa o-nasari-ni nari-mashi-ta
t
e
a
c
h
e
r-
T
OP
do
-
H
ONORIFI
C
-
PARADIGM
-
POLIT
E
-
PAST
‘The teacher deemed to do (something).’
A
gain there is no truth value-semantic change. Since Expressive Derivations are
c
ompletely optional, example (9)a would again be
j
ust as grammatically acceptable
i
n place of (10).
Expressive Derivations show a semantic plasticit
y
so that Sub
j
ect Honorification
i
n Ja
p
anese can be used for sarcasm as
w
ell as honorification
(
Martin, 1975
)
. This is
s
imilar to diminutives in Turkish, used for affection, as well as sarcasm or contem
p
t
(
Thomas, 1967) Because of this pragmatic
-
semantic elasticity, Wierzbicka (1992:
238-9
)
writes:
[C]onventional lin
g
uistic labels such as
d
iminutive or pe
j
orative prove sin
g
ularl
y
u
nhelpful…
[
howeve
r
,
the
(
MV
)
]
chan
g
eable value of a
g
iven [
E
xpressive Derivation
(
MV
)
]
can be accounted for, to some extent, i
n
terms of irony, sarcasm, jocularity and
o
th
e
r
s
imilar
dev
i
ces.
One of the mysterious aspects of Expressive Derivations is that, despite the wide
r
ange of human attitudes, the expressive categories are restricted to those which
r
eflect only the five attitudes; that is, Augmentative, Diminutive, Pe
j
orative,
Affectionate
,
and Honorific.
4
.
CO
N
C
L
US
I
O
N
L
MBM is a morpholo
g
ical theor
y
tha
t
p
rovides a com
p
rehensive account of both
i
nflectional and derivational morphology. It
s
postulation of forty-four universally
available functions that constrain the possible semantics of inflectional and
derivational morphology both VP-internally and word-internally is in line with the
m
ore recent work of Cinque (1999) on the
u
ni
ve
r
s
al f
u
n
c
ti
o
n
s
o
f
V
P’s extended
projections.
It distinguishes itself from other morphological theories by three central
hy
potheses: (1) derivation rules chan
g
e
gr
ammatical functions onl
y
and are distinct
from the rules that mark these chan
g
es phonolo
g
icall
y
(the Separation H
y
pothesis),
(
2
)
the functions that inflectional rules o
p
erates over are the same as those which
l
exical (derivational) rules operate over (the Unitary Grammatical Function
Hypothesis), and (3) this is accomplished via a set of grammatical functions which
are inserted by the Base Component of grammar (The Base Rule Hypothesis). The
LEXEME
-
MORPHEME BASE MORPHOLOGY
201
base rule component of a theory of language, therefore, cannot be not a strictly
s
yntactic component but must be one which feeds both lexical operations
(derivations) and high-level syntactic oper
a
t
ions (inflection). The types of lexical
derivation rules that are available to
g
ra
m
mars, therefore, are determined b
y
the
c
ate
g
ories of the base and the Lexicon.
9
The derivational morpheme realizing the UGF is indicated by small capitals.
APPENDIX
1
. Primar
y
Functions
G
rammatical Function
s
(IE lan
g
ua
g
es: En
g
lish)
Le
xi
c
al D
e
ri
v
ati
o
n
s
(
Ja
p
anese
)
1.
A
gen
t
(Ergative) Ø
2
.
Pati
e
nt
:
(
Absolutive
)
Ø
3
.
Subject
(
Nominative: Word Order
)
kyôiku
-
SH
A
9
‘educator’
,
hikô-
SH
I
‘pilot’,
hanashi-
T
E
‘speaker’
4.
Ob
j
ec
t
(
Accusative: Word Order
)
taihô-
S
HA ‘the arrested’
,
hi
g
ai
-
S
H
A
‘a
v
i
c
tim’
5.
Possessivit
y
(
Genitive:
of
) ?
f
f
6
. P
ossess
i
o
n
(
Genitive:
with
/
of
)
kane
-
mochi
‘gold carrying’=‘a rich
p
erson’, yoku-bari ‘greed
spreading’=‘a glutton’,
d
ep-pa
‘protruding teeth’
=
‘a
buc
kt
oo
th
person’ (cf.
a red-head
, etc.in
En
g
lish)
7.
M
e
a
su
r
e
(
Accusative: Word Order
)
?
8.
Mat
e
rial
(
Genitive:
(
out) of
)
f
f
TETS
U
-
dô
‘iron road’=railroad
,
MOK
U
-
hai
‘wood cu
p’
9.
Partivity
(
Genitive:
of
)
f
f
GY
Û
-ny
û
‘cow-milk’
,
TON-
soku
‘pig-feet’
10
.
D
i
s
tin
c
ti
on
(
Ablative:
than
)
?
11
.
A
bso
l
u
t
e
(
Ablative: Word Order
)
S
entential Adverbs
12
.
Me
an
s
(
Instrumental:
by
/with
)
s
hi
g
eki-ZAI ‘stimulant dru
g
’,
hikô-
KI ‘fli
g
ht machine’=‘airplane’ (cf.
hikô-
SHI above
)
13.
R
ou
t
e
(
Instrumental :
b
y/via
)
kei-
YU
‘via’
,
YU
-r
ai
‘th
esou
r
ce
’
14.
Mann
er
(
Accusative/Instrumental:
like
)
O
saka-F
Û
‘Osaka-style’,
tôsei
-
R
Y
Û
‘in the contemporary style’
15
.
E
ss
i
o
n
(
Accusative/Instrumental: as
)
Essive Ad
j
ectives with suffi
x
-
ku
:
antepenultimate stress) (cf. Manne
r
Adve
r
bw
ith
su
ffix -
ku
: penultimate
202
RO
BERT BEARD
&
MARK
VO
LPE
10
Beard (1995: 308) claims that cross-lin
g
uisticall
y
Primar
y
Grammatical Functions are distin
g
uished
from Secondary Grammatical Functions by the fact
that the morphological realizations of Primary
t
F
unctions can never appear in Lexical Functional-
D
erivations. In other words
,
the nominative case-
m
arker will never appear as the morphological realization of the LF-
D
erivation
[
SUBJECT
]
.
U
nderlined Lexical-derivations are examples o
f
Secondar
y
Functions which use the same Morpheme
f
o
r
bo
th L
e
xi
c
al F
u
n
c
ti
o
nal-D
e
ri
v
ati
o
n an
d
infl
ec
ti
o
nal
de
ri
v
ati
o
n
.
The existence of this phenomenon
i
n Japanese, as well as the IE-languages English and Serbo-Croatian, strengthens the claim of its
universalit
y
, in addition to provi
ding concreteness to the Primar
y-Secondary bifurcation. (See
r
r
App
endix a, Beard, 1995
)
s
tress
)
16.
D
u
rati
o
n
(
Instrumental: for
)
ichinen-
KAN ‘a one year period’,
kû-
KAN ‘a s
p
ace’,
ki-
KAN ‘a
p
eriod’
17. It
e
rat
io
n
(
?:
(
on
)
…s
,
e.g., on Sundays
)
MAI
-ge
t
su ‘every month’, SAI-
hôsô
‘r
e
-
b
r
o
a
dc
a
s
t
’
18
.
A
cco
r
d
an
ce
(
Ablative:
by
)
nen
r
ei-
BETS
U
‘
according to age’,
s
hoku
gy
ô
-
BET
SU
‘b
y
occupation’,
kokuseki-
B
ET
SU
‘accordin
g
to
n
ationalit
y
’
19
. Pur
p
ose
(
Dative: to/for
)
gaikokujin
-
YÔ
‘for foreigners’, kôji
-
YÔ
‘for use in construction’
,
jikken-
YÔ
‘for ex
p
erimental use’
20
.
E
xchange
(
?: for
)
r
y
ô-
GA
E
‘change of monetary
d
enomination’
,
no
r
i-
KAE
‘change
t
rains, planes, etc.’, fuki
-
KA
E
‘forei
g
n lan
g
ua
g
e dubbin
g
’
21
.
Cause
(
Ablative:
f
rom
)
minshu-
K
A
‘democratization’
,
kikai-
K
A
‘m
ec
hanizati
o
n’
22.
S
ociatio
n
(
Adv + Instrumental:
with
)
D
Ô
-ry
ô
‘co-workers’
,
KY
Ô
-
son
‘coexist’
,
hanashi-
A
U
‘
d
i
scuss
’
S
patial
23
.
L
oc
at
io
n
(
Locative: at
,
on
,
in
)
chûsha
-
JÔ
‘parking lot’, kenkyû-j
o
‘research center’
,
saiban-
S
H
O
‘
cou
rt
roo
m’
24
.
G
oal
(
Accusative/Locative:
to
)
O
saka
-
YU
KI ‘Osaka-bound’
,
O
saka
-
C
HAK
U
‘O
saka arrival
’
2
5
.
Origin
(
Ablative:
from/of
)
f
f
gaikoku
-
S
EI ‘foreign-made’,
gaikoku
-
J
IN ‘a foreigner’,
O
saka
-
HATS
U
‘Osaka departure’
2. Secondar
y
Functions
S
p
atial
2
6
.
In
ess
i
o
n
(
Locative
:
in
)
UC
HI-
umi
1
0
‘inland sea’
,
koku-
N
AI
‘
domestic’
,
kûki-
C
H
Û
‘mi
d
-air’
27
.
A
dess
i
o
n
(
Locative:
on
)
UWA
-
shiki
‘
top- spreading’=‘rug’,
sen-jô
‘on board a ship’,
ô
kai-j
ô
‘
on
t
h
e
LEXEME
-
MORPHEME BASE MORPHOLOGY
203
sea’
,
oku-
jô
‘
o
n th
e
r
oo
f’
2
8
a
.
Anteriorit
y
(
Adv + Genitive:
i
n
f
ront o
f
)
moku-
Z
EN ‘before one’s e
y
es’,
MA
E
-gaki
‘
p
reface’, MAE-
ba
‘fr
o
nt
too
th’
28
b
.
Temporal
(
Adv + Ablative:
b
efor
e
)
SAK
I
-ba
r
ai
‘pre-pay’,
Z
EN
-
daitôry
ô
‘previous President’, go
-
Z
EN
(
‘noon
before’=‘A.M.’
)
29a
.
Posteriority
(
Adv + Ablative:
behind
)
d
d
US
HIR
O
-
awase
‘back to back’
,
US
HIR
O
-yubi
‘behind finger’=‘tal
k
behind one’s back,
g
ossip’
29b
.
(
Tem
p
oral
)
a
f
ter
A
T
O
-a
j
i ‘after-taste’
,
K
O
-
ki
‘aft
er
te
rm’=‘2n
dse
m
es
t
e
r
o
f th
esc
h
oo
l
year’,
sen
-
GO
‘after
W
orld
W
ar 2’
30
.
Superession
(
Adv + Genitive:
ove
r
)
U
W
A
g
‘overcoat’,
A
-gi
zu-
JÔ
‘
ove
rh
e
a
d’
3
1
.
S
ubession
(
Adv + Accusative:
unde
r
)
S
HIT
A
-gi
‘underwear’
,
ishiki-
K
A
‘subconcious’
,
chi-
K
A
‘underground
’
32
.
Tran
sess
i
o
n
(
Adv + Accusative:
ac
r
oss
)
W
ATARI-
do
r
i
‘crossin
g
bird’=‘mi
g
rator
y
birds’,
T
O
-bei
‘across to America’
,
T
O
-sen
-
ba
‘crossing boat place’=‘pier’,
W
ATASHI
-bune
‘
f
erry’
33
.
Intermediacy
(
Adv + Accusative:
between
)
A
ID
A
-
gara
‘a relation’, e.g.,
between father and son
,
nichi
-
bei
-
KA
N
‘bi-lateral, between Japan an
d
t
he U.S’
,
san
-
koku-
KAN ‘amon
g
t
hr
ee cou
ntri
es
’
34
.
Pr
o
lati
on
(
Adv + Accusative: along
)
?
35
.
Proximity
(
Adv + Genitive:
by/near/at
)
tt
mi
-
J
IK
A
‘near at hand
,
C
HIK
A
-
michi
‘close road’=‘shortcut’
,
KIN-j
ô
‘near place’=‘neighborhood’, KI
N
-
en
‘close family relation’
36
.
Opposition
(
Adv + Accusative:
against
)
t
T
AI-
saku
‘counter measure’
,
TAI
-
ketsu
‘showdown’
,
TAI
-j
in-
j
irai
‘anti-
p
ersonnel mine’
3
7
.
P
e
rlati
o
n
(
Adv + Accusative: through
)
?
38
.
C
ircumession
(
Adv + Accusative:
around
)
d
d
MAWARI
-michi
‘
ar
ou
n
d
r
o
a
d
’=‘a
detour’
,
S
H
Û
-
i
‘circumference’
,
shû-
hen
‘the surroundings’
39
.
T
e
rminati
o
n
(
? + ?:
u
p
to
)
shû
-
ten
‘the last stop’, ‘a terminal’),
S
H
Û
-k
y
oku ‘the finale’
,
S
H
Û
-
shinkei
‘end of bod
y
sentence’ =
‘im
p
risonment for life’
Non-Spat
i
al
40
.
Concession
(
?:
d
es
p
it
e
)
?
2
04
R
O
BERT BEAR
D
&
MARK
VO
LP
E
REFEREN
C
E
S
B
eard
,
Robert. 1981. The Indo-European Lexicon: A Full Synchronic Theory. North-Holland Linguistic
Series
,
44. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
B
eard, Robert. 1987. “Lexical Stock Expansion.” In: E. Gussman
n
(
ed.
)
R
ules and the Lexicon:
S
tudies in
W
ord Formation
.
Lublin:
C
atholic
U
niv
e
rsity Press, 24-41.
B
eard
,
Robert. 1995. Lexeme Morpheme Base Morpholog
y
.
Albany: Suny Press.
Be
li
ü
,
Aleksandar. 1958.
Oj
ezi
þ
koj prirodi I jezi
þ
þ
þ
kom razvitku
þ
þ
.
Beo
g
rad: Nolit.
B
otha
,
Rudolf. 1980. Word-Based Morpholo
gy
and S
y
nthetic Compoundin
g
. Stellenbosch Pa
p
ers in
L
in
g
uistics 5. Stellenbosch: Universit
y
of Stellenbosch.
B
ybee, Joan. 1985.
M
orphology: a study of the relation between meaning and form. Philadel
p
hia
/
A
msterdam: John Benjamins.
C
homsky, Noam. 1965.
A
spects of a Theory of Synta
x
.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
C
homsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program
.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
C
inque, Guglielmo. 1999. A
dve
r
bs and
F
unctional
H
eads
.
O
xford and New York: Oxford University
Pr
ess.
Hale, Kenneth and Ke
y
ser, Samuel J. 1993. “Ar
g
ument st
r
ucture.” In: K. Hale and S. J. Ke
y
ser (eds.)
The
view from building
20. Cambrid
g
e: MIT Press, 51-109.
g
Halle
,
Morris and Marantz
,
Alec. 1993. “Distributed Morpholo
gy
and the pieces of inflection.” In: K.
Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.)
The view from building
20. Cambridge: MIT Press, 111-176.
g
J
ackendoff, Ra
y
. 1976. X-bar S
y
nta
x
. Cambrid
g
e : MIT Press.
J
akobson, Roman. 1939. “La si
g
ne zéro.”
M
élan
g
es de lin
g
uistique o
ff
ert à Charles Ball
y
.
Gen
é
ve
,
143-
152. (Reprinted in E. Hamp, F. Hous
e
h
older and R. Austerlitz
(
eds.
)(
1966
)
.
R
eadings in Linguistics
II
. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 109-115.)
I
I
Karcevskij, Sergei. 1929. “Du dualisme as
y
m
metrique du signe linguistique.” In :
T
r
avaux du ce
r
cle
l
inguistique de Prague 1
,
88-93.
Kur
y
á
o
wicz, Jerzy. 1964. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
L
ieber
,
Rochelle. 1992.
D
econstructing Morpholog
y
. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Martin
,
Samuel. 1975. A Reference Grammar of Japanese
.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Matthews
,
Peter. 1972. In
f
lectional Morpholo
gy
. Cambrid
g
e: Cambrid
g
e Universit
y
Press.
41
.
Di
s
tri
bu
ti
on
(
?: a
p
/
a
)
KAK
U
-gaku-bu ‘
e
a
c
h a
c
a
de
mi
c
department’, e.g., Humanities, Law,
Economics
,
etc.
,
KAK
U
-jin KAK
U
-
sama
(
‘to each his own’
)
42
.
Exception
(
?:
except
) ?
t
43
.
Pri
v
ati
on
(
Adv + Inst:
without
)
t
na-
N
A
S
HI ‘anonymous’, M
U
-
imi
‘meanin
g
less’
44
.
Thematicit
y
(
Adv + Accusative:
about
)
t
k
y
ôiku
-
JÔ
‘pertainin
g
to education’,
shôbai-
JÔ
‘as re
g
ards business’,
g
aiken
-
J
Ô ‘in terms of appearance’
Robert Beard Mark Volpe
434 Market Street Mie University
Lewisburg Department of Humanities
Pennsylvania 1787 1515 Kamihama-chou
USA Tsu 514-8507
e-mail: rbeard
@y
ourdictionar
y
.com Japan
e-mail: markv58@yahoo.com
LEXEME
-
MORPHEME BASE MORPHOLOGY
205
Szymanek, Bogdan. 1985.
E
nglish and Polish Adjectives: A Study in Lexicalist Word-Formation
.
L
ub
lin
:
C
atholic Universit
y
Press.
Sz
y
manek, Bo
g
dan. 1988. Cate
g
ories and Cate
g
orization in Morpholo
gy
.
Lublin: Catholic Universit
y
Pr
ess.
T
homas
,
Lewis. 1967.
E
lementar
y
Turkish
.
N
ew
Y
o
rk
:
D
ove
r Pr
ess.
V
ol
p
e, Mark. 2002. “Locatum and location
v
erbs in Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morpholo
gy
.
”
Lin
g
ua 112
,
103-119.
W
ierzbicka
,
Anna. 1992.
S
emantic, Culture and Cognition
.
Oxford and New York: Oxford University
Pr
ess.
20
7
Š
tekauer, P. and R. Lieber (eds.), Handbook o
f
Word-Formation, 20
7
—232
.
©
2005 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands
.
ONOMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO WORD-
FORMATION
PA
VO
L
Š
TEKA
U
ER
1. INTR
O
D
UC
TI
O
N
There are two basic approaches to the stud
y
of word-formation: onomasiolo
g
ical
and semasiolo
g
ical
.
1
The semasiological (from Greek
séma
‘sign’) method,
proceedin
g
from form to meanin
g
/concept, concentrates on the anal
y
sis of the
alread
y
existin
g
word-stock. The onomasiolo
g
ical (from Greek
ónoma
‘name’
)
m
ethod, which takes the opposite direction and studies the namin
g
act, has lon
g
been
relegated to the periphery of research in
works on English word-formation. As noted
n
by Dalton-Puffer (1997: 9), a survey of
t
he literature on English word-formation
m
ight lead to the conclusion “that meaning-oriented approaches to word-formation
are practically untilled soil”; however, as she adds, the picture changes if we widen
o
ur linguistic horizons, and encompass Slavic and Romance works. In a similar vein,
Grzega (2002: 2) when analysing the few
r
ece
nt th
eo
r
e
ti
c
al
co
ntri
bu
ti
o
n
s
in thi
s
field states that it is astonishin
g
that t
h
e
re have been ver
y
few attempts “made to
v
iew word-formation as a formin
g
process, as an active
p
rocess, in other words: as
an onomasiolo
g
icall
y
and co
g
nitivel
y
releva
n
t
p
henomenon.” No wonder: within the
m
ainstream generative tradition, the naming-act perspective has been more or less
i
gnored.
B
ut, as noted by L. Lipka (2002: ix), “voices have been raised over the last few
years pleading for a reconsideration, or re-discovery, of onomasiology.” This effort,
aimed at providing an alternative to the dominating approach to word-formation, has
also benefited from the creditable activity
o
f J. Grzega and A. Bammesberger, the
editors of an on-line
j
ournal
O
nomasiolo
gy
Onlin
e
.
I
nterestin
g
l
y
, the first comprehensive onomasiolo
g
ical theor
y
of word-formation,
d
eveloped by Czech linguist M. Dokulil, appeared as early as 1962; and even if J.
H
orecký (1999: 6) aptly states that this theory did not result in a change of paradig
m
i
t found a number of proponents in other count
r
ies of Central and Eastern Europe,
for instance, in Slovakia (Horecký, Buzássyová, Furdík, Štekauer), Poland
(Puzynina 1969, Grzegorczykowa 1979, Szymanek 1988, Waszakowa 1994), forme
r
U
SSR
(
Neš
þ
i
menko 1963, 1968), and also Germany (Fleischer 1969, von Polenz
1973, Huke 1977
).
1
M. Dokulil (1962, 1968b) distinguishes between ‘w
o
r
d
-f
o
rmati
o
n’ an
d
‘
w
o
rd-formedness’, M. D.
Stepanova (1973) who distinguishes between ‘p
r
ocess’ and ‘result’, M. Aronoff
(
1976
)
between
‘word-formation’ and ‘word-anal
y
sis’, K. Hansen (1977) between ‘Wortbildun
g
’ and
‘Wortbildun
g
sanal
y
se’.
208
PA
VO
L
Š
TEKA
U
ER
2. METHODS OF ONOMASIOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Onomasiology is not restricted to word-formation. Actually, its scope has been
m
uch broader from its ince
p
tion,
2
covering the field of lexicology. As defined by B.
Quadri, onomasiolo
gy
studies the wa
y
s of lan
g
ua
g
es and their dialects in expressin
g
a particular concept. The point of departure for an onomasiolo
g
ical approach is
always a concept (1952: 1). Its tasks and objectives were identified by E. Tappolet
(
1895: 4) as answering a series of questions: How does a language at a particula
r
t
ime and at a
p
articular
p
lace ex
p
ress a c
o
nce
p
t? Does it take over an ex
p
ression
from an earlier period or is the original
e
xpression replaced by a new one? In the
former case, are the form and meaning identi
c
al with the original ones? In the latte
r
c
ase, in what way and by which means is the new expression formed? And the final
q
uestion is the ‘Wh
y
’? question: What was the reason for the chan
g
e in expressin
g
o
ne and the same concept? And, is it actuall
y
still the same concept?
There are two basic divisions in onomasiolo
g
ical research. The first dichotom
y
co
n
ce
rn
s
th
e
s
ynchrony vs. diachrony
opp
osition, the second bears on the em
p
irical
vs. theo
r
etical
r
esearch. The individual a
pp
roaches
m
ay also be combined. Empirical
o
nomasiology studies the different ways of expressing (empirical aspect) a given
c
oncept in various languages (synchronic aspect) and/or the etymology of these
expressions and their changes over time
(
diachronic aspect). The diachronic
empirical method has been the dominant research method, even if – it should be
n
oted – the ma
j
or part of works written within this framework fall within the scope
o
f lexical semantics rather than word-formation. Nevertheless
,
Blank’s definition of
t
he scope of diachronic cognitive onoma
s
i
ology accommodates both semantic and
w
ord-formation
p
ers
p
ectives:
It investigates the main strategies that e
x
i
st in a language sample for conceptualizing
and verbalizing a given concept and tri
e
s
to explain them against a cognitive
background in terms of salient perceptions, p
r
o
minency, convincing similarities, etc. It
asks for the source concepts that seem to b
e
universally recurrent, lays bare associative
r
elations between source and target concepts and describes the lexical processes used by
t
he speakers... This theo
re
ti
c
al f
ou
n
d
ati
o
n al
so
all
ows
th
e
d
escription and explanation of
c
han
g
es towards a co
g
nitivel
y
more promine
n
t
strate
gy
and of
r
eor
g
anizations o
f
c
onceptual structures (2001: 21-22).
There are a
g
reat number of empirical
o
nomasiolo
g
ical studie
s
.
For illustration
,
A
linei (1995), anal
y
zes different names for the concept of
GLASSES an
d
d
emonstrates different motivations underl
y
in
g
the namin
g
of this concept in various
l
anguages, ranging from the semantic shift based on the associative principle (Engl.
g
lasses), throu
g
h coinin
g
a new word based on the conti
g
uit
y
3
(
It.
occhiali
)
o
r
s
imilarity relation (Fr.
lunettes
) to borrowing from French
(
b
r
ille
r
→
G
er.
B
r
ille
).
2
As noted b
y
B. Quadri (1952: vii), while the term ‘onomasiolo
gy
’ was introduced b
y
Adolf Zaune
r
(
1902), the first ‘onomasiological’ wor
k
Romanische Wortschöpfung
(
1875) by Friedrich Diez was
published as early as 1875.
3
As specified below, contiguity i
s
a conceptual, extralinguistic relationship primarily characteristic of
m
eton
y
m
y
. In Koch’s approach (1999b: 146ff), conti
g
uit
y
is the relation that exists between
prototypical, salient elements of a frame or betwee
n
the frame as a whole and its elements. One more
exam
p
le from Koch
(
1999b
)
will illustrate th
e
point. The metonymical shift of Engl.
ba
r ‘
cou
nt
e
r’ t
o