?tekauer Pavol, Lieber Rochelle. Handbook of Word-Formation

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

ONOMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO WOR

FORMATION

219

nomasiological Type

the mark is simple and unstructured, i.e., it cannot be

divided into the determining and the determined constituents.

(

18) Ne

ation – Qualit

un happy

(

19) Quality – State

lue-eye -ed

(

)

etition Action

re- gain

The MSAP principle eliminates the problem of whether or not new naming units

an be based on non-existin

words (cases like

andedness, unsi

htl

, sabre-

toothed

, coined – as claimed by some generativists – on the basis of non-occurring

ds *

handed

*si

htl

toothed

)

For exam

le,

sabre-toothed

is based on

assigning the morpheme

sabre

tooth

and

-ed

to the onomasiological structure

esulting from the conceptual-level analysis, indicating a Quality of something that

as [=State

]

teeth similar [=P

tern

]

to those of a sabre:

(21) Pattern – Qualit

[=State]

sab

tooth

In this case

sab

functions as the specifying and

tooth

as a specified element of

mark

3.3.4 Conceptual (onomasiological) recategorization

Štekauer (1992) ar

ues a

ainst the notion of zero-morpheme in En

lish

nflectional and derivational morpholo

, and b

implication, a

ainst the concept of

onversion as zero-suffixation. The onomasiolo

ical approach to conversion

(Štekauer 1996, 1997) is based on the fact

that each naming unit results from an

ntellectual analysis of an extra-linguistic object to be named. Within this analysis,

the object is classed with one of four gen

al conceptual categories (cf. 3.1 above):

BSTANCE

ACTION (including

CTION PROPER

PROCESS

and STAT

)

UALITY

and

IRC

MSTANCE

The individual aspects of extra-

inguistic reality do not exist in

solation; on the contrary, they can be c

nceived of and subsequently linguistically

ressed in various relationshi

s, from different

oints of view. These different

‘an

les of reflection’ of extra-lin

uistic realit

can be co

nitivel

brou

ht into a

lose relation b

re-evaluatin

the alread

existin

ical spectrum, which has its

effects upon all the lower levels. Then, the most striking feature of conversion is that

For the discussion on this issue see

for exa

ple, Roeper & Siegel (1978) and Botha (1984)).

It should be noted that the determining con

ituent of mark can only be represented by an

ction/

tate/Process seme.

TEKA

t linguistically expresses the conceptual (onomasiological) recategorization

xtra-linguistic reality.

Thus, for exam

le,

databank

resents a S

BSTANCE. When conceptually

ecategorized, it becomes an

CTION

;

experimen

expresses a PROCESS – a

ecategorization it refers to an ACTION PROPER

;

limit

IRC

MSTANCE – a

ecategorization it is an

CTION

;

feature

UALITY – its recategorization yields a

TATE

;

inse

N – when recate

orized it becomes a

TAN

;

stand

TATE – when recate

orized it becomes a

TAN

hat is the mechanism of these chan

es? As alread

mentioned, the individual

ogical predicates constitute a hierarchy. The recategorization process consists in

eplacing the original dominating logical predicate with a new one which determines

he conceptual category of a new extra-linguistic object to be named. The conceptual

e-evaluation of extra-linguistic reality preced

s the linguistic processes proper. It is

he conceptual recategorization which provi

des us w

ith th

eev

that

ann

ntifi

ed w

ith z

osu

ffixati

onceptual recategorization is vital to

onversion while onl

possible for suffixation.

et us illustrate the point. The namin

unit

milk

belon

s to the conceptual

ate

TAN

Its t

pical hierarch

of lo

ical predicates is

iven in Fi

ure

2. When the hierarchy within the logical spectrum in one of the converted meanings

milk

(

‘to obtain milk from a female mammal’) is changed, the recategorization

BSTANCE

CTION

akes place. The central positi

n within the hierarchy of

ogical predicates is assumed by a predi

ate focusing on the Actional aspect of the

particular extra-linguistic object.

onceptual level: Ori

inal lo

ical spectrum New lo

ical spectru

TAN

onceptual level: It is Material

It i

Inanimat

It is Liquid

m F

mal

Mammal

It i

a F

oods

Figure 2

he conceptual level of Ono

asiological Recategorization

Semantic level: [Material] [Inanimate] [Li

uid]

[From Female Mammal

]

[Foodstuff

]

…

Onomasiolo

ical level: SUBSTANCE

Result

ACTION

nomatological level: milk milk

GET {...}

Phonological level:

milk

AL APPR

H T

OWO

RMATI

221

s opposed to Types 1-4, Onomasiological Type 5 is characterized by an

nstructured onomasiological level. There is neither onomasiological base no

nomasiological mark. The original and the new dominating conceptual categories

are related directl

(Fi

ure 2).

The followin

are several examples, which, at the same time, illustrate the wa

f the classification of individual Word-Formation T

pes within the

nomasiological R

categorization

switch

–

switch

TAN

ACTION

(in the meanin

of a device fo

ompletin

or breakin

an electric

ircuit

)

nter

retation: Substance as an Instrument of Action

insert

–

insert

CTION

ect

BSTANC

nterpretation: Substance as an Object of Action

time

–

time

TAN

Temporal

e. Interpretation: Action in terms of Temporal dimension

clear

–

clear

UALITY

esul

Interpretation: Action Resultin

in a certain Qualit

3.3.5 An Onomasiolo

ical Approach to Productivit

One of the basic postulates of the present onomasiolo

ical theor

is that all

namin

units, fallin

within its scope, that is to sa

, all namin

units comin

into

xistence in the Word-Formation Component, are coined by productiv

formation and morphological types/rules. Any and all post-word-formation

deviations take

lace in the Lexicon.

ne of the major deficiencies of various computation methods, employed within

he generative framework for the evaluation of productivity, seems to be thei

imited scope; they are usually restricted to the productivity of affixes. It may be

herefore

osed that instead of the too restrictive a

ix-driven productivit

roach

eed

eneral WF-Rule-driven theor

productivit

overin

the

whole stock of complex namin

units. This implies the importance and the necessit

f defining the (so far) vague notion of

ord-Formation Rule

(

WFR

)

. The

resent

odel distinguishes the following

evels of productivit

1. the productivity at the level of Onomasiological Types

2. the productivity at the level of Word-Formation Types

3. the productivity at the level of Morphological Types

. the productivit

at the level of Word-Formation Rules

Cf. Štekauer 2001b for the treatment of a group of syntax-based formations like

sit

ound

and

do-

othin

-ish, leave-it-where-it-is-er, son-in-law, lad

-in-waitin

, pain-in-stomach-

esture, what-do

ou-think-movement, milk-and-water, save-the-whales campai

(

)

bond

N –

bond

BSTANC

esu

CTION

(in the meaning of a

oint)

Interpretation: Substance as a Result of Action

Instrument/Result

22 PA

TEKA

Productivit

Onomasiolo

ical T

pes

As indicated above, the present model distinguishes five

nomasiological Types

anging over all productive ways of forming

ew naming units. Since they are based

n th

rit

tit

f th

onomasiological structure ar

inguistically expressed at the onomatological level

the determination of thei

espective productivities is an

mportant indicator of the preferences

f language

users (or better, coiners) in terms of emplo

erent co

nitive processes

underl

the act of namin

, on the one hand, and the

erent wa

s o

their

uistic representation

on the other. The productivit

calculation at this level ma

ndicate which of the two universal, contradictory tendencies, i.e., economy o

eech and ex

licitness of ex

ression

(

com

hensibility), dominates in a

articular

anguage (area). Here we face two gr

dual oppositions: (a) Types 1-3 (complex

analysis at the conceptual level) vs. Type 4 (simplified onomasiological structure)

s. Type 5 (absence of onomasiological structure), (b) Type 1 (complex linguistic

epresentation of complex structure) vs. Types 2 and 3 (economized expression of

omplex structure) vs. T

pe 4 (econom

due to onomasiolo

ical structure) vs. T

5 (absolute econom

Productivit

Word-Formation T

pes

more specific level is represented by

ord-Formation

ypes

The com

utation

f productivity of WF Types is related to a conceptual categor

such as Agent,

nstrument, Location, Action, Result of Action, etc. This makes it possible to include

n the computation of the productivity of, for example, Agent names (broadly

efined as ‘persons performin

some activit

’

), namin

units of different structures,

ence different WF T

pes ([Ob

ect

Action – A

ent]; [Action – A

ent]; [Location

–

Action – A

ent]; [Result

Action – A

ent]; [Instrument – Action – A

ent];

[Manner – Action – Agent]; etc.).

ll of these different structures represent various WF Types. All of them,

owever, may be used to coin new naming units falling within one and the same

onceptual category (Agent, in our example), and therefore represent a single

ord

Formation Type Cluster (WFTC). Any WFTC is – with regard to the particula

onceptual category – 100% productive; the productivity of the individual WF

pes ma

be computed internall

, within the WFTC, as a share of the individual

F T

pes of the total number of namin

units belon

to the

iven WFTC.

Productivit

Morpholo

ical T

pes

Any WF Type may have various morphological representation

(

wood

cutte

[N+V+er

]

–

novelist

[N+ist

]

–

ite

[

V+er

]

– cheat

[N–V]

–

sman

[

N+s+man

]

–

transformational grammarian

[

A+N+ian

]

– bodyguard

[

N+N], etc.

)

. All of these

different morphological structures represent various

orphological Types

inc

hey are used to coin new naming units falling within one and the same conceptual

ate

ent, in our exampl

), the

represent a sin

orpholo

ical T

Cluster

(

MTC). An

MTC is – with re

ard to the particular conceptual cate

y–

100% productive, and the productivity of the individual Morphological Types may

be computed internally, within the particular MTC.

NOMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO WOR

FORMATION

223

Productivity of Word-Formation Rules

ord-Formation Rules are constituted by the unity of WF Types and

Morphological Types. Thus, the conceptual category of Agent may be exemplified,

nter alia, b

the followin

WFRs:

(

23) a. Action – Agent

erb -

(

ive

)

b. Instrument – Agent

Noun

(

)

man

(

sman

)

. Object – Action – Agent

Noun Verb

-er

(

wood

cutte

)

rom this it follows that the WFR is constituted by the unity of the

nomasiological and onomatological structures.

The reason for preferring this approach to the calculation of productivity is that it

akes it possible to

(

a) examine productivity from different viewpoints reflecting both linguistic and

supralinguistic levels;

(

)

take into consideration all new na

ing units (not only some word-formation

processes – for example, affixation);

(

)

restrict the evaluation

lati

n t

ds.

rom the previous discussion it follows that productivit

is conceived as an

mplemented capacit

lectin

the nami

needs o

a particular speech communit

s suggested in Štekauer (1998, 2001b), what seems to be crucial is that by coining

a naming unit in response to the specific demand of a speech community the

particular language manifests its productive capacity to provide a new, well-formed

inguistic sign by employing its productive Types/Rules whenever need arises.

This approach is in accordance with Bauer’s assumption

hat “

[

]

he fact remains

.. that the production of new words may b

the only evidence the observer has of

his potential, and the lack of new words appears to den

the potential” (2001: 21)

and that “...words are onl

formed as and

hen there is a need for them

and such

a need cannot be reduced to formal terms” (2001: 143). In principle, the conception

f productivity as implemented capacity corresponds with Bauer’s (2001) notion of

‘profitability’.

‘Actual word’ is defined here rather loosel

, i.e

a namin

unit which was coined to satisf

a lin

uistic

demand, be it the demand of a single member of

a speech community, be it a single-act one-off

demand. A word may only qualify for the status of a

if it ha

en coined. Whether its

use will be spread over the whole speech community (implying frequent use), or whether it will be

onfined to a single use on the part of a single speake

is insignificant. What is important is that the

espective lan

e has, b

respondin

to the specifi

demand, manifested its capacit

to provide a

ew, well-formed linguistic sign by its productive Word-Formation Rules whenever need arises.

TEKA

Productivit

vs. creativit

These two terms are usually understood as mutually excluding principles in

oining new naming units. While productivity is said to be rule-governed, creativity

s conceived as any deviation from the productive rules. In the present context,

reativity is used in a different meaning in which it is complementary with

productivity. First, the logical spectrum do

not necessarily lead to one single

nomasiolo

ical structure. Fo

illustration, if we tr

to form a namin

unit fo

‘a

erson who meets s

ace aliens on behalf

f the human race’ the lo

ical spectru

lead to various WF T

pes, and, second, these different WF T

pes ma

assigned various morphological realizations by the MSAP principle. Examples are

given in (24):

(

24) a. [Theme – Action – Agent]

human race re

resentative

(

OT1

)

homosa

ience re

resenative

(

OT1

)

. [Location – Action – Agent]

intergalactic diplomat

(

OT2

)

interstellar diplomat

(

OT2

)

d. [Ob

ect/Location – Action – A

ent]

extra-terrestrial

reeter

(

OT1

)

ace alien meeter

(

OT1

)

outers

ace wellcomist

(

OT1

)

e. [Object – Action – Agent]

contactee

(

OT3

)

greeter

(OT3), etc.

Example (24) illustrates what can be labeled as creativit

within productivit

const

aints

On the one hand, there are different onomasiological realizations of

a particular logical spectrum, and, on the other hand, different onomatological

ealizations of various onomasiological structures. It is the interaction between the

onceptual, onomasiological, and the onomatological levels that – within the limits

f productive types and rules and the rel

ant constraints – provides certain space

r a

eative

approach to word-formation (as it follows from several options in ou

example). The inclusion of speech commu

in the model and viewin

each new

namin

unit as a result of a ver

specific and real act of namin

a coiner makes it

possible to reflect individual preferences, the influence of one’s a

e, education, and

profession, one’s linguistic background (in a bilingual s

tting), fashionable trends,

etc., i.e., the sociolinguistic factors which may affect the application of the MSAP in

hose cases that provide more than one option.

The examples in (11) were proposed b

native speakers.

b. [Location/Theme – Action – A

ent]

earth-re

resentative

(

OT1

)

th ambassado

(

OT2

)

ld ambassado

(

OT2

)

ONOMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO WOR

FORMATION

225

3.3.6

eadedness

Head identification in word-formation has been a frequent topic, and a number of

arious criteria and theories have been proposed. An onomasiological contribution

to the discussion is Štekauer

(

2001a

)

. It follows from the exposition in Section 3.3.3

above that out of five

omasiolo

ical T

pes, the ono

asiolo

ical recate

orization

(

pe 5) does not admit discussion of headedness: the convertin

and the converted

amin

units fall within different conceptual cate

ories and different word-classes,

feature different paradigms and, hence, different morphosyntactic features. Nothing

s inherited, nothing is percolated

For the remaining four Onomasiological Types,

t is proposed that the onomasiological base

dbec

use

t i

thi

sco

tit

hat stands for the most general class

f all constituents of the onomasiological

tructure. Instead of identifying head either positionally or morphologically (no

particular morpheme of a naming unit) the onomasiological model shifts the

riterion of headedness to extra-lin

uistic level, in particular, the conceptual level.

implication, head can be a suffix, a

refix, or a word-formation base. The head

defined in this wa

meets the basic headedness criteria:

(a) H

pon

(truckdriv

–

pe 1, writ

– Type 2, honey

bee

– T

pe 3,

tart

–

pe 4).

(

b) Subcate

orization (e.

., -

onl

combines with monos

llabic bases which end

in an obstruent, optionally preceded

by a sonorant – therefore black

;

uires Verb bases stressed

n the last syllable – arri

;

- combines with

(

)

adjectives (ii) whose meaning is preferably positive

–

adjustable)

(

c) The head determines the word-class and is the distributional equivalent of the

whole naming unit). In the first three Types (truckdriv

rit

one

bee

)

, the

nomasiolo

ical base determines the word-class irrespective of whether it takes

the form of affix or base

)

. The head fo

resta

, which exemplifies T

pe 4, is

ide

ntifi

ed w

ith

re-

which, in traditional terminolo

, is a class-maintainin

prefix. The question which necessarily arises is whether a class-maintaining

prefix may determine the word-class. The doubt is even stronger with

counte

that combines with nouns, verbs, and adjectives

The onomasiological theory

esponds to this problem by assigning the head the decision-making capacity.

his capacity can be exercised in tw

different ways: either, the affix

dete

mines

the word-class (class-changing affixes) or it acknowledges the word-class

(

class-

aintainin

affixes). Conceived this wa

t i

se w

ves

a tr

ead. Hence

en-

as a head determines the word-class (and consequentl

, the

distribution

)

e in the same wa

counte

in th

f h

liminati

f h

n i

sed

n the presented model. Certainl

, a zero-morpheme

theory, such as that proposed by Marchand (1964a,b, 1965) and Kastovsky (1968, 1969,1982) brings

iff

nt r

esu

The conceptual level of unad

ustable is, rou

, ‘Ne

ated Capacit

’ where Ne

ation is lo

icall

the

dominant conceptual category within this naming unit. For the deter

nati

f h

with more than one suffix see Štekauer

(

2001a

)

Cf., for example, Lieber (1981) and

er Feature-Percolation Convention 3.

TEKA

acknowledges the word-class of

counte

evidence. By implication, -

ish

f greenish

and

-ling

is that of

ucklin

.3.7 Summar

This model came into existence

inte

alia

as a reaction to the formalism that has

been a mainstay of many generative morphologists. Therefore, its advantages must

be sought in the areas which deviate from the mainstream generative approaches.

They can be summarised as follows:

1. It reflects the triad of relations existing between the indispensable components of

each act of naming: the class of objects of

he extra-linguistic reality to be named

–

(a member of) the speech community who performs the act of naming – the

ord-formation component of the language system (langue) acting in close co-

peration with the lexical component.

2. B

implication, the model interr

ates the co

nitive abilities of a speech

ommunit

with both extra-lin

uistic and lin

uistic phenomena.

ccou

formation

as a ver

real act of namin

within a speech

community, and performed by a member

of that speech community makes it

possible to interrelate the role of productive Word-Formation Types/Rules and

he creative a

roach to word

formation

by a specific coiner.

. All ‘traditional’ word-formation processes are put on the same basis by being

accounted for by means of the same word-formation principles, which makes the

odel of word-formation simpler.

5. The introduction of the MSAP principle (replacin

the binar

principle) makes it

possible to do awa

with the problems connected with the traditional accounts,

ncluding ‘bracketing paradoxes’, ‘exocentric compounds’, ‘blends’, ‘back-

formation

etc.

. The proposed model lends itself to the calculation of productivity that covers all

ypes of naming units.

.4 Bo

dan Sz

mane

eard and Sz

manek are the best known proponents of the Separation

pothesis in word-formation, assumin

strict separation of its semantic and formal

evels. Since Beard’s LMBM is introduced in a se

arate cha

ter in this volume, we

will succinctly outline Szymanek’s approach inspired by Dokulil, Beard, and

ognitive linguistics and psychology. Szymanek is a

f th

t that “

es o

he semantic (functional) aspect of word

coining are relatively scarce in current

orphological research” (1988: 30), and therefore requires a well-balanced

approach to morphology.

manek’s model includes three levels of representation: (a) the level of

nitive cate

ories (concepts); (b) the level of derivational cate

ories (functions

eanin

s), and (c) the level of derivational exponents (formatives).

Cf. Štekauer

(

2001a

)

for more detailed discussi

n on various aspects of head identification.

ONOMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO WORD

ORMATION

lati

sbe

wee

n th

ese

eve

from being based on the ideal state of

ne-to-one correspondence. What prevails is non-isomorphy, i.e., the one-to-many

and many-to-one relations between them.

ike Dokulil (1962), Sz

manek distin

uishes between

erivational cate

defined as “a class of lexemes characterized b

a sin

le derivational function”, and

erivational t

defined as “a

roup of complex lexemes characterized b

singleness of derivational function and of

its formal exponence (e.g. all English

Agent nouns which end in -

)

”

(

1988: 60

)

Szymanek’s central clai

lat

Cognitive Grounding Condition

(

1988: 93

)

(25) The basic set of lexical derivational cate

ories is rooted in the

fundamental concepts of conception.

Szymanek proposes 25 fundamental c

gnitive categories, for example,

TAN

ENT

TATE

MBER

PER

ENT

MEN

POSSESSION

NEGATION

CAUSATION

SIMILARITY

PLACE

Lik

elation between meanin

and form, the correlation between co

nitive

oncepts/cate

ories and derivational cate

ories is far from bein

isomorphic. A

le derivational cate

be motivated b

two and more co

nitive

ategories. The derivational category of, for example, privative verbs is rooted in

hree cognitive categories:

SATION + NEGATION + POSSESSION

(

flea – deflea

(

)

. On

the other hand, a single cognitive category

ay underlie two derivational categories.

For example, the cognitive category INSTR

MENT underlies the derivational category

f Instrumental nouns and Instrumental verbs

(

open – opener

and

hamme

r –

hamme

)

3.5

eas

lank

lank is right in claiming that “[l]iterall

every referent and every concept can be

erbalized by any language. It is, however,

ore interesting to study which concepts

usually an

constantl

expressed in a given language... Only from this

perspective can we get insight into the way a speech-community

onceptualizes the

world” (2001: 9). While Blank’s ma

or work (1997) discusses the lexical-semantic

aspects of onomasiolo

, he applies the basic principles of an onomasiolo

ical

approach to the field of word-forma

ion in (1998a) and (1998b). His co

nitive

nomasiolo

ical theor

of word-formati

n is illustrated with examples fro

Romance languages.

ece

ntral n

n i

conce

which is to be linguistically expressed. In word-

formation, the first step is to analyze a concept into salient

ubconce

the most

alient of which

the

asic concep

, serves as a basis for forming a new word. The

basic concept is already represented in a language by a word. Thus, in the second

tep, the concept to be named and the meaning of the basic word must be lexically

brid

ed: either b

means of another word (composition) or b

means of an affix

TEKA

(derivation). The selection of the basic concept is controlled by the principles of

prototype theory.

once

ts are embedded in frames

(

scenarios, domains

)

. The relation between

oncepts themselves and between concepts and frames is based on Aristotelian

associative principles of similarity, contrast, and contiguity. Similarit

ntal

abstraction and is a gradual phenomenon, ranging fro

dentit

cont

ast

hest de

ree of similarit

is conceptual identit

as in the case of tautolo

(Blan

2001: 13

)

. Conti

uit

is based on our experiences (mental induction) with spatial,

emporal and lo

ical relations (part-w

ole, a

ent-action, cause-effect) between

oncepts that constitute a frame, and underlie

nomic structures

sed o

hese ideas

Blank characterizes the

ndividual word-formation processes.

Suffixation, for example, is based on either similarity/contrast or contiguity. In

he former case, there are four pote

ial deviations from the prototypical

epresentation of referents

SMALLE

(it.

agazzin

)

IGGE

(

t. ragazzone

)

ORSE

(

it.

agazzacci

)

ETTER/ENDEARIN

(

it.

agazzucci

)

. In the case of

ontiguity-based suffixation, a new concept

s referred to by using a basic concept

which belongs to the same frame, for example,

CTIVITY–PLACE

(

lava

r ‘t

h’

→

lavande

ía

‘wash-house‘

)

OBJECT–PERSON

(

hie

‘ir

n’ →

‘blacksmith’

)

CONTAINER

–

PORTION

(

it.

cucchiaio

‘s

oon’

→

cucchiaiata

‘s

oonful’,

ENT–AFFE

TED

(

it.

emoto

‘earth

uake’

→

emotato

‘eathquake-dama

ed’.

Similar types of relations underlie prefixation. In Blank’s view, a class-changing

affixation (also including zero-derivati

n and back-formation

)

is based on

onceptual identity, i.e., the concept remains the same

Compounding is, in his

iew, based on two conceptual associations, which reflect the relations between the

oncept underl

the new compound and the two basic concepts – the concepts of

ts constituents. The combination of the

ossible conce

tual relations of

etaphorical similarity, deviation from th

prototype, identity, and conceptual

ontiguity yields, several potential types, not all of which are present in the

ndividual languages. For illustration, the

ost frequent type in Romance languages

s the ‘deviation from the prototype + conceptual contiguity’ (F.

wagon-lit

‘sleeping

ar’ (lit. ‘bed-car’)). The concept

LEEPING CA

deviates from the prototype of

a railroad-car (= the relation of similarit

, i.e., deviation from the protot

pe). The

oncept o

is used because, as assumed by Bla

nk, it is the most salient feature of

fram

SLEEPING CA

(=contiguity).

Engynomy is “a relation of concepts, such as part/whole, cause/consequence, producer/product,

activit

/place, etc. (Blank 2001: 10).

The exam

les are based on It.

raga

‘

boy’.

This assumption is dubious. Blank’s examples like Fr. p

‘fath

r’

→

paternel ‘paternal’, Sp

ataca

‘

atta

k’

→

ataqu

‘attack’

It.

bene

‘good’

→

(

)

bene

‘(the) good’, and any other example of

lass-chan

derivation, such as E.

→

ish are clearl

based on two different, even if closel

elated, conceptual categories of SUBS

ANCE,

UALITY, ACTION, CIRCUMSTANCE. The

oncept of bo

as a person (SUBSTANCE) is differ

t from that of a QUALITY (characterized b

some of the features of bo