?tekauer Pavol, Lieber Rochelle. Handbook of Word-Formation
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
4
22 R
OC
HELLE LIEBER
‘Max was foolish to teapot a police officer’, and know that mutual knowledge and
co
nt
e
xt
c
an
be used
t
o
fix th
em
eaning of the newly coined verb.
These theories seem compatible with that proposed by Štekauer (1996) in which
c
onversion is viewed as conceptual
r
ecategorization (see also Štekauer, this
v
olume
)
.
G
iven this sort of semantic genesis, it is not surprising then that verbs formed by
c
onversion from nouns and ad
j
ectives displa
y
a broader ran
g
e of meanin
g
than those
formed b
y
overt affixation. This has been pointed out both b
y
Pla
g
(1999) and b
y
L
ieber (2004). Pla
g
shows that newl
y
coined conversion verbs can fall into the
l
ocative
(
jail
(
(
), ornative (
l
l
staff
), causative (
f
f
yellow
(
(
)
, resultative
(
bundle
)
, inchoative
(
cool
), performative (
l
l
counte
r
attack
), and similative (
k
k
pelican
(
(
)
classes that formations
in
-
i
z
e
an
d
-if
y
can
(
see section 2.2.3 above
)
, but also into classes that he calls
i
nstrumental
(
hammer
)
and stative
(
hostess
). Using Plag’s corpus of 2
0
th
century
c
onversion neologisms, Lieber finds even more categories (2004: 91): “Specifically
t
here are many conversion verbs that have a motional meaning, with the base acting
e
ither as a manner com
p
onent
(
‘move in x manner’
)
like
cartwheel
or
l
f
ishtail
,
or as
an instrumental component (‘move usin
g
x’) like
j
et, lorr
y
,
o
r
taxi
,
or even location
(
‘move at x location’
)
like
q
uarterdec
k
.
” Lieber uses this data to su
pp
ort her
p
osition
–
essentially that of Clark and Clark (1979) – that conversion involves coinage o
r
r
elisting of nouns as verbs, rather than ze
r
o
-affixation; if conversion were a
p
rocess
o
f zero-derivation, one would expect conver
s
io
n
ve
r
bs
t
obe
limit
ed
t
o
th
ese
manti
c
r
ange of overt verb-forming affixes. Instead
,
the semantic range of conversion verbs
c
overs the entire range of
ve
r
bs de
ri
ved
an
du
n
de
ri
ved.
5.
CO
N
C
L
US
I
O
N
It is impossible in an article of this len
g
th to cover all aspects of all word
formation processes in En
g
lish. For one thin
g
, there are productive prefixes (e.
g
.,
counte
r
-
) and suffixes (e.g., -
ism
) that do not fall into any obvious cohort, and which
I therefore have not discussed here. For another, there are marginal word formation
processes like blending, clipping, and back formation which add to the lexical stock
o
f English, but which I have omitted on grounds of their lesser productivity. What I
h
ave hoped to do in this chapter is to look at many of the most prominent means of
word formation in English and highlight the ways in which they have figured in
v
arious theoretical developments in phonolo
gy
, s
y
ntax, and morpholo
gy
. The aim,
o
f course, is to spark further thou
g
ht about
t
hese processes, and to su
gg
est wa
y
s in
which our research a
g
enda is b
y
no means finished.
Rochelle
L
iebe
r
Department of English
9
5 Main
S
tree
t
University of New Hampshire
Durham
,
NH 03824
USA.
e-mail: Rochelle.Lieber
@
unh.edu
ENGLISH WOR
D
-
FORMATION PROCESSE
S
423
REFEREN
C
E
S
A
dams
,
Valerie. 2001. Complex Words in English
.
Longman: London.
Algeo, John. 1971. “The voguish uses o
f
non
.
” American Speech
4
6
,
87-105.
A
llen, Margaret. 1978.
M
orphological Investigations
.
Ph.D. dissertation. University of Connecticut,
S
torrs.
A
nderson
,
Mona. 1979.
N
oun Phrase
S
tructure
.
PhD dissertation. University of Connecticut, Storrs.
A
nderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morpholog
y
. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
A
ndrews, Edna. 1986. “A s
y
nchronic anal
y
sis of
de-
an
d
un-
in American En
g
lish.” American S
p
eech 61
/
3
,
221-232.
A
pres
j
an, Juri
j
. 1974. “Re
g
ular Pol
y
sem
y
.” Lin
g
uistics 142
,
5-32.
A
ronoff
,
Mark. 1976. Word Formation in
G
enerative
G
rammar
.
MIT Press: Cambridge MA.
A
ronoff, Mark and Sungeun Cho. 2001. “The semantics of -shi
p
su
ffixati
o
n
.
” Linguistic Inquir
y
32
,
167-
173.
A
ronoff, Mark and Fuhrhop, Nanna. 2002. “Restricting Suffix Combinations in German and English:
C
losing Suffixes and the Monosuffix Constraint.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theor
y
20/3
,
4
51-490.
B
aker
,
Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theor
y
o
f
Grammatical Function Chan
g
in
g
. Universit
y
of Chica
g
o
Press: Chica
g
o.
B
arker, Chris. 1998. “Episodic -
ee
in English: A thematic role constraint on new word formation.”
Lan
g
ua
ge
74
,
695-727.
B
auer
,
Laurie. 1978.
T
he Grammar o
f
Nominal Compoundin
g
with
s
pecial re
f
erence to Danish, En
g
lish
and
Fr
ench
.
O
dense:
O
dense
Un
i
versit
y
Press.
B
auer, Laurie. 1987. “-ee b
y
Gum!”
A
merican S
p
eech 62
,
315-19.
B
auer
,
Laurie. 1993. “More -ee words.” American S
p
eech
6
8
,
2
22-4
.
B
auer, Laurie. 1998. “When is a se
q
ue
n
c
e of two nouns a compound in English?”
E
nglish Language and
Linguistics 2/1
,
65-86.
B
auer
,
Laurie. 2001
.
Morphological Productivit
y
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
B
auer, Laurie. 2003. “English Prefixation – A Typological Shift?”
A
cta Linguistica Hungarica 50/1-2
,
33-40
.
B
auer
,
Laurie and Renouf
,
Antoi
n
ette. 2001. “A corpus-based stud
y
of compoundin
g
in En
g
lish.”
J
ournal
o
f
En
g
lish Lin
g
uistics 29/2
,
101-123.
B
eard, Robert. 1976. “Once more on the anal
y
sis of ed-ad
j
ectives.”
J
ournal o
f
Lin
g
uistics
12, 1
55-
1
57.
B
eard, Robert. 1991. “Decom
p
ositional Com
p
ositi
o
n: The Semantics of Scope Ambiguities and
‘Bracketing Paradoxes.’” Natural Language and Linguistic Theor
y
9
,
195-229.
Beard, Robert. 1993. “Simultaneous Dual Derivational Origin.” Languag
e
69
,
716-41.
Beard
,
Robert. 1995. Lexeme Morpheme Base Morpholog
y
. SUNY Press: Albany, NY.
B
ierwisch
,
Manfred. 1988. “On the grammar of local prepositions.” In: M. Bierwisch
,
W. Motsch
,
and I.
Z
immermann
(
eds.
)
, S
y
ntax, Semantik, und Lexikon:
R
udol
f
Ruzicka zum 65. Geburtsta
g
.
B
e
rlin
:
A
kademie Verlag, 1-65.
B
ierwisch, Manfred. 1996. “How Much Space Gets Into Language?” In: P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L.
Nadel, and M. Garrett
(
eds.
)
, Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 31-76.
B
loomfield
,
Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt
,
Rinehart
,
and Winston.
B
ooij, Geert. 1986. “Form and meaning in morphology: the case of Dutch ‘Agent’ Nouns.” Linguistics
24,
5
03
-
1
7.
B
ooi
j
, Geert. 1988. “The relation between inherit
a
nce and ar
g
ument-linkin
g
: deverbal nouns in Dutch.”
In: M. Everaert, A. Evers, R. Hu
y
brechts, and M. Trommelen (eds.),
M
orpholo
gy
and Modularit
y
.
Dordrecht: Foris
,
57-74.
B
ooij, Geert. 1992. “Compounding in Dutch.”
R
ivista di Linguistica 4/1
,
37-60.
B
ooij, Geert and Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. “On the paradi
g
matic nature of affixal semantics in English and
Du
t
c
h
.”
Linguistics 42/2
,
327-357.
B
ooij, Geert and van Haaften, Ton. 1988. “On the external syntax of derived words: evidence fro
m
D
utch.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.),
Y
earbook of Morphology 1988. Dordrecht: Foris
,
29-44.
B
otha
,
Rudolf P. 1980. Word-based morphology and synthetic compounding
.
Stellenbosch Papers in
L
inguistics, No. 5, University of Stellenbosch.
B
rekle
,
Herbert. 1970. Generative Satzsemantik und transformationell
e
Syntax im System der englischen
Nominalkomposition. M
u
ni
c
h
:
Fink
.
4
2
4
R
OC
HELLE LIEBER
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. “Pol
y
adicit
y
.” In: J. Bresnan (ed.),
T
he Mental Representation o
f
Grammatical
R
elations
. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 149-172.
C
homsky, Noam. 1970. “Remarks on Nominalization.” In: R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.),
R
eadings
i
n English Transformational Grammar
.
Waltham
,
MA: Ginn
,
184-221.
C
lark
,
Eve and Clark
,
Herbert. 1979. “When nouns surface as verbs.” Languag
e
55/4
,
767-811.
C
omrie, Bernard and Thompson, Sandra. 1985. “Le
x
i
cal nominalization.” In: T. Shopen (ed.), Languag
e
T
ypology and Syntactic Description, Volume III. Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon.
C
ambridge: Cambridge University Press, 349-398.
Di Sciullo
,
Anna Maria and Williams
,
Edwin. 1987.
On the Definition of Word
.
MIT Press: Cambridge,
MA
.
Dowt
y
, David. 1979. Word Meanin
g
and Monta
g
ue Grammar: the Semantics o
f
Verbs and Times in
G
enerative Semantics and Monta
g
ue’s PT
Q
.
D
o
r
d
r
ec
ht
:
R
e
i
de
l
.
Don
,
Jan. 1993.
M
orpholo
g
ical Conversion
.
OTS Dissertation series. Universit
y
of Utrecht.
F
abb, Nigel. 1988. “English suffixation is con
s
t
rained only by selectional restrictions.” Natural Language
and Linguistic Theor
y
6
,
527-539.
F
raser
,
Bruce. 1976. The Verb-Particle Combination in English
.
N
ew
Y
o
rk
:
A
c
a
de
mi
c
Pr
ess.
F
u, Jingqi; Roeper, Thomas; and Borer, Hagit. 2001. “The VP within process nominals: Evidence fro
m
adverbs and the VP anapho
r
do so
.
” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19
,
549-582.
G
iegerich, Heinz. 1999. Lexical Strata in English: Morphological causes, phonological effects
.
C
ambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giegerich, Heinz. 2004. “Compound or Phrase?
E
n
glish noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress
c
rit
e
ri
o
n
.
”
E
nglish Language and Linguistics 8/1
,
1-24.
Gorska, Elzbieta. 1984. “Moonless nights and smoke-f
ree cities, or what can be without what? A
f
f
c
o
g
nitive stud
y
of privative ad
j
ectives in En
g
lish.” Folia Lin
g
uistica 28/3-4
,
413-435.
Gracia
,
Lluisa and Azkarate
,
Miren. 1998. Pre
f
ixes, heads and word order
.
Ms. Universit
y
of Girona and
U
niversit
y
of the Basque Countr
y
.
Gracia, Lluisa and Lieber, Rochelle. 2000. “Sobre el
pr
e
fijo ex-.” Paper presented at the Fourth Congress
o
f General Linguistics, Cadiz.
Grimshaw
,
Jane. 1990.
A
rgument Structur
e
.
Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Gussmann, Edmund. 1987. “The lexicon of English De-adjectival Verbs.” In: E. Gussmann (ed.),
Rules
and the
L
exicon
. Lublin: Catholic University Press, 79-101.
Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 2002.
P
rolegomena to a Theory of Argument Structure
.
C
ambrid
g
e, MA: MIT Press.
Harley, Heidi and Noyer, Rolf. 2000. “Formal versus encyclopaedic properties of vocabulary: Evidence
from nominalizations.” In: B. Peeters
(
ed.
)
, The Lexcion-Encyclopedia Interface
.
Am
s
t
e
r
d
am
:
Elsevier
,
349-374.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1996. “Word-class Chan
g
in
g
inflection and Morpholo
g
ical Theor
y
.” In: G. Booi
j
and J. van Marle
(
eds.
)
,
Y
earbook o
f
Morpholo
gy
1995
.
Dordrecht: Kluwer
,
43-66.
Heyvaert, Lisbiet. 2001.
D
everbal -er suffixation as morphologica
l
equivalent of the clausal Subject
-
F
inite unit
.
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Pre
p
rint 176.
Higginbotham, James. 1985. “On Semantics.” Linguistic Inquir
y
16
,
547-594.
Hoeksema
,
Jack. 1985. Categorial Morpholog
y
.
New York: Garland Publishing.
Hoeksema, Jack. 1988. “Head-types in Morpho-Syntax.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Y
ea
r
book
of Morphology 1988
.
Dordrecht: Foris
,
123-138
.
H
orn
,
Laurence.
1989
. Natural History of Negation
.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press; reprinted
2001 by CSLI: Stanford.
H
orn, Laurence. 2002. “Uncovering the Un-Word: A study in lexical pragmatics.”
S
ophia Linguistica 49
,
1-64
.
H
orn, Laurence. (Forthcomin
g
). An Un-paper
f
or the Un-S
y
ntactician
.
Ms. Yale Universit
y
.
Hudson, Richard. 1975. “Problems in the anal
y
sis of ed-ad
j
ectives.” Journal o
f
Lin
g
uistics
11, 69
-7
2
.
J
ackendoff, Ra
y
. 1990.
S
emantic
S
tructures
.
Cambrid
g
e, MA.: MIT Press.
J
ackendoff, Ray. 1996. “The Archit
e
cture of the Linguistic-Spatial Int
e
r
face.” In: P. Bloom
,
M. Peterson
,
L. Nadel, and M. Garrett
(
eds.
)
, Lan
g
ua
g
e and Spac
e
.
Cambrid
g
e, MA: MIT Press, 1-30.
J
es
p
ersen, Otto. 1965. A Modern En
g
lish Grammar on Historical Principles
.
Part VI. Morpholo
gy
.
L
ondon: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1969. “Wortbildung und Nullmorphem.” Linguistische Berichte 2
,
1-13.
Kayne, Richard. 1994.
T
he Antisymmetry of Synta
x
.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
EN
G
LI
S
H
WO
RD
-
FO
RMATI
O
N PR
OC
E
SS
E
S
4
2
5
Kettemann
,
Bernhard. 1988. Die Phonolo
g
ie Morpholo
g
ischer Proz
e
s
se im Amerikanischen En
g
lisch.
Tubingen: Narr.
Keyser, Samuel Jay and Roeper, Thomas. 1992
.
“Re: The Abstract Clitic Hypothesis.” Linguistic Inquir
y
23
,
89-125.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. “From Cyclic Phonology to L
e
xical Phonology.” In: H. van der Hulst and N.
Smith,
(
eds.
)
, The Structure of Phonological Representations
.
Dordrecht: Foris
,
131-175.
Kjellmer, Goren. 2001. “Why
weaken
bu
t n
o
t strongen on deadjectival verbs.” English Studies 2, 154-
171.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Landau, Barbara. 1996. “Multiple Geometric Representations of O
b
jects in Languages and Language
b
Learners.” In: P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, and M. Garrett
(
eds.
)
, Lan
g
ua
g
e and Space
.
C
ambrid
g
e, MA: MIT Press, 317-364.
Lees
,
Robert. 1961. The Grammar o
f
En
g
lish Nominalizations
.
The Ha
g
ue: Mouton.
L
ehnert
,
Martin. 1971.
R
everse Dictionary of Present-Day English
.
Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.
L
ehrer, Adrienne. 1995. “Prefixes in English word-formation.” Folia Linguistica 29/1-2
,
133-148.
L
evi
,
Judith. 1978.
T
he Syntax of Complex Nominals
.
N
ew
Y
o
rk
:
A
c
a
de
mi
c
Pr
ess.
L
evin, Beth. 1999. “Objecthood: an event structure perspective.”
P
roceedings of the Chicago Linguistic
Societ
y
35/1
,
223-47.
L
evin, Beth and Rappaport, Malka. 1988. “Non-event -
er
Nominals: A Probe into Argument Structure.”
r
Lin
g
uistics
26, 106
7-
83
.
L
evin, Beth and Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativit
y
.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
L
ieber
,
Rochelle. 1980.
O
n the Organization of the Lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [published by
IULC, 1981 and Garland Press 1990.
]
Lieber, Rochelle. 1981. “Morphological conversion within
a restrictive theory of the lexicon.” In: M.
n
Moort
g
at, H. van der Hulst, and T. Hoekstra (eds.), The Scope o
f
Lexical Rules
.
D
o
r
d
r
ec
ht
:
F
o
ri
s
Publications
,
161-200.
L
ieber, Rochelle. 1983. “Argument Linking and Compounds in English.” Linguistic Inquir
y
14
,
251-286.
L
ieber
,
Rochelle. 1992.
D
econstructing Morpholog
y
. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
L
ieber
,
Rochelle. 1998. “The Suffix
-i
z
e
in English: Implications for Morphology.” In: S. G. Lapointe, D.
K. Brentari, and P. M. Farrell
(
eds.
)
,
M
orphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Synta
x
.
Stanford
,
CA: CSLI
,
12-34.
L
ieber
,
Rochelle. 2004.
M
orphology and Lexical Semantics
.
Cambridge: Cambridge
U
niversit
y
Press.
L
ieber , Rochelle and Baa
y
en, Harald. 1997. “A Sem
a
n
tic Principle of Auxiliar
y
Selection in Dutch.”
Natural Lan
g
ua
g
e and Lin
g
uistic Theor
y
15/4
,
789-845.
L
ieber, Rochelle and Baa
y
en, Harald. 1999. “Nomin
a
l
izations in a
C
alculus of Lexical
S
emantic
Representations.” In: G. Booi
j
and J. van Marle (eds.),
Y
earbook o
f
Morpholo
gy
1998
.
D
o
r
d
r
ec
ht
:
Kluwer
,
175-198.
L
jung, Magnus. 1970. English denominal adjectives. Gothenburg Studies in English, Lund.
L
jung, Magnus. 1976. “-ed adjectives revisited.”
J
ournal of Linguistics 12
,
159-168.
Mahn
,
Lothar. 1971.
Zur Morphologie und Semantik englischer
Verben au
f
-IFY mit Berucksichti
g
un
g
r
franzosischer und deutscher Entsprechungen
.
Tubingen: Narr.
Marchand, Hans. 1966. “On attributive and
p
redicative
d
erived adjectives and some problems related to
t
h
ed
i
s
tin
c
ti
o
n
.
”
A
nglia 84
,
131-149.
Marchand, Hans. 1966. “On the analysis of substantive compounds and suffixal derivatives not
c
ontaining a verbal element.”
I
ndogermanische Forschungen 70/1
,
118-145.
Marchand
,
Hans. 1969
.
The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word Formation. M
u
ni
c
h
:
B
ec
k
.
Ma
y
nor, Natalie. 1979. “The morpheme un-.” American Speech 54
,
310-311.
Mohanan
,
K. P. 1986.
T
he Theor
y
o
f
Lexical Phonolo
gy
.
D
o
r
d
r
ec
ht
:
D
.
R
e
i
de
l
.
N
unber
g
, Geoffre
y
. 1996. “Transfers of Meanin
g
.
”
In: J. Puste
j
ovsk
y
and B. Bo
g
uraev (eds.), L
exical
S
emantics, the problem of polysem
y
. Oxford: Clarendon Press
,
109-132.
O
rgun, Cemil Orhan and Sprouse, Ronald. 1999. “Fro
m
MPAR
S
E t
o
CO
NTR
O
L: Deriving
ungrammaticality.” Phonolog
y
16/2
,
191-225.
Panther, Klaus and Thornbur
g
, Linda. 1998
.
“The Pol
y
sem
y
of the Derivational -
er
Suffix in English.”
r
Paper delivered at the Co
g
nitive Morpholo
gy
Workshop, Ghent, Bel
g
ium, Jul
y
, 1998.
4
2
6
R
OC
HELLE LIEBER
Pennanen
,
Esko. 1971. Conversion and Zero Derivation in En
g
lish.
T
ampere: Acta Universitatis
Tam
p
erensis. Ser. A vol. 40.
Plag, Ingo. 1999.
M
orphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation
.
B
e
rlin
:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Raffelsiefen, Renate. 1996. Gaps in Word
Formation. In: U. Kleinhenz (ed.),
d
I
nterfaces in Phonolog
y
.
B
erlin: Academie Verlag, 194-209.
Ra
pp
a
p
ort Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth. 1992. “-ER No
m
inals: implications for the theory of argument
s
tructure. In: T. Stowell and E. Wehrli
(
eds.
)
,
S
yntax and Semantics
26,
Syntax and the Lexicon
.
N
ew
Y
ork: Academic Press
,
127-153.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth. 1998. “Bu
i
lding verb meanings.” In: M. Butt and W. Geude
r
(
eds.
)
,
T
he Pro
j
ection o
f
Ar
g
uments: Lexical and Compositional Factors.
S
tanford:
CS
LI
Publications
,
97-134.
Riddle, Elizabeth. 1985. “A historical perspective on the productivit
y
of the suffixes –
ness
an
d
–it
y
.
” In
:
J
. Fisiak
(
ed.
)
,
H
istorical Semantics Historical Word-Formation. Berlin. Mouton Publishers
,
435-
4
61
.
Roeper, Thomas. 1988. “Compound Syntax and Head Movement.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.),
Y
earbook of Morpholog
y
1. Dordrecht: Foris
,
187-228.
Roeper, Thomas. 1999. “Leftward Movement in Morphology.” In:
M
IT Working Papers in Linguistics
34, 35-66.
Roeper, Thomas and van Hout, Angeliek. 1999. The impact of nominalization on passive, -able and
middle: Burzio’s generalization and feature-movement in the lexicon. Ms. University of
Massachusetts, Amherst and Utrecht University.
Roeper, Thomas and Sie
g
el, Muff
y
. 1978. “A Lexical Transformation for Verbal Com
p
ounds.”
Lin
g
uistic Inquir
y
9
,
197-260.
Romaine, Suzanne. 1983. “On the productivit
y
of word formation rules and limits of variabilit
y
in the
le
xi
co
n
.
” Australian Journal o
f
Lin
g
uistics 3
,
177-200.
Ryder, Mary Ellen. 1999. “Banker
s
and blue-chi
pp
ers: an account of -
er
formations in Present-day
r
English.”
E
nglish Language and Linguistics 3
,
269-297.
Schneider, Edgar. 1987. “Beobachtungen zu
r
Pragmatik der verbbildenden Suffixe –en, -ify,
u
n
d
-i
z
e
i
m
Englischen.”
Sprachwissenschaft
12
,
88-109.
t
Selkirk
,
Elisabeth. 1982.
T
he Syntax of Words
.
Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Siegel, Dorothy. 1974.
T
opics in English Morpholog
y
.
Doctoral dissertation
,
Massachusetts Institute of
T
echnolo
gy
.
Simpson, John (ed.). The Oxford English Dictionar
y
(2
nd
edition
)
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slotkin, Alan. 1990. “Adjectival -
less
an
d
-fre
e
:
A case of shifting i
n
s
titutional currency.” A
me
r
ican
Speech 65/1
,
33-49.
Smith
,
Carlotta. 1997.
The Parameter of Aspect
(2
t
n
d
edition). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
r
Southerland
,
Ronald. 1994. “Derivatives in pre
-
:
a persuasive morpholo
g
ical resource?”
A
merican Speech
69/2
,
168-176.
Spencer, Andrew. 1999. “Transpositions and Argument Stru
c
ture.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.),
Y
earbook of Morphology 1998
.
Dordrecht: Kluwer
,
73-102.
Sproat, Richard. 1985. On deriving the lexicon
.
Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Štekauer, Pavol. 1996. A Theory of Conversion in English
.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Štekauer, Pavol. 1998. An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-Formation
.
Am
s
t
e
r
d
am
/
Philadelphia: John Ben
j
amins.
Strauss
,
Steven. 1982. “On ‘relatedn
e
s
s paradoxes’ and related paradoxes.” Linguistic Inquiry
13, 694
-
700.
Talm
y
, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Co
g
nitive Semantics
.
Cambrid
g
e, MA: MIT Press.
Toman
,
Jindrich. 1983. Worts
y
nta
x
. Tubin
g
en: Max Nieme
y
er Verla
g
.
T
y
ler, Andrea and Evans, V
y
v
y
an. 2001. “Reconside
r
i
n
g
prepositional pol
y
sem
y
networks: The case o
f
ove
r
.
” Lan
g
ua
ge
77/4
,
724-765.
Tyler, Andrea and Evans, Vyvyan. 2004. The Semantics of English Prepositions
.
Cambridge: Cambridge
U
niversity Press.
Van Marle, Jaa
p
. 1985.
O
n the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativit
y
.
D
o
r
d
r
ec
ht
:
F
o
ri
s
P
ub
li
c
ati
o
n
s.
W
alinska de Hackbeil
,
Hannah. 1986.
T
he roots of phrase structure: The syntactic base of English
morpholog
y
.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
ENGLISH WOR
D
-
FORMATION PROCESSES
42
7
W
illiams, Darrell. 1992. “English comparative compounds with OVER, UNDER, and OUT.”
Proceedin
g
s of ESCOL 1992, 272-281.
W
illiams, Edwin. 1981. “Ar
g
ume
n
t
Structure and Morpholo
gy
.” Lin
g
uistic Review
1, 81
-
114
.
W
illiams
,
Edwin. 1981. “On the notions ‘lexi
c
all
y
related’ and ‘head of a word’.” Lin
g
uistic Inquir
y
12/2
,
245-274.
Zimmer
,
Karl. 1964.
Affixal Negation in E
nglish and Other Languages
E
E
. Su
pp
lement to
Word
, Monograph
N
o.
5
.
Zubizaretta
,
Maria Luisa. 1987. Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in Synta
x
.
D
o
r
d
r
ec
ht
:
F
o
ri
s
P
ub
li
c
ati
o
n
s.
Zubizaretta, Maria Luisa and van Haaften, Ton. 1988. “English
-ing
and Dutch
g
-
en
N
o
minal
C
onstructions: A Case of Simultaneous Nominal and Verbal Projections.” In: M. Everaert, A. Evers,
R
. Huybrechts, and M. Trommelen (eds.),
M
orphology and Modularit
y
.
D
o
r
d
r
ec
ht
:
F
o
ri
s
Publications
,
361-394.
4
2
9
Štekauer, P. and R. Lieber
(
eds
.
), Handbook o
f
Word-Formation
4
2
9
—448
.
© 2005 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands.
THE LATEST TRENDS
IN ENGLISH WORD-FORMATION
BOG
DAN
S
ZYMANEK
1. INTR
O
D
UC
TI
O
N
Let us begin by clarifying the terms which appear in the title of this chapter. ‘The
l
at
es
t tr
e
n
ds
’
s
h
ou
l
dbeu
n
de
r
stood as those trends
,
or tendencies
,
which became
prominent in the English vocabulary, roughly, in the last quarter of the twentieth
c
entury and are still in use (although o
cc
a
s
i
o
nal r
e
f
e
r
e
n
ce w
ill
be
ma
de
t
o
d
evelopments which took place in earlie
r
decades). ‘Trends in En
g
lish word-
formation’ ou
g
ht not be interpreted as, sa
y
, trends in theoretical or descriptive
approaches to word-formation in En
g
lish, but rather (simpl
y
) as trends in the
c
reation and use of English complex words. In particular, we focus on those trends
t
hat are indicative of some
,
however mi
n
or, modifications in the grammatical
system, of which the word-formation component is an integral part, i.e. trends that
h
ave a principled, regular basis. These will have to be
j
uxtaposed with extra-
grammatical cases of creative, individual word-coinage which are, linguistically,
l
ess revealing, no matter how trendy or voguish they are. Unless required by the
facts and specifically mentioned, no overt distinction will be made concerning the
v
arieties of English (British, American, etc.). However, in terms of register, our
account will be somewhat biased, by focusing, in particular, on written (rather than
spoken) language. This is partly due to the fact that our data mainly derive fro
m
p
rinted sources. But there is another excus
e
f
o
r thi
s
la
c
k
o
f
b
alan
ce:
“D
e
ri
ved
c
omplex words are on the whole more characteristic of written registers” (Adams
2001: 15). However, there are marked differences, across registers, concerning, fo
r
i
nstance, the productivity of individual affixes (see Plag, Dalton-Puffer and Baayen
1999
).
Much of the discussion to follow inevitably ties up with the contents of the
i
mmediately preceding chapters. Thus, on
e
of the more obvious aspects of the
evolution of a word-formation s
y
stem relates to chan
g
es in the productivit
y
of
p
articular
p
rocesses or formatives
(
affixes, et
c
.
)
. This refers us back to the cha
p
ters
‘Productivit
y
’ and ‘En
g
lish word-formation processes’ in this volume. The
‘Lexicalization’ chapter in this volume may also seem a useful point of departure fo
r
t
he topic under discussion here; however, its significance is less obvious since, by
d
efinition, cases of lexicalization pertain to individual lexemes, i.e. they are
i
diosyncratic, unsystematic and hence can hardly be described in terms of any
general tendencies.
Our topic imposes a unique approach on us: in part, it is synchronic, in line with
t
he ma
j
orit
y
of recent descriptions of the s
y
stem of En
g
lish word-formation, as it
430
BOG
DAN
S
ZYMANEK
deals with the present-day situation. But, in part, it is bound to be diachronic, since
we intend to investigate changes within that system, although the time-span covered
i
s uncharacteristically short. Diachronic,
g
eneral studies of recent changes within
English morphology are not numerous; however, see, e.g., Algeo (1998), Baue
r
(
1994), Cannon (1987), Faiss (1992), Kastovsky (1986).
Some of the forces that have shaped English word-formation in the recent years
are relativel
y
prominent and eas
y
to pinpoint. But there are also subtle tendencies,
too weak or obscure to be acknowled
g
ed with absolute certaint
y
, new trends in the
m
akin
g
, whose real scope and si
g
nificance will onl
y
become apparent with the
benefit of hindsight. One should remember that, in general, language development is
s
low and is marked by continuity.
2. DERIVATIONAL NEOLOGISMS
One of the major aspects of new developments in the realm of word-formation is
the emergence of new complex words, co
i
ned according to some well-established
and productive patterns. Instances of this phenomenon may be terme
d
de
r
ivational
n
eolo
g
isms, if we wish to distin
g
uish them from other neolo
g
isms, i.e. new words
c
r
e
at
ed
ex
-
nihilo
,
with no activation of an
y
morpholo
g
ical process, so-called
root-
c
r
eations
lik
e
blu
r
b
,
g
oo
g
ol
,
o
r
quark
(see McArthur (1992: 876); on different
k
m
otivations for neologising, see Cowie 2000; on an onomasiological theory of
n
eologisms, see Štekauer 2002). The most obvious source of data and information
o
n (derivational) neologisms are various di
c
tionaries of new words and neologisms;
see
D
ictiona
r
ies
in th
e
References
sec
ti
o
n
be
l
ow.
Derivational neologisms may be classifie
d
and described according to the majo
r
t
y
pes of word-formation processes operative in En
g
lish (see the chapter ‘En
g
lish
word-formation
p
rocesses’ in this volu
m
e
)
. Thus one can trace new com
p
lex words
which are products of compoundin
g
, prefixation, suffixation, conversion, etc. (see
McArthur 1992: 685) and section 4 below for some discussion and examples).
A
lternative, or more general, divisions of new words are also available in the
l
iterature. Consider
,
for instance
,
the
c
lassification in
C
annon
(
1987
)
: ‘shifts’
(
including functional shifts, i.e. conversi
o
n), ‘shortenings’ (including abbreviations,
acronyms, back-formations and blends) a
n
d ‘additions’ (including affixation and
c
ompounding), plus ‘borrowings’, which are beyond the scope of this survey.
Derivational neolo
g
isms ou
g
ht to be distin
g
uished from so-called ha
p
a
x
le
g
omena
,
i.e. word-t
y
pes (as opposed to word-tokens) which appear onl
y
once in a
g
iven corpus. For instance, the verb
aluminiumise
is a hapax le
g
omenon in the
Cobuild
corpus (version of July 1995; Plag 1999: 279). The significance of hapax
d
l
egomena has been underlined in rece
n
t
th
eo
r
e
ti
c
al
s
t
ud
ies on morphological
productivity (e.g. Baayen and Lieber 1991, Plag, Dalton-Puffer and Baayen 1999,
B
auer 2001; cf. also L. Bauer (this volume)). Crucially, it has been found that “the
n
umber of hapaxes of a given morphological category correlates with the number of
n
eologisms of that category, so that the number of hapaxes can be seen as an
i
ndicator of productivit
y
” (Pla
g
, Dalton-Puffer and Baa
y
en 1999: 215). However,
n
ot ever
y
instance of a hapax le
g
omenon is a
g
enuine case of a neolo
g
ism (some
THE LATEST TRENDS IN ENGLISH WORD-FORMATION
431
h
apaxes are simply old or even obsolete words, used only once and then forgotten)
and, vice versa, not every example of a
r
e
cent neologism will have the formal status
o
f a hapax legomenon in a given corpus (since the particular word-type may appea
r
m
ore than once in the corpus, or it ma
y
be unattested).
3. ANALOGICAL FORMATIONS
,
LOCAL ANALOGIES
Generall
y
speakin
g
, re
g
ardless of the stren
g
th and productivit
y
of a particula
r
pattern, a new complex word may be created b
y
analogy. An instance of this is
c
all
ed
an analogical formation (Bauer 1983: 96): “a new formation clearly modelled
o
n one already existing lexeme, and not giving rise to a productive series”; fo
r
i
nstance, Adams (2001: 84) mentions the compound noun
whitelist
as an
t
analogically coined antonym of
blacklist
,
while Kastovsky (1986: 419) gives the
example of the verb
to chaind
r
ink
,
modelled on
to chainsmoke
.
Another example of
t
hi
sso
rt i
s
th
e
n
ou
n
ea
r
witness
,
based on e
y
ewitness
.
In a similar vein, Pla
g
(1999)
speaks of
l
ocal analo
gy
.
When discussin
g
, for instance, the derivational histor
y
of
de
ri
ved ve
r
bs
lik
e
inactivate
,
radioactivate
, Pla
g
(1999: 210) ar
g
ues that the
y
are
m
odelled on the
p
ai
r
active
–
activate
;
more importantly, Plag (1999: 20) claims that
“analogical formations should be distinguished from instantiations of productive
wo
r
d
f
o
rmati
o
n r
u
l
es.
”
H
owever, a single instance of analogical fo
r
mation may sometimes give rise to a
new, ultimately productive, pattern or affix (for examples, see section 5 below).
H
ence, it does not seem possible or appropriate to dissociate completel
y
both
c
oncepts, i.e. analo
gy
and (hi
g
h) productivit
y
.
4
.
C
HAN
G
E
S
IN THE RELATI
V
E
S
I
G
NIFI
C
AN
C
E
O
F TYPE
SO
F
WO
RD-
FO
RMATI
O
N PR
OC
E
SS
E
S
I
t is hard to assess and compare, in an
yg
lobal terms, the relative contribution of
t
he different word-formation
p
rocesses
(
see Lieber, this volume
)
to the stock of new
v
ocabular
y
in En
g
lish. However, there are some universal tendencies, and En
g
lish is
no exception here; cf. Sapir (1921: 59): “Some of these grammatical processes, like
suffixing, are exceedingly wide-spread; oth
e
r
s, like vocalic change, are less common
[…]”, and “[o]f the three types of affixing – the use of prefixes, suffixes, and infixes
–
suffixing is much the commonest” (Sapir 1921: 67). These generalisations may be
i
nterpreted, in the context of our discussion, to mean that
s
uffixation
h
as been
,
and
still is, the primary source of new complex words, in English and in many othe
r
l
an
g
ua
g
es. It has been ar
g
ued recentl
y
(Bauer 2003) that, in En
g
lish, the ‘suffixin
g
preference’ is stren
g
thened b
y
the increasin
g
tendenc
y
toda
y
(a t
y
polo
g
ical shift) to
use
combinin
gf
orms in word-initial position, rather than old Germanic prefixes (like
a-
,
be-
,
etc.
)
. Bauer concludes that “with the notable exce
p
tion of
un
-
,
we have seen
a whole class of prefixes vanish in English” or they have lost in productivity so
m
uch that “we can predict that they are likely to die out before very long” (Baue
r
2003: 35). In their place, one finds a growing use of combining forms like
eco
-
,
432
BOG
DAN
S
ZYMANEK
elect
r
o-
,
h
yper
-
,
mac
r
o-
,
etc. and several ‘new’
p
refixes like
e
-
,
e.g.
e
-
education
(
see
below
)
. Here are some exam
p
les of
rece
nt
wo
r
ds de
ri
ve
d
by suffixation:
anagramable
A
,
b
ullyable
A
,
cannable
A
,
albumful
N
l
l
,
balloonful
N
l
l
,
Blai
r
ese
N
,
d
esign
y
A
,
arrange
e
N
,
wrongish
A
,
yoof
y
A
,
coffinette
N
,
i
nspectress
N
,
cosmopolitanise
V
,
tabloidification
N
.
All the examples are cited fro
m
t
he collection of neologisms fro
m
th
e
Independent
(
1997-99
)
, available at www.rdues.liv.ac.uk/newwords.shtml.
t
Compoundin
g
h
a
s
al
so co
ntri
bu
t
ed
a l
o
t
o
f
r
ecent vocabular
y
items to present-
da
y
En
g
lish; in particular, compound nouns of the endocentric t
y
pe, like cell
p
hon
e
or
affinity card
(
1986
)
‘a form of credit card tha
t
d
automatically subtracts a tithe of
t
any transaction and donates it to the charity of the user’s choice’ (Green 1991: 4). In
t
he field of computing we have nouns like chi
p
se
t
,
data c
r
unche
r
,
expert system
,
file
transfer protocol, and lots of others. If we focus on another semantic field, say,
s
tyles in (popular) music, one can mention
acid
r
ock
,
a
r
t
r
ock
,
punk roc
k
,
etc.
,
but
there are also exocentric compounds like
acid house
,
N
u-metal
,
n
ewgrass
.
Fr
o
m a
different domain, consider, e.g., couch potat
o
‘an in
ve
t
e
rat
e
t
e
l
ev
i
s
i
o
n
w
at
c
h
e
r’
(
Green 1991: 61
)
, i.e. ‘a
p
erson who watches a l
o
t
o
f t
e
l
ev
i
s
i
o
n an
d does
n
o
t ha
ve
an
active st
y
le of life’ (CAL
D
) or
j
ust ‘an
y
one who is inactive, i.e. prefers sittin
g
around to exercisin
g
’ (R. Lieber, personal communication).
The ease with which speakers can produce new compound nouns may be
attributed, first of all, to the fact that this particular process is not heavily
c
onstrained by any grammatical restriction
s
(unlike the use of many affixes) save
s
ome general semantic requirements and (extra-grammatical) pragmatic factors like
e.g. the
nameability requirement
(Bauer 1983: 86) which states that a lexical item
t
“
must denote somethin
g
that is nameable” or, one ma
y
add, worth namin
g
, from the
point of view of the speaker. Secondl
y
, the creation of N+N compounds is facilitated
b
y
a formal propert
y
of this process, known as
recu
r
sion
:
a nominal modifier ma
y
be
added to an already existing N+N(+N…) complex, which may produce lexical items
o
f unprecedented length and complexity.
C
onsider, for instance, the following
exam
p
le: student film society committee scandal inquir
y
(
S
p
encer 1991: 48
)
. As is
well known, innovative, sometimes bizarre, and often difficult to interpret
c
ompounds are a feature of TV news bars, newspaper headlines and, generally, of
n
ewspaper discourse (for reasons of space, we
m
ust ignore this topic; see, e.g., Bibe
r
(
2003), L
j
un
g
(2000) and references cited therein).
B
ut the contemporar
y
lan
g
ua
g
e user often resorts to other patterns of
c
ompoundin
g
as well. For instance, the past few decades have been marked b
y
an
i
ncreasing use of so-called
n
eoclassical com
p
ounds
,
characteristically involving
Latinate stems (also referred to as bound combining forms) as in the following
examples, all beginning with
elect
r
o-
and denoting musical styles:
elect
r
oclash
,
electro-pop
,
electro-grind
,
electro-jazz
,
electro-goth, etc.
(
Dent 2003: 43
)
. Othe
r
r
ecently popular initial combining forms are
eco-
,
as in ecobiolog
y
,
e
colinguistics
,
an
d
eco
-
te
rr
o
r
ism
,
bio-
,
as in
bio
-
te
rr
o
r
ism
,
bio
-
diesel
,
b
iodiversit
y
,
o
r
c
y
ber-
,
as in
c
y
bernau
t
,
c
y
berar
t
,
c
y
bersur
f
er
,
c
y
berbar
,
c
y
ber-pe
t
,
etc.
(
Knowles 1998: 79
)
.
Occasionall
y
, new combinin
g
forms arise; for instance,
nega-
(
fro
m
n
e
g
ativ
e
)
, “used
i
n words indicating a reduction or absence of the thing identified by the second
e
lement of the com
p
ound”, as in
negademand
,
n
egatrip
(
Knowles 1998: 206
)
.
Another exam
p
le of the same sort seems to be
docu-
,
which first a
pp
eared in the