?tekauer Pavol, Lieber Rochelle. Handbook of Word-Formation
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
THE LATEST TRENDS IN ENGLISH WORD-FORMATION
443
c
orresponding to it, i.e. eithe
r
semantician
or
semanticist
(listed under the main
t
entry
:
semantic
). Both are provided with usage e
x
amples from the twentieth century.
However, it appears that the latter term,
semanticist
,
is the preferred by-form in
r
ecent lin
g
uistic discourse. And vice versa, as a personal derivative fro
m
sy
nta
x
,
sy
ntactician is more common toda
y
than its rival,
syntacticist
(both are listed under
t
separate entries in the
O
E
D
)
. Also,
phonologist
(from
t
phonolo
gy
) has completel
y
o
usted its older rival
,
phonologer
(
r
O
ED
:
1864
)
.
9
.2 Phonological form – stress
Th
e
la
s
t f
ew dec
a
des
ha
ve w
itn
essed
int
e
r
esting new developments in processes
affecting the phonological form of complex words. The current changes are best
v
isible in the domain of stress placement, cer
t
ain aspects of which will serve as an
i
llustration below (new trends in se
gm
ental phonolo
gy
will be left undiscussed).
C
ertain cases of variation in stress placement observable toda
y
within a sin
g
le
v
ariety of English may be a symptom of change in progress. I ran a simple test, to
see if such a change is, in fact, taking place. Its objective was, first, to identify
i
nstances of complex words of unstable stress in present-day British English, which
c
ould be taken as revealing changes in speakers’ preferences, i.e
.
in th
eco
nt
e
nt
o
f
s
ome phonological rules of stress assignment. The relevant data were collected fro
m
t
h
e
Longman Pronunciation Dictionar
y
(
L
PD
(
(
, = Wells 1990). Secondly, relevant
examples of recentl
y
emer
g
ed stress patte
r
ns were compared with their more
c
onservative pronunciation, recorded over thirt
yy
ears a
g
o, in the 1
3
th
ed
iti
o
n
o
f th
e
E
nglish Pronouncing Dictionar
y
(
Jones 1967
)
.
Naturally, there is a huge number of words with variant pronunciations in Wells
(
1990). However, among these, there is a relatively small number of entries about
w
hich even the editors could not decide on the predominant stress option. Therefore,
as is explained in the introductory note (Wells 1990: xi), “[f]or nearly a hundred
w
ords of uncertain pronunciation, the LP
D
reports the preferences expressed in a
postal opinion poll carried out amon
g
a panel of 275 native speakers of BrE fro
m
t
hrou
g
hout Britain. […] The surve
y
was carried out between November 1988 and
F
ebruar
y
1989.”
I
tried to locate in the dictionary and make a list of these “words of uncertain
pronunciation”, assuming that cases of fresh
,
unsettled variation may be indicative
o
f recent change, or change in progress
.
Because I evidently missed a few items, 58
words appeared on the list. The list included both morphologically simplex and
c
omplex items, revealing segmental and suprasegmental differences (alternative
pronunciations). Of the total of 58 words, 4 are ad
j
ectives in -
able
(
applicabl
e
,
demonst
r
able
,
f
ormidabl
e
,
h
ospitable). No other pattern of affixation is represented
o
n the list with more than one example (e.
g
.
innovative
,
primaril
y
,
subsidence
)
,
which seems to su
gg
est that the class of
Xable
ad
j
ectives is a special case,
c
haracterised by the highest degree of fluctuation in stress contour. The results of the
native speakers’ opinion poll (Wells 1990) concerning these four words are
presented below (Table 1),
j
uxtaposed with the older, more conservative
pronunciation preferences recorded in
J
o
nes
(
1967
)
and still reflected in, fo
r
444
BOG
DAN
S
ZYMANEK
i
nstance
,
O
ED2
.
The contrast is s
p
ectacular: in Jones, the recommended
pronunciation is with stress on the first syllable, while the informants consulted by
W
ells
p
refer stress on the second
(
ante
pe
nultimate, third from the end) syllable.
W
ells abides by those pre
f
erences, except
f
o
r
formidabl
e
which, unexpectedly, is
l
isted first with initial stress
(
contra the
n
arrow margin of responses in favour o
f
antepenultimate stress). Let it be added, however, that in a very recently published
dictionar
y
like CAL
D
(2003), onl
y
the new preference (i.e. stress on the second
s
y
llable) is reflected in the transcription for
f
ormidabl
e
.
Finall
y
, the new, 1
6
th
ed
iti
o
n
of
E
P
D
, edited b
y
Roach, Hartman and Setter (2003), is full
y
consistent with Wells
i
n assigning priority to stress on the second syllable.
Xable
EPD
(
Jones 1967
)
LP
D
(
Wells 1990
)
a
pp
licabl
e
de
m
o
n
s
tra
b
l
e
f
o
rmi
d
a
b
l
e
h
ospitable
[
¥
æplik
k
k
b|l]
[
¥
p
lik
-
]
[
¥
dem
m
m
nstr
r
r
b|l]
[
di
¥
m
n
n-]
nn
[
¥
f
nÖ
f
f
mid
d
d
b|l]
[f
nÖ¥
f
f
mid-] [f
¥
f
f
m-]
[
¥
h
n
spit
t
t
b|l]
[h
n
s
¥
p
it
-
] [h
s
-]
Ta
b
l
e
1 Four -able words with variant stress in Jones
(
1967
)
and Wells
(
1990
)
A
part from the four words
g
iven above, on
e
ma
y
find several other ad
j
ectives in
-
able
,
in both dictionaries, where the same stress difference ma
y
be observed,
although Wells does not quote any supporting evidence from the speakers’ opinion
p
oll. Take, for instance, ex
p
licable, for which the now recommended
p
ronunciation
i
s given with stress on the second syllable in Wells (1990: 260), while Jones (1967:
171) lists the initially stressed option first, together with the following note: “The
pronunciations with stress on the second syllable are becoming common, and see
m
l
ikel
y
to supersede the other before lon
g
”. The table reveals the confusin
g
stress
be
ha
v
i
ou
r
o
f th
e
Xable
words, and also su
gg
ests a possible source for it: durin
g
the
past two or three decades there must have
b
ee
n a
dec
i
s
i
ve s
hift i
n
the preferences of
t
he s
p
eakers, in favour of ant
e
p
enultimate stress. But what i
s
th
ee
xa
c
t nat
u
r
eo
f thi
s
r
ecent trend? An answer to this question may be found in Bauer (1994).
Having presented the evidence in the form
of a variety of Latinate words in
m
English (derived and morphologically simple), together with the stress patterns they
are assigned in late twentieth century (and earlier) reference works, Bauer (1994: 99)
c
oncludes that “[t]he change in every case is a change towards stress on the
antepenultimate s
y
llable”. The author adds t
h
at this chan
g
e has been takin
g
place fo
r
a lon
g
period in the lan
g
ua
g
e in
g
eneral (e.
g
. toda
y
cha
r
acter
is stressed on the first
r
(antepenultimate) s
y
llable while it was
s
tressed on the second s
y
llable in the
seventeenth century). It may
be see
n th
e
n that th
ecu
rr
e
n
tly observed changes in the
p
referred stress of X
able
adjectives are a fragment of a more general diachronic
=
¥
RN+MD¤N?
7
7
%
=
¥
3RN+MD¤N?23
%
=F+
¥
ObPUVTD¤N?
6
3
%
=¥
FGOPUVTD¤N?37
%
=
¥
HnÖO+FD¤N?
4
6
%
=H
¥
O+FD¤N?
5
4
%
=
¥
Jb
¥
UR+VD¤N?
81
%
=¥
JbUR+VD¤N? 19
%
=J³
?
THE LATEST TRENDS IN ENGLISH WORD-FORMATION
445
d
evelopment. However, the interesting detail is that the forms in -
able
ha
ve
succumbed to this long-lasting pro
c
ess of change relatively recently.
C
hanges in stress are of paramount importan
ce bec
a
use
at l
e
a
s
t
so
m
e
n
ew
tr
e
n
ds
i
n the pronunciation of individual vowels and consonants in complex words ma
y
be
attributed to stress shift (which is a well known fact about English phonology). Fo
r
i
nstance, it is a direct consequence of shifted stress that, today, the noun
subsidence
(
derived from the verb
subside
)
is
p
ronounced at least as often with a short vowel [
+
]
i
n the root, when stress falls on the first (antepenultimate) syllable, as with the
d
iphthon
g
[
a
+
]
, when stress is homolo
g
ic, i.e. falls on the same s
y
llable in the base
and in the derivative (the latter is the older preference). But, for this particular item,
speakers of British En
g
lish are divided in their preferences. Accordin
g
to the results
o
f the opinion poll cited in Wells (1990: 687), stress on the first syllable is preferred
b
y
53% of informants, while stress on the second s
y
llable is opted for b
y
47%. This
l
ack of stability may be attributed to another current tendency mentioned in Baue
r
(1994: 101): “This is a tendency for the base in a morphologically complex word to
r
emain transparent – more easily recognizable”. Needless to say, the requirement of
t
ransparency is met when both the verb and the noun are stressed on the same
syllable and contain the same vowel [
a
+
]
. The exam
p
le o
f
subsidence
shows that
,
when the two tendencies are in conflict, alternative phonological by-forms may co-
exist for
q
uite some time before the drift takes a definitive direction.
I
n any case, the principle of formal transparency does not apply unequivocally to
o
ur exam
p
les listed in Table 1, since two of them
(
formidable
(
(
,
hos
p
itabl
e
)
are not,
actually, synchronic derivatives (so the putative base is not recoverable, anyway)
and one
(
demonst
r
able
f
r
om
demonst
r
ate
) is only partly tra
n
s
parent, because a
p
rocess of so-called
t
r
uncation
i
s
in
vo
l
ved
h
e
r
e.
App
licable
(
with stress on the
second syllable) meets both
c
onditions. An analysis of a larger number of -
able
adjectives (see Bauer 1994: 159 ff) shows that
they are stressed today according to
t
several (sometimes conflicting) principles
,
some of them old and conservative and
o
thers new and innovative. Thus, the genera
l
rule stipulates that stress should be
h
omolo
g
ic in ad
j
ectives with a tra
n
s
parentl
y
recoverable base (e.
g
.
ac
¥
cept
–
t
ac
¥
ce
p
table
)
as well as in those forms which involve truncation
(
¥
o
p
erat
e
–
¥
o
p
erabl
e
). When these conditions are not met, “stress should fall two syllables
be
f
o
r
e
th
e
-
able
suffix”, e.g.
¥
ve
r
itable
(Bauer 1994: 160). But there are exceptions:
for instance
,
words like
¥
admi
r
able
,
which attract stress two syllables before the
suffix (i.e. on the fourth syllable from the end), even though they are relatable to an
i
ndependentl
y
existin
g
base (
ad
¥
mi
r
e
)
; or words like some of those in Table 1
(
ho
¥
s
pitabl
e
,
etc.), which show the new prefe
r
ence towards shifting stress from the
fourth s
y
llable from the end to the next (antepenultimate) s
y
llable.
Rece
nt
s
t
ud
i
es o
f th
ed
iff
e
r
e
n
ces
i
n the stress
p
lacement of some -
able
adjectives
show that such distinctions may be governed not only by formal transparency but
also b
y
semantic transparenc
y
(or compositionalit
y
). Thus, as pointed out in
G
ie
g
erich (1999: 29), there are phonolo
g
ical doublets like
¥
com
p
arabl
e
/
com
¥
parable
¥
,
¥
r
e
p
arabl
e
/
re
¥
pairable
¥
(
but cf.
in
¥
com
p
arable
vs.
uncom
¥
parable
¥
,
i
r
¥
r
e
p
arable
vs.
un
r
e
¥
pairable
¥
) where the forms which are phonologically
446
BOG
DAN
S
ZYMANEK
t
rans
p
arent
(
cf.
com
¥
pare
¥
,
re
¥
pair
¥
)
, i.e. do not involve stress shift, are also
semantically transparent, so that
com
¥
parable
¥
means ‘able to be com
p
ared’ while
¥
com
p
arabl
e
means ‘roughly the same’.
F
or reasons of space, I must leave undiscussed other types of what seem to be
r
ecent innovations in stress placement, conce
r
n
ing, for instance, certain other affixes
(
-free
in
¤
lead-
¥
free
¥
vs.
¥
carefre
e
)
com
p
ounds
(
¤
ice
¥
c
r
eam
vs.
¥
ice
¤
c
r
eam
)
and
p
roducts
o
f
co
n
ve
r
s
i
o
n
.
*
**
I
hope to have demonstrated with this brief survey that English word-formation
i
s doing quite well and keeps many people bu
s
y: first, the ordinary language user,
t
he
j
ournalist or media man, the writer and the cop
y
writer, and all those othe
r
i
ndividuals who like to test, from time to time, the limits of morpholo
g
ical creativit
y
and, finally, the linguist, who must try to make sense of the new creations.
Bogdan Szymane
k
Department of Modern English
Catholic University of Lublin
A
l.
R
ac
á
awickie
1
4
áá
20
-
950
L
ublin
P
oland
e-mail: sz
y
manek
@
kul.lublin.pl
R
EFERENCE
S
A
dams
,
Valerie. 2001.
C
omplex Words in English. Harlow: Longman.
A
lgeo, John. 1998. “Vocabulary.” In: S. Romaine (ed.),
T
he Cambridge History of the English Language.
Volume IV: 1776-199
7
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57-91.
A
nderson, Stephen R. and
L
i
g
htfoot, David W. 2002.
T
he Lan
g
ua
g
e Or
g
an. Lin
g
uistics as Co
g
nitive
P
h
y
siolo
gy
.
Cambrid
g
e: Cambrid
g
e Universit
y
Press.
A
ronoff
,
Mark. 1980. “Contextuals.” Language 5
6,
7
44
-75
8
.
A
yto, John. 2003. “Newspapers and Neologisms.”
I
n: J. Aitchison and D. M. Lewis
(
eds.
)
,
N
ew Media
Lan
g
ua
ge
. London and New York
,
182-186.
B
aa
y
en, Harald and Lieber, Rochelle. 1991. “Productivit
y
and En
g
lish Derivation: A Corpus-Based
Stud
y
.” Lin
g
uistics 29
,
801-843.
B
aldi, Phili
p
and Dawar, Chantal. 2000. “Creative Processes.” In: G.
B
o
oij, Ch. Lehmann, and J. Mugdan
(
eds.
)
,
Morphology. An International Handbook
on Inflection and Word-Formation
k
.
B
e
rlin – N
ew
Y
ork: Walter de Gruyter, 963-972.
B
auer
,
Laurie. 1983.
E
nglish Word-Formation
.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
B
auer
,
Laurie. 1994. Watching English Change. An Introduction t
o
the Study of Linguistic Change in
S
tandard Englishes in the Twentieth Centur
y
. London and New York: Longman.
B
auer
,
Laurie. 2001.
M
orpholo
g
ical Productivit
y
. Cambrid
g
e Studies in Lin
g
uistics, 95. Cambrid
g
e:
C
ambrid
g
e Universit
y
Press.
B
auer, Laurie. 2003. “En
g
lish Prefixation – a T
y
polo
g
ical Shift?” Acta Lin
g
uistica Hun
g
arica 5
0, 33
-
40
.
B
iber, Douglas. 2003. “Compressed Noun-Phrase Structures in Newspaper Discourse. The Competing
D
emands of Popularization vs. Economy.” I
n
: J. Aitchison and D. M. Lewis
(
eds.
)
,
N
ew Media
Lan
g
ua
ge
. London and New York: Routled
g
e, 169-181.
THE LATEST TRENDS IN ENGLISH WORD-FORMATION
44
7
C
annon
,
Garland. 1987. Historical Change and English W
o
r
d-Formation. Recent Vocabulary
.
N
ew
Y
o
rk
:
Peter Lan
g
.
C
arstairs-McCarth
y
, Andrew. 2002.
A
n Introduction to En
g
lish Morpholo
gy
. Edinbur
g
h: Edinbur
g
h
U
niversit
y
Press.
C
lark
,
Eve and Clark
,
Herbert H. 1979. “
W
hen Nouns
S
urface as
V
erbs.” Lan
g
ua
g
e 55
,
767-811.
C
owie
,
Claire. 2000. “The Discourse Motivations fo
r
Neolo
g
isin
g
: Action Nominalization in the Histor
y
o
f En
g
lish.” In: J. Coleman and C. J. Ka
y
(eds.), Lexicolo
gy
, Semantics and Lexico
g
raph
y
.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 179-207.
Dalton-Puffer
,
Christiane. 1999. “Screenfuls of Classifier Things: Noun Cla
sses
an
d
D
e
ri
v
ati
o
n in
English.” VIEWS. Vienna English Working Papers 8/1
,
7-20.
Dent
,
Susie. 2003. The Language Repor
t
.
O
xford:
O
xford
Un
i
versity Press.
F
aiss
,
Klaus. 1992.
E
nglish Historical Morphology and W
o
rd
-F
o
r
mation
: L
oss ve
r
sus
E
n
r
ichment
.
Tri
e
r
:
W
VT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
F
ischer, Andreas. 2000. “The
g
reenin
g
of
g
reenin
g
.” In: Ch. Dalton-Puffer and N. Ritt
(
eds.
)
,
W
ords:
S
tructure, Meanin
g
, Function. A Festschri
f
t
f
or Dieter Kastovsk
y
.
B
e
rlin – N
ew
Y
o
rk
:
M
ou
t
o
n
de
Gru
y
ter, 75-86.
Giegerich, Heinz J. 1999. Lexical Strata in English. Morphological Causes, Phonological Effects.
C
ambrid
g
e: Cambrid
g
e Universit
y
Press.
Huddleston, Rodne
y
and Pullum, Geoffre
y
K. 2002.
T
he Cambrid
g
e Grammar o
f
the En
g
lish Lan
g
ua
g
e
.
C
ambridge: Cambridge University Press.
J
ones, Daniel. 1957. “The History and Mea
n
i
ng of the Term ‘Phoneme’.” Supplement to L
emaît
r
e
p
honéti
q
ue (reprinted in E. C. Fudge (ed., 1973), Phonolog
y
,
Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 17-
34
)
.
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1986. “Diachronic Word-Formation
i
n a Functional Perspective.” In: D. Kastovsky
and A. Szwedek
(
eds.
)
, Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries. In Honour o
f
Jacek Fisiak on the Occasion of His Fiftieth Birthday. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 409-421.
Kiparsk
y
, Paul. 1997. “Remarks on Denominal Verbs.” I
n
:
A. Alsina, J. Bresnan, and P. Sells
(
eds.
)
,
Complex Predicates. Stanford, CA: Center for the Stud
y
o
f Lan
g
ua
g
e and Information, 473-499.
Lieber
,
Rochelle. 1992.
D
econstructin
g
Morpholo
gy
. Word Fo
r
mation in S
y
ntactic Theor
y
. Chica
g
o and
London: The University of Chicago Press.
Ljung, Magnus. 2000. “Text Condensation in the Press: The Case of Compound Adjectival
Premodifiers.” In:
C
h. Dalton-Puffer and N. Ritt
(
eds.
)
, Words: Structure, Meaning, Function. A
Festschrift for Dieter Kastovsk
y
.
Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 205-215.
Marchand, Hans. 1969.
T
he Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation
.2
n
d
r
ev
i
sed
edition. München:
C
. H. Beck.
McArthur, Tom
(
ed.
)
. 1992.
T
he Oxford Companion to the English Language
.
L
o
n
do
n – N
ew
Y
o
rk
–
S
ydney – Toronto: BCA.
McCawley, James D. 1967. “Sapir’s Phonologic Representation.”
I
nternational Journal of American
Lin
g
uistics
33, 106
-
111
.
Paling, Chris. 1997.
M
orning All Da
y
. London: Vintage.
Plag, Ingo. 1999.
M
orphological Productivity. Structural Constraints in English Derivation
.
B
e
rlin –
N
ew York: Mouton de Gru
y
ter.
Pla
g
, In
g
o; Dalton-Puffer, Christiane; and Baa
y
en, Harald. 1999. “Morpholo
g
ical Productivit
y
across
Speech and Writin
g
.”
E
n
g
lish Lan
g
ua
g
e and Lin
g
uistics 3/2
,
209-228.
Robins
,
R. H. 1964/1971.
G
eneral Linguistics. An Introductory Surve
y
.(2
n
d
edn). London: Longman.
R
undblad
,
Gabriella and Kronenfeld
,
David B. 2000. “Folk-Etymology:
H
aphazard Perversion or Shrewd
A
nalogy?” In: J. Coleman and C. J. Kay (eds.), Lexicology, Semantics and Lexicograph
y
.
A
msterdam/Philadelphia: John Ben
j
amins, 19-34.
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt
,
Brace and
W
orld.
Shimamura, Reiko. 1983. “Backformation of English Compound Verbs.” In: J. F. Richardson, M. Marks
and A. Chukerman
(
eds.
)
,
P
apers
f
roms the Parasession on the
I
nterpla
y
o
f
Phonolo
gy
, Morpholo
gy
and S
y
nta
x
.
Chica
g
o: Chica
g
o Lin
g
uistic Societ
y
, 271-282.
S
pencer, Andrew. 1991.
M
orpholo
g
ical Theor
y
. An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative
G
rammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
448
B
OG
DAN
S
ZYMANEK
Stein
,
Gabriele. 2000. “The
F
unction of Word-Formation and the Case of En
g
lish -
cum
-
.” In:
C
h. Dalton-
Puffer and N. Ritt
(
eds.
)
, Words: Structure
,
Meani
n
g, Function. A Festschrift for Dieter Kastovsk
y
.
B
erlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 277-288.
Štekauer, Pavol. 2002. “On the Theory of
Neologisms and Nonce-Formations.”
f
A
ustralian Journal of
Linguistics 22
,
97-112.
Stockwell, Robert and Minkova, Donka. 2001.
E
nglish Words. History and Structur
e
.
Cambridge:
C
ambridge University Press.
D
ictiona
r
ies
A
l
g
eo, John (ed.). 1991. Fi
f
t
y
Years amon
g
the New Words:
A
Dictionar
y
o
f
Neolo
g
isms 1942-1991
.
C
ambrid
g
e: Cambrid
g
e Universit
y
Press.
Ay
to, John. 1989.
T
he Lon
g
man Re
g
ister o
f
New Words
.
Harlow: Lon
g
man.
B
arnhart
,
Clarence L.
,
Sol Steinmetz
,
Robert K. Barnhart. 1973.
A
Dictionary of New English
.
L
o
n
do
n
:
L
ongman.
B
arnhart
,
Clarence L.
,
Sol Steinmetz
,
and Robert K. Barnhart. 1980.
T
he Second Barnhart Dictionary o
f
New Words
.
Bronxville, New York, etc.: Barnhart/Harper & Row.
B
arnhart, Robert K. and Sol Steinmetz
(
eds.
)
. 1990. The Third Barnhart Dictionary of New English. N
ew
Y
ork: H. W. Wilson.
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionar
y
.
2003. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[
=CALD
]
T
he Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionar
y
.
1979. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[=OED1]
G
reen
,
Jonathon. 1991. Neolo
g
isms. New Words since 1960
.
London: Bloomsbur
y
Publishin
g
.
Jones
,
Daniel. 1967.
E
n
g
lish Pronouncin
g
Dictionar
y
.
13
t
h
ed. (edited by A. C. Gimson). London: J. M.
Dent & Sons. [=EPD, 13
th
ed.]
Knowles
,
Elizabeth. 1997. The Oxford Dictionary of New Words
.
Oxford
,
New York: Oxford University
Pr
ess.
Reifer, Mar
y
. 1955. Dictionar
y
o
f
New Words
.
New York: Philosophical Librar
y
.
Roach, Peter; Hartman, James; and Setter, Jane
(
eds.
)
. 2003.
E
n
g
lish Pronouncin
g
Dictionar
y
. Daniel
J
ones. Cambrid
g
e: Cambrid
g
e Universit
y
Press.
[
=EPD, 1
6
th
ed.
]
Sim
p
son, J. A. and Weiner, E. S. C.
(
eds.
)
. 1989. The Oxford English Dictionary. Second Edition
.
O
xford:
C
larendon Press.
[
=OED2
]
Spears, Richard A. 1991. Dictionary of American Slang
.
Lincolnwood, Ill.: National Textbook Company.
Tulloch
,
Sara. 1991.
T
he Oxford Dictionary of New Words. A Popular Guide to Words in the News
.
Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Languag
e
.
1961. Springfield, MA:
Merriam-
W
ebster.
W
ells
,
J. C. 1990. Longman Pronunciation Dictionar
y
. Harlow: Longman.
[
=LPD]
SUBJECT INDEX
A
abbreviation
,
322
,
436
ablaut
,
115
,
116
,
316
,
419
abstract clitic
,
401
abstract noun
,
165
,
406
,
409
,
410
,
417
abstract theor
y
, 127, 133, 143
acron
y
m, 270, 362
acronymization, 214, 435
act of naming, 210, 212, 214, 216, 217,
222
,
224
,
226
action nominal
,
83
,
87
,
88
,
89
,
92
,
130
,
137
,
354
,
356
,
434
actual word
,
14
,
154
,
223
,
318
,
319
,
325
,
364
ad-hoc-compound, 112
ad-hoc-formation
,
114
ad
j
ective-formin
g
suffix, 388, 412, 415
A
ffected Ob
j
ect Constraint, 133
affixation
,
32
,
33
,
36
,
38
,
42
,
52
,
61
,
74
,
81
,
83
,
87
,
88
,
91
,
95
,
103
,
136
,
138
,
139
,
174
,
189
,
198
,
223
,
228
,
250
,
269
,
270
,
286
,
316
,
317
,
321
,
323
,
3
75
, 384, 399, 409, 418, 419, 420,
421, 422, 430, 443
affix-driven restriction
,
343
affix-driven stratification
,
38
alienable
,
415
allomor
p
h, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19,
21
,
32
,
102
,
274
,
403
analogical formation, 431
analo
g
ical sound chan
g
e, 39
analogy, 39, 44, 101, 106, 210, 268, 269,
277
,
344
,
369
,
431
,
435
anti-symmetry model, 76
application rate, 324
A
rgument Linking Principle, 379, 382
argument structure, 73, 76, 80, 81, 84, 89,
9
0
,
93
,
94
,
95
,
96
,
97
,
106
,
166
,
265
,
304, 348, 349, 3
5
0, 3
5
1, 382, 394,
39
5
,39
7
, 398, 399, 40
7
, 408, 41
7
,
4
21
,
426
archilexeme
,
113
A
tom Condition
,
170
,
336
autonomy, 6, 96, 182
autosegmental tier, 21
availability, 286, 324, 331, 332
B
back formation
,
375
,
422
bahuvrihi compound, 378, 380
bare phrase structure, 76
base component, 190
B
ase Priorit
y
Principle, 40
base-driven restriction
,
342
base-driven stratification
,
38
bimorphemic analysis, 108
binarity, 276, 277, 278
B
inary Branching Condition, 335
B
inary Branching Hypothesis, 163
biuniqueness, 274, 277, 278
450
SU
B
J
E
C
T INDEX
blend
,
433
blocking, 65, 67, 69, 71, 135, 138, 160,
165
,
166
,
183
,
186
,
286
,
298
,
322
,
331
,
336
,
337
,
338
,
343
,
344
,
351
,
3
5
6, 409
borrowing, 208, 231, 340
boundary-delimiting function, 44
B
racket Erasure Convention
,
170
B
racketin
g
Erasure Principle, 170
bracketin
g
paradox, 36, 171, 226, 414
C
c
ategorial marker, 211
c
ategory-changing rule, 65, 419
c
ategory-preserving rule, 65
c
ausative
,
64
,
81
,
139
,
177
,
184
,
262
,
304
,
305
,
306
,
393
,
402
,
410
,
411
,
4
12
,
422
c
ircumfixation
,
273
c
lasseme
,
113
c
lipping, 214, 270, 375, 422, 435, 436
c
litic
,
290
,
291
c
losing morpheme, 346
c
ognitive category, 227
C
ognitive Grounding Condition, 227
c
oherin
g
suffix, 29, 34, 36
c
ollective
,
61
,
62
,
63
,
195
,
360
,
368
,
399
,
4
17
,
418
,
439
c
ombining form, 82, 117, 123, 274, 354,
383
,
390
,
415
,
431
,
432
,
436
c
ommunity
s
peech, 223
c
ompetition, 67, 274, 280, 285, 286, 287,
290
,
291
,
294
,
296
,
298
,
299
,
300
,
301, 302, 303, 311, 323, 442
c
omplementary distribution, 11, 12, 13,
1
5
, 16, 1
7
, 18, 19, 20, 32
7
, 401, 413
C
omplexit
y
Based Orderin
g
, 339
c
om
p
osition, 59, 117, 227, 253, 284, 368,
371
c
ompositionality, 101, 255, 271, 277,
355
,
445
c
ompound, 9, 35, 36, 88, 89, 90, 91, 104,
10
5
, 111, 112, 126, 1
5
0, 1
5
6, 161,
16
7
, 168, 19
7
, 210, 228, 248, 2
5
1,
2
5
3, 2
57
, 260, 268, 2
7
0, 2
7
1, 2
7
2,
273
,
274
,
275
,
301
,
302
,
310
,
311
,
333
,
340
,
341
,
342
,
354
,
361
,
366
,
3
7
0, 3
7
2, 3
7
6, 3
77
,3
7
8, 3
7
9, 380,
381
,
382
,
423
,
431
,
432
,
433
,
434
c
ompoundin
g
, iv, ix, 35, 36, 66, 67, 73,
82
,
89
,
103
,
117
,
147
,
155
,
158
,
167
,
169
,
172
,
175
,
179
,
217
,
229
,
248
,
249
,
272
,
273
,
275
,
276
,
279
,
280
,
294
,
301
,
316
,
333
,
341
,
375
,
376
,
378
,
379
,
382
,
383
,
390
,
423
,
430
,
4
32
,
434
c
oncatenative morphology, 22, 25
c
onceptual identity, 228
c
onflation
,
420
c
onstituency, 257, 259, 260
c
onstituent structure
,
90
,
93
,
257
c
onstraint
,
26
,
33
,
34
,
40
,
41
,
42
,
45
,
47
,
9
5
,
165
,
270
,
283
,
286
,
292
,
293
,
295
,
296
,
297
,
298
,
300
,
303
,
304
,
305
,
306
,
307
,
311
,
335
,
337
,
339
,
340
,
345
,
347
,
350
,
351
,
399
,
409
,
412
,
423
c
onstraint ranking, 33, 34, 42, 286, 296,
298, 300, 306, 311
c
onstructional iconicity, 269, 270, 277,
278
,
321
,
322
c
onstructional idiom
,
79
c
ontextual
,
50
,
52
,
57
,
69
,
112
,
152
,
175
,
184
,
238
,
251
c
ontextual inflection
,
50
,
52
,
57
,
69
,
175
,
1
8
4
c
ontiguity, 208, 209, 228, 229
c
ontradictory negation, 392
c
ontrary negation, 392
c
onventionality, 234
c
onversational principle, 421
c
onversion
,
38
,
113
,
123
,
136
,
137
,
198
,
219
,
220
,
225
,
229
,
269
,
270
,
316
,
321
,
322
,
332
,
375
,
410
,
418
,
419
,
4
20
,
421
,
422
,
425
,
430
,
433
,
434
,
4
38
,
439
,
446
c
oordinate compound, 164, 275, 276
c
o-re
f
erence
,
112
c
orpus,
113
,
32
5,
326
,
32
7,
332
,
333
,
334
,
362, 36
7
,3
7
8, 422, 423, 430, 438
c
reativity, 224, 251, 323, 329, 330, 331,
363
,
446
c
reativit
y
within productivit
y
constraints,
224
c
ritical-mass hypothesis, 368
c
yclic effect, 26, 32, 39, 40, 41
H
ANDBOOK OF WOR
D
-
F
ORMATION
451
c
yclic rule, 34, 39
D
d
ead suffix
,
334
d
eadjectival nominalizer, 409
d
emand
,
223
d
emotivation
,
353
,
354
,
355
,
356
d
enominal ad
j
ective, 116, 120, 414, 415,
416, 42
5
, 441
d
ependence, 137, 245, 246, 248, 259
d
erivation
,
18
,
19
,
20
,
25
,
35
,
36
,
45
,
60
,
63
,
64
,
65
,
67
,
69
,
70
,
75
,
81
,
83
,
90
,
102
,
103
,
106
,
115
,
117
,
121
,
123
,
141
,
147
,
150
,
153
,
155
,
156
,
160
,
164
,
170
,
172
,
174
,
175
,
179
,
180
,
189
,
190
,
191
,
192
,
194
,
195
,
198
,
199, 200, 202, 228, 260, 262, 269,
2
7
1, 2
7
2, 2
7
3, 2
7
6, 2
7
9, 280, 316,
322, 333, 334, 33
7
, 340, 34
5
, 346,
351
,
356
,
381
,
383
,
402
,
417
,
418
,
4
19
,
420
,
422
d
erivational cate
g
or
y
, 191, 227
d
erivational type, 227
d
eterminant
,
20
,
100
,
102
,
103
,
105
,
108
,
111
,
210
,
250
d
eterminatum
,
20
,
100
,
102
,
103
,
105
,
108
,
111
,
210
d
everbal adjective, 153, 413
d
everbal nominalizer
,
406
d
iagram, 6, 35, 237, 241, 247
d
iagrammaticity, 269
d
iachronic drift
,
356
d
ialect
,
11
,
361
d
iscontinuous affix
,
273
d
istributed exponence, 59
d
omain
,
38
,
52
,
57
,
61
,
65
,
66
,
67
,
101
,
104
,
133
,
135
,
169
,
171
,
182
,
210
,
2
7
4, 2
7
8, 280, 320, 321, 32
7
, 330,
33
5
, 336, 338, 340, 341, 343, 344,
34
5
, 346, 34
7
, 348, 361, 3
77
, 409,
4
32
,
443
d
rift
,
116
,
137
,
138
,
354
,
409
,
445
d
umm
y
compound, 366
d
vandva com
p
ound, 168
d
ynamic lexicology, 113
d
ynamic morphology, 280
E
elaboration
,
65
,
235
,
236
,
245
,
248
,
254
,
2
8
1
Elsewhere Princi
p
le, 286, 287, 288, 290,
298
,
299
,
301
,
311
Empty Category Principle, 176
empty morpheme, 190, 191
encyclopedic meaning, 239
endocentric compound, 270, 274
episodic compound, 361
established word
,
251
,
261
,
322
,
337
,
358
evaluation metric
,
286
evaluative suffix
,
168
,
170
existing word, 44, 155, 157, 166, 207,
219
,
251
,
358
,
360
,
435
exocentric compound, 115, 168, 217, 226,
270
,
275
,
355
,
378
,
380
,
432
expansion, vii, 103, 117, 194, 439
extended exponence, 65
Extended Standard Theor
y
, 110, 192
external ar
g
ument, 87, 145, 348, 404, 417
extragrammatical morphology, 268, 269,
273
,
278
F
faithfulness
,
39
featural intersectiveness
,
59
feature bundle
,
22
,
292, 293, 294
feature
p
ercolation, 148
Feature Value Switches
,
194
,
195
Feature-Percolation Convention
,
167
,
168
,
225
figure-ground, 274, 275
filter
,
281
First Order Pro
j
ection Hypothesis, 379
First Sister Principle, 89, 379, 382
fixed expression, 371
folk et
y
molo
gy
, 435
foot structure
,
37
,
41
,
44
,
45
formation rule
,
65
,
66
,
111
,
175
,
267
,
271
,
273
,
280
,
320
,
331
,
341
,
426
,
431
form-meaning unity, 212
fossilization
,
271
,
354
f
requency, 58, 114, 238, 243, 252, 253,
269
,
277
,
317
,
318
,
320
,
327
,
328
,
332
,
333
,
334
,
337
,
339
,
340
,
356
,
362, 368, 396
full-entry model, 357, 358, 359, 360
452
SU
B
J
E
C
T INDEX
functional shift
,
418
,
430
G
GEN
,
285
,
286
,
300
Generalized Lexicalist Hypothesis, 170
Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar
,
1
7
0
g
enerative
g
rammar, 46, 47, 74, 103, 106,
157
,
185
,
287
,
335
,
336
g
enerative lin
g
uistics, 147, 148, 149, 150
generative semantics, 109, 110, 111, 113,
115
,
116
genericness, 361
gradual listing, 368
grammatical function, 16, 80, 87, 88, 177,
189, 190, 192, 194, 19
7
, 198, 199,
200
,
296
,
440
g
rammatical word, 49, 50, 270
Gru
pp
eninflexion, 83
H
h
aplology, 62, 290, 345, 351, 352
h
ead marking, 65, 66, 67, 71
h
ead movement
,
177
,
285
,
299
Head Movement Constraint
,
420
h
ead o
p
eration, 66, 67, 308
Head-A
pp
lication Princi
p
le, 67
h
eadedness
,
75
,
102
,
103
,
225
,
269
h
ead-to-head movement
,
90
,
176
,
177
h
yperonym, 269, 271, 359
I
i
conicity, 267, 268, 269, 270, 273, 277,
2
7
8, 281
i
dealization
,
353
,
360
i
dentification marker
,
211
i
diolect
,
361
i
mpoverished paradigm, 40
i
mpoverished-entry model, 357, 360
i
nalienable possession, 415
i
ncorporation, 76, 88, 89, 90, 126, 176,
1
77
,1
7
8, 196, 19
7
,2
7
9, 382, 420, 434
i
ndex
,
238
,
270
,
319
i
ndexicalit
y
, 270, 277, 278
i
ndividual-level noun
,
400
,
409
i
nflection
,
18
,
19
,
20
,
23
,
35
,
39
,
49
,
50
,
5
1
,
52
,
53
,
54
,
55
,
56
,
57
,
60
,
61
,
64
,
6
5
,
67
,
69
,
70
,
71
,
73
,
75
,
76
,
92
,
95
,
102
,
115
,
120
,
147
,
155
,
168
,
170
,
174
,
175
,
185
,
186
,
191
,
201
,
204
,
273
,
275
,
278
,
288
,
310
,
346
,
376
,
377
,
383
,
419
,
424
i
nflectional category, 56
i
nflectional morphology, 18, 19, 49, 50,
65
,
71
,
75
,
113
,
116
,
148
,
149
,
155
,
1
7
0, 1
7
3, 1
7
4, 186, 193, 19
7
,26
5
,
26
7
,2
7
6, 2
77
,2
7
8, 2
7
9, 283, 286,
311, 31
5
, 331, 334
i
nherent inflection
,
50
,
53
,
175
i
nchoative
,
54
,
69
,
137
,
141
,
184
,
393
,
4
11
,
412
,
422
i
nseparability, 123, 376, 377
i
nteractionist model
,
33
i
nterfix
,
270
i
nternal argument, 91, 92, 176, 348, 379,
381, 382, 383, 398, 399, 41
7
I
tem and Arrangement model, 156
K
k
ernel sentence
,
105
,
116
,
215
L
l
angue, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 226, 336, 360
Law of the Excluded Middle
,
392
l
evel ordering hypothesis, 34, 148
l
evel-ordered morpholo
gy
, 322
l
exematics
,
113
,
115
,
117
l
exeme
,
50
,
52
,
54
,
55
,
57
,
60
,
61
,
63
,
64
,
65
,
80
,
103
,
186
,
189
,
212
,
356
,
359
,
367
,
431
,
436
Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology,
189
l
exical category, 26, 27, 28, 31, 38, 75,
7
6, 103, 126, 1
5
2, 1
5
4, 1
5
8, 1
5
9, 162,
164
,
166
,
172
,
199
,
420
Lexical Conservatism
,
40
l
exical entr
y
, 80, 93, 152, 172, 341, 342,
355
,
356
,
440
l
exical insertion
,
60
,
91
,
110
,
111
,
155
,
173
,
358
,
371
l
exical integrity, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82,
83
,
94
Lexical Integrity Hypothesis (LIH), 183
l
exical morphology, 194
l
exical phonology, 37, 47, 175, 184, 186,
192, 311, 322