Lexicology - All in All

Ester Demjanov Contrastive Lexicology Exam Notes (hey, isnt this recursiveness?
:)
Word- Formation .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Place & scope of WF ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Word-formation processes................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Word-formation theories ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Fundamental notions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Onomasiological approach to WF.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Milo Dokulil ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Jn Horeck ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Pavel tekauer.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Bogdan Szymanek ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 19 The latest trends in english WF ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Derivational neologisms ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Analogical formations, local analogies ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Changes in the relative significance of types of WF processes................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Secretion of new affixes.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Lexicalization of affixes................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Changes in the productivity, relative productivity and scope of individual affixes ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Semantics: changes in formative functions ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Trends in form of complex words ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Lexical Semantics ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 22 Lexicology as a branch of linguistics .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 22 Extra-linguistic reality concepts ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Word .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Lexeme (lexical unit), phraseme ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 23 Meaning, denotation, sense, signification, referent ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 23 Components of meaning, componential analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations, collocation....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Motivation and arbitrariness.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 Semasiological approach .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Onomasiological approach ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Lexicon as a system ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Semantic fields .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Change of meaning ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Proper names ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Total word stock .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Lectures ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Word, Lexical Unit ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Theories of meaning ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Theory of statuses ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Fixed meaning assumption ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33 Componential analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 34 Cognitive semanticsp .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Cognitive linguistics............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 35 Cognitive semantics ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 35 Prototype theory (Eleonor Rosch) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Seminars ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Compounds.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Affixation, Conversion, Back derivation ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 38 Morris Halle ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Mark Aronoff ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Lexicalization ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Dictionary .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Ester Demjanov Contrastive Lexicology Exam Notes (hey, isnt this recursiveness?:)
(Pavel Stekauer Rudiments)
WF within linguistics
o Place and scope of WF depend on the approach selected: Traditional approach: WF = derivational morphology (inflectional morphology) WF = under lexicology with lexical semantics 1960 breakthrough in approach to WF The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation (Merchand) - based on EU structuralist traditions (Geneva school theory of sign, syntagma) The Grammar of English Nominalizations (Lee) transformations to generate compounds from kernel sentences Chomsky division of approaches to the generation of new complex words within TG grammar: lexicalist hypothesis, transformationalist hypothesis WF rules are restricted in their productivity and semantically irregular separation of irregular WF and regular syntax
WF new complex words directly connected with extra-linguistic reality X inflection modifies morphosyntactic features of words does not step over the limits of a word no connection based on paradigms may exhibit suppletion
This is
here
derivational morphemes tend to proceed inflectional only inflectional and derivational affixes (and rules) can be intermingled derivational and inflectional affixes can change word-classes derivational and inflectional morphologies can use suppletion inflectional morphemes (and rules) can become derivational and vice versa (e.g. healthier, teacher) similarities in analogy similarities in reanalysis in acquisition and diachrony
because space between tables needed

WF to name: names for objects of the extra-linguistic reality contradicts functional approach to language syntax to describe: combines names to describe the extra-linguistic reality phonemes (phonetic level) morphemes (morphological) words phrases (lexicological) sentences (syntactic) texts (hypersyntactic) bound to a specific situation
complex words independent of specific speech situations stored in lexicon no list of sentences formed once and forever limited by the naming needs of a speech community, by unlimited (any sentence can be a part of speech), no existence of a complex word for a given object, by strictly restrictions limited acceptance of synonymous complex words the properties of words and the properties of sentences derived from the same basic principles of grammar (Government-Binding Theory) R. Lieber
WF & lexicon Bloomfield (1933): lexicon = list of basic irregularities Chomsky (1970): lexicalist hypothesis, irregularity of WF processes Jackendoff (1975): lexicon = all actual words Aronoff (1976), Anshen & Aronoff (1988): lexicon = words generated by WF rules of limited productivity, whose meaning is difficult to predict and feature semantic and/or formal idiosyncrasies Di Sciullo & Williams (1987): lexicon = idiosyncratic units (listemes) only Difference between listedness (listing a unit in the lexicon) and wordhood
Words, morphemes, idioms, phrases, even some sentences are listed no internal structure to predict their semantic/grammatical behaviour Lexicon = collection of the lawless = irregularities (no words based on regular WF rules) Anderson (1992): lexicon = knowledge a speaker has of how words can instantiate positions ain a syntactic structure crucial part of lexicon represents WF rules as ways of relating words to one another Stekauer (1998): lexicon = all complex words (incl. generated by productive, regular and predictable WF rules, affixes and irregular expressions: pain-in-stomach-gesture, son-in-law) All complex words organized into paradigms Deviations of productively coined complex words form their meaning and form in the lexicon itself
Scope of WF
o o o Lees (1960): compounds Aronoff (1976): affixation also a phonological operation WF syntagma WF can only treat composites which are analysable into two constituents: determinans, determinatum (both signs) based on the so-called identification-specification scheme Complex word = hyponym of determinatum Merchand (1960): WF studies the patterns in which a language forms new lexical units (words) Study of a simple word unalysable, unmotivated sign no place in WF, it is a lexical matter Complex word rests on a relationship between morphemes through which it is motivated (do-er, undo, rain-bow relevant to WF but do, rain, bow not relevant) Merchand 2 major groups of words that WF covers: o Words formed as grammatical syntagmas = combinations of full linguistic signs: compounding, prefixation, suffixation, derivation by 0 morpheme, back derivation o Complex words not made up of full linguistic signs: expressive symbolism, blending, clipping, rhyme and ablaut gemination, word-manufacturing Both groups new coinage is based on synchronic relationship between morphemes where there is no such relationship: the formation is a moneme Pennanen argues against overgeneralization of the principle of WF syntagma e.g. conversion and back formation do not fit it Cranberry morphs Word in which one constituent is an actual morpheme of English, while the other constituent does not occur independently and does not carry any meaning of its own Meaning-distinctive function such formeme resembles the function of phoneme Not analysable in the terms of WF and should not fall under it Halle (1973): 2 types of WF rules, one of them based on a combination of a meaningless stem with a suffix: [STEM+ant]A: vac+ant, pregn+ant, ambul+ant [STEM+ity]N:pauc+ity, prob+ity Aronoff: WF rules must be based on bilateral units (signs) not all morphemes meet this condition his WF rules based on nits which always carry some meaning = words word-based theory of word formation Different approach to morpheme generativists morpheme does not have to have meaning (unilateral linguistic sign)
Compounding
o o Most productive WF process in English Recursiveness indefinitely extendable series:
Typewriter Typewriter Typewriter Typewriter repair repair repair shop shop
supplies
o o
English analytic language compounds, collocation and syntactic groups tend to be alike Compound = combination of WF bases of two or more originally independent words Slovotvorba = compound slovn tvorba = syntactic group Slovak compounds always written as a whole but not in English (word-formation, word formation) The compound as a whole is inflected X the left-hand constituent can be in plural (parks commissioner, sales-oriented) linguists have to seek more reliable criteria Criteria for what is a compound Marchand (1960):
the criterion of a single main stress (forestress) o Compounds must be morphologically isolated from a parallel syntactic group o Blackbird stress of a compound black market level stress = syntactic group o Many combinations with two main stresses which are compounds: garden city, trade union The first constituent of the coordinative compounds (do not have head + modifier structure but two equal parts) cannot syntactically function as a modifier of the right-hand constituent (e.g. grass-green) st Adams (1973): 1 element separable from the head Wet day very wet day wetter day The day is wet. small talk *very small talk *smaller talk *The talk is small. Formal criteria fail: 1st element separable from the head Inflicted as a whole Inadmissibility of omission of any of the components Inseparability of a compound Fixed sequence of constituents Jespersen (1965): the meaning of the whole cannot be logically deducted from the meanings of the constituents (semantics) Restricted to so-called lexicalised compounds (e.g. blackboard) Does not work for many others: dance-hall, blue-eyed Bauer (1998): discuses more criteria: o Listedness o Syntactic isolation of the first element in a compound o The head in a phrase can be replaced by one o Compounds do not permit co-ordination None of the possible criteria gives a reliable distinction any distinction on the basis of just one of the criteria is a random division of noun+noun constructions, not a borderline between syntax and lexicon Proposes to speak of a category of constructions until there is evidence for opposite view Primary vs. synthetic compounds Primary (non-verbal, root) contain no verbal element (e.g. table-tennis, school garden) unpredictable as monemes, may have a large number of meanings: o Shop lamp: Lamp manufactured in a shop, Lamp used in a shop, Lamp in the shape of a shop, Lamp designed for a shop, Lamp taken/stolen from a shop o Primary compounds are idiosyncratic listed in lexicon o Allen (1978) argues that number of meanings is strictly limited (water-mill mill powered by water, mill located near water but not mill which lives near water) the condition of acceptability of a particular meaning of a compound is the semantic compatibility of its constituents Synthetic (verbal) second constituent is deverbal, derived by means of the suffix er, -ing, ed (e.g. language teacher, strange-sounding, snow-covered), fully predictable and regular Neoclassical compounds Contain combining forms (constituents of Latin/Greek origin, e.g. electro-, hydro-, bio-) Resemble affixes because they are bound morphemes but they can also be combined with combining forms and even with affixes (a feature of WF bases) e.g. metrology, bionomics, homophile, technocrat. Combining forms may have their independently functioning counterparts used as independent words e.g. kilo, photo, mini Combining forms represent potential words potentiality may be brought into effect by clipping e.g. tachometer tacho, photograph - photo Endocentric & exocentric compounds Endocentric compounds - majority of English compounds have a binary formal structure (determinans-determinatum with the compound being a hyponym of its determinatum e.g. table-tennis, motor race) Exocentric compounds have zero determinatum (outside the compound), in large number of exocentric compounds, the determinatum stands for an Agent (pickpocket, cutthroat,
Types of compounds
killjoy, turncoat), an animal (wigtail, swishtail), a plant (kill-lamb, cut-finger) or a thing (turnpike, make-way) o Bahuvrihi compounds Possessiveness (he has a skinny head skinhead) Classification according to the type of composition Without connecting element (nightmare, seaman, blackboard) prevail in English With a connecting element (interfix) (craftsman, speedometer, Czecho-Slovakia) Classification based on syntactic principles Syntactic compounds constituents are grammatically related in the same way as words in syntactic groups (blackbird- a black bird, whitecap a white cap, pickpocket he picks pockets) Asyntactic compounds constituents ordered differently from the corresponding syntactic phrases (frost bitten bitten by frost, fire-proof proof against fire, cry baby a baby that cries) Classification based on the determinans/determinatum sequence Compounds of the Germanic type dominate in English determinatum preceeded by determinans (driving shaft, space shaft, navy-blue) Compounds of the French type rare determinatum comes first (pickpocket, spendthrift) Classification based on semantic principles Coordinative (compulative, dvandva) compounds individual constituents semantically equal, the compound can be a hyponym to any of its constituents meaning given by compositional principle (actor-manager, phonetic-semantic) Subordinative compounds made of a determining and determinend constituents, compound is a hyponym of its determinatum (dance-floor, cry-baby, pop-corn)
Affixation
In English restricted to prefixation and suffixation (does not use infixes (however: fan-fucking-tastic, absogoddam-lutely, circumfixes, transfixes) o Prefixation & suffixation 2 parts of a single process o Marchand (1967): difference in the nature of the two processes 2 main categories in WF: Expansion AB = B determined by A AB has the same word-class and lexical class as B All combinations whose determinate are independent morphemes (words) Includes compounds and prefixation E.g. unhappy exceptions: declutch, enthrone, behead Transposition All derivations any combination with a dependent (bound) morpheme as determinatum The use of a word in another than its normal function (e.g. when a noun/verb is used as determinans, it is an untypical position for it) e.g. teach teacher (teach functions as determinans) o Siegel (1974): distinction: Class I in-, con-, sub-, dis-, hyper-, may cause stress shift (finite X infinite) +boundary circum-, neo-, auto-, monoprefixes combine only -able, -en, -ate, -ion, -ity, -y Class I admit phonological changes (divide X division) and cause (noun forming), -ic, -al with words suffixes a rightward shift of the main stress (adj.) Class II prefixes Class II suffixes #boundary combine with words and stems
anti-, pro-, circum-, hyper-, neo-, auto-, electro-
-ness, -less, -ly, -al (noun), y (adj.) +Boundary = morpheme-boundary
do not cause stress to retract off the words they attach to (miseducate, denaturalize, metalanguage) stress-neutral no phonological changes, never cause stress shift
#boundary = word-boundary
Level Ordering Hypothesis In English, Class I affixation precedes Class II affixation Thy cyclic stress assignment rules follow class I affixation and precede Class II affixation Lexicon is divided into 2 levels o Words derived on level 1 may be an input for further morphological processes o Words derived on level 2 cannot go back to level 1 (*unspeechless, *unharmless) Product productive - productivity productiveness
Conversion = zero derivation

o o o o Typically English phenomenon Results from the loss of inflectional morphemes in the historical development of English Demonstrates the law of economy of expression (max content, min linguistic means and effort) 2 approaches: Independent WF process Pennanen (1984): context conversion takes place at the level of parole o Some words (down, like, round) do not belong into a specific word-class but acquire it within the process of sentence-generation o The fundamental nuclear meaning of an item can be developed in the substantive, adjective, verb way = bare lexemes = word-form Lieber (1992): conversion is a creative (rather than productive) WF process o Relisting analysis: The lexicon allows for the addition of new entries Conversion occurs when an item already listed in the lexicon is reentered as an item of a different category Stekauer (1996): conversion based on conceptual recategorization o Action, substance, quality or circumstance dominate the logical spectrum o When we want to denote a different conceptual category recategorization Special type of derivation = zero-derivation WF syntagma proposes the determinas-determinatum structure of complex words zero suffix fulfils the function of an overt suffix Cheat Vb: cheat Sb = write Vb: writer Sb clean Adj: clean Vb = legal Adj: legalize Vb As many zeros as there are different types of suffixation Not applicable universally, some do not have parallel patterns out Part out Vb Some distinguish: Total conversion Partial conversion the converted word does not acquire all grammatical features of the respective word-class (the then president) this notion has not gained much support Formation of a new word by deletion of a suffix-like element from an apparently complex form by analogy with other complex words in which the suffixed and the non-suffixed word forms are both words E.g. laze lazy Bloomfield (1933): back-formations first coined from nouns ending in tion over 87% of back-formed words are verbs Marchand (1960): back-derivation has diachronic relevance only it is important only for the historical interest, for synchronic analysis it is a suffixation Kiparsky (1982): rejects the synchronic validity of back-formation Process of reanalysis morphologically simple words come to be perceived as derived from verbs (injury injur/y) The process of forming verbs like air-condition, spotweld is compounding contradicts the general opinion that there are no compounds with verbal determinatum in English Bauer (1983): back-formation is a synchronically productive process different from suffixation Back-formation ostensibly removes a bilateral morpheme identical with the respective actual affix if it is an affix, WF processes must have taken place for it to be attached to the base then any removal of the same suffix would be redundant Back-formation only concerns the historical (chronological) occurrence of words = the longer (suffixed) word came to be used first and the shorter (underived) word existed as a potential unit Generated by merging parts of 2 words into a single word In many the process of form reduction is unpredictable Can be viewed as a subtype of compounding 1. Compounding of words 2. Formal reduction economy of expression
Back-formation
o o o o o o
o o
Blending = portmanteau = telescoped words

o o o o
E.g. smoke + fog = smog, breakfast + lunch = brunch, guess + estimate = guestimate Clipping and acronym-formation are not WF processes they do not generate new complex words Only formal reductions of the full versions Clipping Existing word is shortened while still retaining its original meaning, no change in word-class If the clipped form competes with original discarding one of them (brandy brandywine, bus omnibus, van caravan) , or their semantic differentiation (fan fanatic, chap chapman) May function as bases for subsequent WF processes (bicycle bikeN bikeV) Acronyms Initial letters taken to stand for the whole compound Tendency for acronyms to indicate/symbolize the concealed meaning: SALT Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, BASIC Beginners All-Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code May function as WF bases for coining new words (NATO hedquaters) English has a large number of words based on the combination of two phonetically identical/similar morphemes or pseudomorphemes (fanciful, meaningless sound clusters) Phonetic make-up plays and important role words stylistically or emotionally coloured Cannot be considered compounds compounds are a combination of meaningful morphemes, but there exist a group of reduplicative compounds (tap-tap, pom-pom, puff-puff, girly-girly) Ablaut combinations Twin forms consisting of one basic morpheme (usually the 2nd) and one pseudomorpheme with a differ vowel Chit-chat, shilly-shally, zig-zag, criss-cross, tip-top Rhyme combinations Morpheme + pseudomorpheme / pseudomorpheme + pseudomorpheme joined to rhyme Hurry-scurry, super-duper, hocus-pocus, willy-nilly
Shortening of complex words

o o o
Reduplication
o o o o
Structuralist school
o o o o o o o Marchand, Kastovsky Draws on the traditions of European structuralism (Saussure, Bally) and their ideas of sign and syntagma WF as an independent linguistic discipline, whose specific problems cannot be relegated to syntax, lexicology or any other module of linguistic research Kastovsky: WF component is independent, but it systematically interacts with other grammatical components WF requires multidimensional description reflecting morphological, phonological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects WF is at the crossroads of morphology, syntax, semantics and the lexicon Strong emphasis on meaning as indispensable part of description of multiple issues Lees derives N+N compounds from kernel sentences through transformations: The course is a snap course which is a snap course snap snap course Kernel sentence is transformed into a relative clause, relative clause into an expression with a postnominal modifier compound Grammatical relations expressed explicitly in the kernel sentence are implicit in compounds Absence of morphological and semantic description, ambiguity of underlying sentence structures (criticism) one and the same kernel sentence may yield different compounds (we eat apples eating apple, apple-eater, apple-eating) Modifies his approach by putting more emphasis on semantics case roles (Agent, Instrument, Patient, Location, Time) Compounds derived by transformation from the kernel sentence of the structure Verb Object Instrument, there is no specific word, but a generalized verb of the semantic class Levi works with predicates (instrumental: cause, have, make, be, use; purposive: for; locative: in, topic: about; source: from) that are deleted in the course of transformation
Transformationalist hypothesis
o
Tear gas transformed from the kernel sentence containing the predicate cause (the gas causes tears); Picture book predicate was deleted Kastovsky Kernel sentence, underlying sentence and the WF syntagma interconnected by two transformations = topicalization transformation and the wordformation transformation Sentence member (tagmeme) of the kernel sentence which is to become determinatum of the WF syntagma is topicalized (becomes the subject of the underlying sentence) Distinction between the kernel sentence and the underlying sentence allows to generate several complex words from one kernel sentence
Lexical hypothesis
o Morphological (derivational and sometimes also inflectional) issues should be treated in the lexicon independently of syntax which has no access to internal morphological structure and thus cannot exert any influence upon processes Words with derivational morphology and compound words are not formed by syntactic transformations Basic Lexicalist Position Complex words are formed by means of lexical rules Expressed in Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis: syntactic transformations never have to be allowed to perform morphological operations Consequence: No-Phrase Constraint (accepted by Aronoff in his word-based theory): WF rules do not derive new complex words from syntactic phrase words inserted into syntactic structures are fully formed the regularities of word structure and relationships are result of lexicon, not syntax
o o
Lexicalization
o o o o Language undergoes changes to comply with changing demands of a speech community Lexicalization = losing semantic and/or formal links to the motivating constituents Does not have to encompass all complex words Kastovsky (1982): lexicalization = integration of a WF syntagma in the lexicon with semantic and/or formal properties that cannot be fully derived from the constituents or a WF pattern = idiomatization (lexicalization at the semantic level) and demotivation (lexicalization at the formal level) Bauer (1983): stages in the development of complex words: Nonce-formation = a new complex word coined by a speaker/write on the spur of the moment to cover some immediate need Instituonalisation = complex word with a clear-cut WF structure is accepted by a speech community Lexicalization proper = a word does not correspond to regular, productive and predictable patterns of WF but may be analysable May have: Linguistic reasons: Phonological o Prosodic features (Arabic, choleric) o Segmental features Sound change in isolation/combination with other morphs (Monday, Tuesday, infamous) Sound change due to systematic changes in language development (husband from husbonda, house) Morphological o Roots if a root ceases to be productive, it is lexicalized (edible/eatable, divine/divinity) o Unproductive affixes (-ment, -th) Semantic o Based on the loss/addition of semantic information (understand no meaning of under and stand, playboy- no play and no boy)
Syntactic o Internal to complex form (pickpocket pick is a predicate and pocket is an object this syntactic relation is not typical in compounds, scarecrow) o External to complex form (believe/disbelieve I believe him to be *I disbelieve him to be..)- external syntactic relations change as a result of derivation extra-linguistic (changes of referent itself) reasons stolr nevyrba iba stoly
Productivity
o o o o o Cognitively founded always measured in some cognitive category (agent, instrument) WF should study productive processes only only those capable of producing new complex words WF processes much less productive and semantically irregular than syntactic and inflectional processes Productivity = degree to which individual WF processes, WF rules/types and/or affixes are used in generating new words Relativized approach productivity of an affix with regard to a particular WF base E.g. reveals that #ness is more productive than +ity Semantic coherence depends on the predictability of the meanings of words derived by a specific WF rule (the word with less meanings is semantically more coherent language user will prefer the rule that creates a new word, the meaning of which is more transparent) Direct correlation between semantic coherence and productivity Potentiation (Williams) productivity = property of Word Formation Patterns rather than Word Formation Rules Aronoff comes up with productivity at the system level (langue lexicon) WFP: X-affix-affix given affix is potentiated by the immediately preceding affix (-ation is potentiated by the verbal suffix ize: generalize generalization, specialize specialization) Baayen: uses large corpus and calculates productivity in relation to parole and to frequency (number of tokens of a particular derived word type)
n1 = hapax legomena = number of types (of words) with the evaluated affix occurring only once in the sample analysed N = the total number of tokens of all words with that given affix P = potential application of a particular WFR = the rate at which new types are to be expected to appear when N tokens have been sampled
o o
The lower frequency of individual types the higher their share of all different types Stekauer: Word-Formation Type Cluster = encompasses a number of various WF Types Beard: derivational processes are regular (just like the inflection) Words with irregular secondary meaning were originally regularly derived, the secondary meaning was attached subsequently Semantic irregularities of regularly coined lexemes are the results of conscious acts of specific, nonideal speakers (attached the new meaning to the form of a regular derivation) result: not lexeme but only a new meaning for existing lexeme Lexemic (L-) extension rules (derivational rules)
Blocking
o o o The non-existence of a word because of the existence of another word with the same meaning Prevents the institutionalization of nonce formations Operates when the following conditions are met: the blocking and the blocked units have: The same stem (for each stem, the lexicon can accept only one item) The same meaning None of them can be derived by productive WF Rules (labour not a productive WF process, labourosity blocked, because was not produced by a productive WF process) Aronoff: only members of unproductive classes should be listed in the lexicon words which are not listed (produced by productive WF Rules) cannot be blocked (blocking impairs the regularity of the respective WF rule) we store only exceptions in our heads only irregularities, because other terms we can coin by the regular rules Important in level-ordering theories: Kiparsky (1982): Elsewhere Condition principle = specific cases have priority if something is irregular, it blocks the regular rules E.g. level 1 irregularly inflected words (people) usually do not undergo the regular inflection at level 3 (*peoples)
Other productivity-restricting factors concerning WF bases (apart from blocking):

Phonological restrictions tendency to avoid adding the suffix ly to adjectives which end in ly (*elderlily, *worldily, also *dryen, *dimmen, *greenen, *laxen) Morphological restrictions
latinate, domestic words 2 groups that behave differently some suffixes can be attached only to [+Latinate] words No suffix in English can be added to a base that ends in the same suffix (*joyfulful helplessnessness) Semantic restrictions the base must be the head noun that the adjective modifies E.g. adjectives ending in ed (blue-eyed, three-legged, *a black-shoed lady, *a two-carred man) E.g negative affixes are not used with adjectival stems that have negative value (*unsad,*unpessimistic, unhappy, unwell, unoptimistic)
Actual and potential words

o o o o WF rules allow more complex words to be coined that are actually used Potential words = might be produced by productive rules, but are not institutionalized The capacity of WF rules to generate potential words is called overgenerating capacity Notion of accidental gaps such words are expected to exist, the gap in lexicon which may be expected to be filled with potential words is the accidental gap Arrival, refusal *arrivation, *refusation *derrival, *describal derivation, description Approval, recital, proposal approbation, recitation, proposition Allen (1978) Conditional Lexicon = set of morphologically possible words Permanent Lexicon = set of actual, but idiosyncratic (their meaning cannot be predicted) words WF rules operate on underived or complex words, whether they are potential or not they must only be morphologically well-formed Systematic gaps ill-formed, non-occurring words e.g. condition limiting suffixation by verbforming -en Inheritance of features how a complex word inherits its morphosyntactic (word-class, transitiveness, countability) and lexical features from its constituents IS A Condition (grandfather IS A father, and IS A noun because father IS A noun) Head = that constituent in a complex word from which these features are transferred to the complex word as a whole (determinatum) Williams: Right-hand Head Rule in morphology, we define the head of a morphologically complex word to be the right-hand member of that word Kastovsky: left-hand head cases (father-in-law, eat-up, calm-down) Selkirk: Revised Righthand Rule:
Headedness
o o o o
X = syntactic feature complex (syntactic relations)
Q = no category with the feature complex
Lieber: Feature Percolation Conventions information of word-class and other grammatical features is filtered to specify these features of a complex word Conversions based on unlabelled binary branching trees into which morphemes are inserted: Convention I all features of a stem morpheme percolate to the first non-branching node dominating that morpheme Convention II all features of an affix morpheme percolate to the first branching node dominating that morpheme
I+II Do not cover some instances (e.g. perfixations with counter- attached to nouns, verbs and adjectives) Convention III if a branching node fails to obtain features by Convention II, features from the next lowest labeled node are automatically percolated up to the unlabeled branching node
10
Convention IV in compound words in English features from the righthand stem are percolated up to the branching node dominating the stems
Level-ordering theories
o o 2 classes of affixes differ in phonological and morphological characteristics Allen: Extended Ordering Hypothesis: 3 levels in morphology at which WF rules operate: Level I rules order before Level II and Level I and Level II before Level III Level I all rules of +boundary affixation Level II all rules of #boundary affixation Level III- rules of compounding, non-prefixation and some others No affixation after compounding Selkirk: derivational affixes may appear outside compounds (un-self-sufficient, non-weather-related, painstaking-ly) class II affixes may appear outside compounds, Class I affixes appear only inside compounds = Compound-Affix Ordering Generalizaton Strauss (1982): Class I suffixes can attach after Class II prefixes, Class I prefixes can be attached outside Class II suffixes (ungrammaticality -un class II) Kiparsky: Lexical Phonology and Morphology there are several levels (strata, layers) each of the characterized by certain WF rules followed by phonological rules Phonological rules of lexical phonology = lexical rules = cyclic applied after each step of WF and admit exceptions Postlexical phonological rules = rules that apply to syntax, to combinations of words in sentences = exceptionalness and automatic they apply whenever the conditions for their application are met non-cyclic, can be only applied once The output of lexical phonology may be used as an output for a WF process at higher level Important features of Kiparskys model: Affixation and compounding are interspersed, irregular inflection at level I separate from regular inflection at level 3 Result of every layer of derivation is a lexical item
o o
Siegel & Allens model
Kiparskys model
11
(Pavel Stekauer - Handbook of WF)
2 basic approaches to study WF: o Onomasiological Studies the naming act Regarded as less important but turned out to be helpful Recently have been re-discovered 1st published Onomasiological theory: Dokulil (1962) o Semasiological from form to meaning/concept concentrates on the analysis of the already existing word-stock onomasiology not restricted to WF, covers lexicology studies the ways of languages and their dialects in expressing a particular concept the point of departure for an Onomasiological approach is always a concept o How does a language express a concept? Does it take over an expression from an earlier period or is the original expression replaced? o 2 divisions of onomasiological research: o Dichotomy synchrony vs. diachrony opposition o Empirical vs. theoretical research Empirical onomasiology studies ways of expressing (empirical aspect) a given concept in various languages (synchronic aspect) and/or the etymology of these expressions and their changes over time (diachronic aspect) dominant research method
In the former case, are the form and meaning identical with the original ones? In the latter case, in what way and by which means is the new expression formed? What was the reason for the change in expressing one and the same concept? And is it actually still the same concept?
Discussed a multiplicity of essential WF rules (place of the WF in the system of linguistics, differences between morphological and WF analyses, WF motivation, productivity, internal form of word, lexicalization, WF paradigms, notion of WF type) WF = autonomous domain within the system of linguistics
Onomasiological categories
o o o different types of structuring the concept in view of its expression in the given language the essential conceptual structures establishing the basis for the act of naming conceptual structures: onomasiological base phenomenon to be named classed within a certain conceptual group always simple onomasiological mark determines the base within the limits of its group may be simple (blackberry) but also a compound (woodcutter) the determining and the determined elements of mark need not to be explicitly expressed (policeman) determining element of mark = motive e.g. blackberry berry = base (concept of berry common to group of berries) black = onomasiological mark
conceptual structure
base simple mark motive = determining element determined element
in comparison to Merchands WF syntagma (determinant-determinatum) Dokulil puts emphasis on the level of conceptual processing
12
types of onomasiological categories: mutational (relational) object of one conceptual category is characterized and named according to its direct/mediated relation to an object of the same/other category transpositional phenomenon, usually conceived as a mark, dependent on a SUBSTANCE is abstracted from all phenomena upon which it objectively depends and is viewed as an independently existing phenomenon (rapid-rapidity) modificational adding a modifying feature (e.g. diminutives dog-doggy, augumentatives a big dog, change of gender- waiter-waitress, names of the young- fox-cub, collectiveness- mankind, measure/degree tallest) Act of naming based on its reflection and processing in human consciousness Basic types of onomasiological structure may be determined according to the categorial nature of its polar members (base + motive) o Substances Action Quality Circumstance o Examples: Substance (police) + substance (man) = policeman Substance (berry) + quality (black) = blackberry Substance (agent) + action (teach) = teacher Substance (paper) + circumstance (evening) = evening paper Other onomasiological structure types determined analogically they may stand for multiple semantic relations, for example: o
o o o o o The Bearer of Quality (blackboard) Agent (teacher) Instrument of action (excavator) Patient (prisoner) Result of action (print-out)
There can be certain structure recognized between several naming units (hot-house, glass-house, green-house) Head is always the more general term
Multi-level model of WF (linguistic sign theory)

o o o
Object of extra-linguistic reality Pre-semantic (conceptual) level Constructed by logical predicates, some of which are expressed as semantic markers Semantic level Categorial markers (substance, quality, agent names, names of relations) part of the formal onomasiological level represent onomasiological base Identification markers (archisemes) represent genus proximum capture a property common to all of the meanings of a particular naming unit Specification markers Formal level Onomasiological structure Base relevant grammatical categories mark Onomatological structure inventory of morphemes linguistically expresses the base and mark Phonological structure Determines the specific form of morphemes and other phonological features
13
Classification of meaning 4 types of a naming unit:

o Structural meaning given by the interrelation between onomasiological base and mark, underlies lexical meaning Categorial meaning Invariant meaning Specific meaning Lexical meaning E.g. : meaning of tretina: 1) desubstantival noun 2)abstract quality defined by the string of semantic features HUM CONCR QUAL 3) a third part of something 4) one part of a hockey match
o o
Cognitive onomasiological theory was inspired by onomasiological structure (Dokulil) and multilevel model of linguistic sign (Horecky) Functional-structural approach of the Prague School of Linguistics Fundamental principle: form-meaning unity = bilateral nature of morphemes
WF as an independent component
o
o o
WF deals with productive and rule-governed patterns (WF types and rules, and morphological types) used to generate motivated naming units in response to the specific naming needs of a particular speech community by making use of WF bases of bilateral naming units and affixes stored in the Lexical Component Triad of relations between: extra-linguistic reality (object to be named), speech community (coiner), WF component each act of naming responds to naming demand on the part of a member(s) of speech community triad reflects the following principles: active role of language users in naming process (instead of seeing WF as impersonal system of rules) naming act is not purely linguistic not isolated from factors (human knowledge, imagination), any naming act is preceded by a network of objectively existing relationships it is a cognitive phenomenon relying on the intellectual capacities of a coiner close interconnection between linguistic and extra-linguistic phenomena
14
the model also indicates a direct connection between WF and the lexical components and a mediated connection between the WF and the syntactic components (WF not a part of syntax or lexicon) WF + lexical component cooperation Lexicon stores all naming units and affixes and feeds the WF component with WF bases and affixes when needed All new naming units formed in the WF are stored in Lexicon WF focuses on the process of forming isolated naming units rather than on using them (syntax) A naming unit within the scope of WF must be a structurally analyzable linguistic sign and the sign nature must be an inherent nature of its constituents Act of naming is preceded by: 1) scanning the lexical component by a coiner determines the next procedure 2) either a completely new naming unit is coined or naming unit is found in the lexical component that can serve as a basis for semantic formation preferred No new naming units (formed according to the WF rules) are generated in the Lexicon any of the later semantic shifts and/or formal modifications (clipping, acronymization) of naming units, productively formed in the WF component, take place in Lexicon A person whose job is to drive a vehicle designed for the transportation of goods
The act of naming

o
15
o o
Extra-linguistic reality vs. speech community Community finds an object that needs a name relation between the object and the community predetermines all other steps within the act of naming Conceptual level Analyses the class of objects to be named Based on the processes of generalization and abstraction captures prototypical features by means of logical predicates (noemes) A set of logical predicates = logical spectrum (not part of language sign = supralinguistic level) Semantic level The logical spectrum (language independent) has to be represented by semes constituting the semantic structure (meaning) of the linguistic sign Maps the defining spectrum onto semantic level of a new linguistic sign Onomasiological level One of the semes is selected to function as an onomasiological base denoting a class, to which the object belong One of the semes is selected to work as the mark that specifies the base Mark: Determining constituent Determined constituent always stands for the category of Action (3 modifications action proper, process, state) Semantic relations between the base and the mark constitute an onomasiological structure The onomasiological structure is a conceptual-semantic basis for the act of naming Onomatological level Onomasiological structure linguistically expressed according to the morpheme-to-semeassigment principle (MSAP) Semes assigned to morphemes(stored in lexicon) Operation based on matching the meaning facet of a potential morpheme with the respective seme of the onomasiological structure MSAP operates: Horizontally reflects the semantic compability and formal combinability/restrictions of the individual lexical and affixal morphemes Vertically scans the Lexicon with regard to the lexical and affixal morpheme which can be retrieved to represent the semes of the onomasiological structure All naming units are based on assigning linguistic units to semes, constituting an onomasiological structure The supra- and intralinguistic levels are interrelated All new naming units are a result from the identically grounded acts of coining the generation of all naming units is put on a uniform basis Phonological level Phonological shaping of the new naming unit in accordance with relevant phonological rules Result of an interaction between the onomasiological and onomatological levels 5 possible onomasiological types based on which constituents of the onomasiological structure are linguistically expressed at the onomatological level: Onomasiological Type 1 ternary All three onomasiological structure constituents (base, determining, determined constituent) are linguistically expressed at the onomatological level House-keeping object (house)- action (keep) process (ing) Signal-generator result (signal) action (generate) instrument (or) Onomasiological Type 2 Binary the determining constituent of the mark is absent Extendable to onomasiological type1 Actional seme (determined constituent of mark) is morphematically expressed which facilitates the interpretation of naming units Writer action (write) agent (er) Spinning wheel action (spinning) instruemtn (wheel) Onomasiological Type 3 Ternary Determined constituent of the mark is left unexpressed at the onomatological level Novelist result (novel) action (0) agent (ist)
Onomasiological types
o o
16
Doggie patient (dog) state (0) evaluation (-ie) Onomasiological Type 4 The mark is unstructured and simple cannot be divided into the determining and determined constituents Unhappy negation (un) quality (happy) Blue-eyed quality (blue) state (eyed) Regain repetition (re) action (gain) MSAP principle eliminates the problem of whether new naming units can be based on nonexisting words (sabre-toothed, handedness, unsightly) Onomasiological Type 5 Unstructured onomasiological level No base or mark original and new dominating conceptual categories are related directly SwitchN switchV: SUBSTANCEInstrument/ResultACTION insertV insertN: ACTIONObjectSUBSTANCE
Conceptual (onomasiological) recategorization

o o Stekauer against 0 morpheme and zero-suffixation and conversion Onomasiological approach to conversion: each naming unit results from an intellectual analysis of an extra-linguistic object to be named object classed (substance, action proper-process-state, quality, circumstance) Individual aspects of extra-linguistic reality are not isolated can be evaluated by their close relation Conversion linguistically expresses the conceptual (onomasiological) recategorization of extra-linguistic reality Limit (circumstance) recategorization limit (action) Feature (quality) recategorization feature (state) Individual logical predicates constitute a hierarchy Recategorization replacing the original dominating logical predicate with a new one determining the conceptual category of a new extra-linguistic object to be named Conceptual re-evaluation of extra-linguistic reality precedes the linguistic proper The conceptual recategorization provides the evidence that conversion cannot be identified with zero suffixation it is suffixation Onomasiological Type 5
An onomasiological approach to productivity

o o o All naming units coming into existence in the WF Component are coined by productive WF and morphological types/rules All post-word-formation deviations take place in lexicon Word-Formation Rule represents these levels of productivity: The productivity at the level of Onomasiological Types The onomasiological types represents the preferences of language users coiners) in terms of employing different cognitive processes underlying the act of naming and the different ways of their linguistic representation Productivity calculation at this level may indicate which of two universal contradictory tendencies dominates in a language:
17
o Economy of speech o Explicitness of expression = comprehensibility 2 gradual oppositions:

X simplified onomasiological structure type 4 unhappy economy due to onomasiological structure Type 4 unhappy X absence of onomasiological structure type 5 switchN switchV
complex analysis at the conceptual level types 1-3 novel writer, writer, novelist complex linguistic representation of complex structure Type 1 novel writer
economized expression of complex structure Type 2-3 writer, novelist
absolute economy X Type 5 switchN switchV
The productivity at the level of Word-Formation Types The computation of productivity related to conceptual categories (agent, instrument, location, action, result of action) Different structures (e.g. ([Object Action Agent]; [Action Agent]; [Location Action Agent]) represent various WF Types all of which may be used to coin new naming unit Units falling within one conceptual category form new terms using WF Types = wordformation type cluster (WFTC) any WFTC is 100% productive The productivity at the level of Morphological Types Any WF type may have various morphological representations (wood-cutter [N+V+er], novelist [N+ist]) Different morphological structures represent morphological types If the morphological types are used to coin naming units under same conceptual category Morphological Type Cluster (MTC) all are 100% productive The productivity at the level of Word-Formation Rules WF rules are constituted by the unity of WF types and morphological types WFR: Action Agent
Verb -er (driver) Instrument Agent Noun (s) man (oarsman) Object Action Agent Noun Verb -er (wood-cutter)
WFR is constituted by the unity of the onomasiological and onomatological structures This approach is preferable because it is possible to: o Examine productivity from different viewpoints reflecting both linguistic and supralinguistic levels o Take into consideration all new naming units o Restrict the evaluation/calculation to actual words Productivity is conceived as an implemented capacity reflecting the naming needs of a particular speech community By coining a naming unit in response to the specific demand of a speech community the language manifests its productive capacity to provide a new, well-formed linguistic sign by employing its productive Types/Rules whenever needed Bauer: o production of new words may be the only evidence of this potential, lack of new words appears to deny the potential o words are only formed when there is a need this cannot be reduced to formal terms the conception of productivity as implemented capacity corresponds with Bauers notion of profitability Productivity vs. creativity Usually understood as mutually excluding principles in coining new naming units Productivity = rule-governed creativity we pick from many WF possibilities we, as coiners, are creative complementary to productivity The logical spectrum does not necessarily lead to one single onomasiological structure different terms that can be created to name one object are labelled as creativity within productivity constraints These terms are realizations of various onomasiological structure The interaction between the conceptual, onomasiological and the onomatological level provides space for creative approach to WF Productivity constraints:
18
Phonological o al attatches only to bases ending in a vowel Morphological o Certain suffixes, such as English hood, attach only to unsuffixed bases (childhood, childishood) Syntactic o Re- attaches only to verbs (replay, *refoggy) Semantic o ly always contributes the meaning in an X fashion or to an X degree (*bookly) In those cases that provide more than one option, one may study the sociolinguistic factors (linguistic background, preferences, age, education, profession)
Headedness
o o o o
Onomasiological type 5 does not admit discussion of headedness Onomasiological types 1-4 the onomasiological base should be the head because it stands for the most general class of all constituents of the onomasiological structure ? Onomasiological model shifts the criterion of headedness to extra-linguistic level the conceptual level Basic headedness criteria: Hyponymy (truck driver -1, writer -2, honeybee-3, restart -4) Subcategorization (e.g. en only combines with monosyllabic bases which end in an obstruent, optionally proceded by a sonorant) certain base+ certain head always together The head determines the word-class and is the distributional equivalent of the whole naming unit Head has the decision-making capacity exercised in 2 ways: o The affix determines the word-class (class-changing affixes) o The affix acknowledges the word-class (class-maintaining affixes) The model was a reaction to the formalism The model reflects the triad of relations existing between the indispensable components of each act of naming The model interrelates the cognitive abilities of speech community with both extra-linguistic and linguistic phenomena The model interrelates the role of productive WF Types/Rules and the creative approach to WF by a specific coiner MSAP principle makes it possible to do away with problems connected with the traditional accounts (bracketing paradoxes, exocentric compounds, blends, back-formation) Model lends itself to the calculation of productivity that covers all types of naming units
Summary
o o o o o o
Opponent of the Separation hypothesis (separation of the semantic and formal level) His model includes 3 levels of representation: o Level of cognitive categories = concepts o Level of derivational categories = functions/meanings o Level of derivational exponents = formatives The relationships between these levels is a one-to-many and many-to-one relationship Distinguishes: o Derivational category = a class of lexemes characterized by a single derivational function o Derivational type = a group of complex lexemes characterized by a singleness of derivational function and of its formal exponence Szymaneks central claim: Cognitive Grounding Condition: the basic set of lexical derivational categories is rooted in the fundamental concepts of conception Proposes 25 fundamental cognitive categories (e.g. object, substance, event, action, state, process, number, person, agent, instrument, possession, negation, causation, similarity, place) The relation between cognitive concepts/categories and derivational categories is far from isomorphic (one derivational category may be motivated by two or more)
19
(Bogdan Szymanek - Handbook of WF)

May be described according to the major WF processes operative in English Distinguished from hapax legomena = word-types (opposed to tokens) which appear only once in a give corpus (e.g. aluminiumise) o the number of hapaxes of a given morphological category correlates with the number of neologisms in that category o number of hapaxes indicator of productivity o not every hapax is a neologism (may be an old, obsolete forgotten word)
a new complex word may be created by analogy analogical formation blacklist whitelist, chaindrink chainsmoke Plag: analogical formations should be distinguished from instantiations of productive WF rules A single instance of analogical formation may give rise to new pattern of affixes
There are some WF processes that are more common (suffixation) than others (vocalic change) suffixation o Suffixing preference is strengthened by increasing tendency to use combining forms in word-initial position some prefixes vanish in English or lose their productivity o Growing use of prefixes: electro-, hyper-, macro- o Bullyable, cannable, baloonful, arrangee, wrongish Compounding o Compound nouns of the endocentric type (cellphone, affinity card, chipset, data cruncher, file transger, art rock, punk rock, acid house) o Not heavily constrained by any grammatical restrictions (like many affixes are) o Nameability requirement a lexical item must denote something that is nameable and worth naming o Recursion N+N+N+N (student film society committee scandal inquiry) o Neoclassical compounds Involve Latinate terms (electroclash, electro-jazz, ecobiology, bio-diesel, bio-terrorism, cyber-pet) New combining forms nega- negative (negademand, negatrip) docu- document (docudrama) o Phrasal compounds Compounds which involve syntactic phrases in the pre-head (modifier) position (a slept-all-day look, a pleasant-to-read book) o Formal compounds N-cum-N (arguments-cum-discussions, buttler-cum-chauffeur, pub-cum-hotel) -cum combining word, different from other affixes Conversion o contextuals the exact meaning is often unpredictable outside context o Produces mainly verbs from nouns and adjectives nowadays (feeder, flan, gender, office, source) but also transforms verbs into nouns (spend) Back formation o Considerable growth over recent years o Air-conditioning to air-condition window-shopping to window-shop o Katovsky: English is on the best way to develop a genuine compound verb type which might be the instance of nounincorporation Blending o Advertisement + editorial = advertorial screen + teenager = screenager o Common for media Clipping o May be regarded as just reduction of a longer counterpart o Elevator vator magazine zine frozen-yogurt fro-yo Acronyms and initialisms o Dinky dual income no kids yet, yettie young entrepreneurial technocrat, GPS global positioning system
New affix has established itself because speakers start to perceive it in a group of borrowed words or because speakers reinterpret a particular existing word (may be seen as special case of folk etymology) -eria chocolateria, fruiteria -(o)holic alcoholic: workaholic, chocoholic, webaholic
20
A diachronic process by which affixes (or combining forms) acquire independent lexical status (start to function as free forms) Ism system of belief -ish mega-
Vast majority on morphological productivity deals with it from a synchronic perspective -nik used to have a high productivity but it has faded High productivity in 80s and 90s: -wise (weather-wise, acting-wise), -ism, -ist Rival affixes elements which, while being formally distinct, realise the same derivational function hence they are linked to the competing WF processes (-ency, -ancy, -age, -al, -ery, -ure, -y, -ment) Trend in present-day English: to use, for deverbal nominalisations, either the appropriate variant of ion or conversion
Formative functions may be detected when we observe some recent modifications in the semantic (and syntactic) behaviour of individual complex words Unless the new element of meaning recurs in certain other forms representing a given morphological pattern, the change ought to be seen just as an isolated lexical innovation, idiosyncrasy, limited to one lexical item rather than as an expansion or shift in the semantics of a particular affix To green change in the more common meaning (ecology They greened the city) Bauer: different meanings of the same form should be treated separately where question of productivity is concerned -ship o The collective sense (when present) is attested with a later date than the remaining meanings o Readership (1923), membership (1850), partnership (1802) o The collective sense is secondary o ship seems to be re-gaining its original (OE) significance as a marker of collectivity (listenership, viewership) -ee o 19th century used regularly and almost exclusively in personal nouns with a passive meaning, bearing the grammatical function of either direct object (appointee) or object of a preposition (payee) in the relation to the base verb o 20th century the number of ee words which act syntactically as the object of a preposition is falling, the number of subject formations is on ncrease (attendee, knockee, waitee) o Late 20th century tendency for the suffix to denote inanimate entities (advance, cause, cliticee) o The suffix ee is at least moderately productive in present-day English o Its scope of use and semantics have undergone significant changes in the past decades
Choice of rival affixes morphological doublets

o o
o o
morphological doublets (rival forms) Synonyms sharing base but having distinct formatives (perscriptiveness/perscriptivity) should not last for long and one will take over and the other will phonetics phonetic phonetical either not be used or gain some specialized syntax syntactic (syntactical) meaning (historic/historical, semantics semantic (semantical) economic/economical) phonology (phonologic) phonological When observing competition morphology (morphologic) morphological between morphological variants, it is not always possible to predict the development of a particular pattern Linguist (speaks many languages or teaches/is concerned with linguistics)/linguistician (a practioner of linguistics)/ linguister (interpreter) the dictionaries say one thing, however linguists do not call themselves linguisticians Semantician/semanticist syntactician/syntacticist phonologist/phonologer Current changes: stress placement Certain changes within a single variety of English change in progress? Many words with variant pronunciations (it is difficult to decide the predominant stress with some) Words of uncertain pronunciation (applicable, demonstrable, formidable, hospitable different pronunciation even in dictionaries many Xable words) Bauer: the change in every case is a change towards stress on the antepenultimate syllable this change has been taking place for a long period of time in language in general Changes in stress primary importance Homologic stress falls on the same syllable in the base and in the derivative A tendency for the base in a complex word to remain transparent it is more easily recognizable (subsidence) but the principle of formal transparency may not apply to all such words able derivatives are stressed today according to several (sometimes conflicting) principles old and conservative and new and innovative able adjectives may be governed not only by formal transparency but also by semantic transparency (compositionality) there are phonological doublets (comparable/comparable, repalable/repalable) where the forms which are phonologically transparent (do not involve stress shift) are also semantically transparent
Phonological form stress

o o o o o o o o o o
21
(Jaroslav Peprnik - Rudiments)
Lexicology
o o o o o study of words and their meaning integral part of any theory of language tripartite language = sounds + grammar + meaning studies total word-stock = lexicon = lexis = vocabulary studies both individual words and the vocabulary as a whole related to other levels of language description lexicology deals with: size and structure of the vocabulary, the link with extra-linguistic knowledge, the center and the periphery of the lexical system and its subsystems, the synchronic vs. diachronic approach, the contact areas with morphology and WF, the notions of word and language unit and the concept-forming power of the word lexicon = not a mere list of words complex structural patterns semasiology = from word to concept (dictionary = semasiological work) onomasiology = from concept to word (thesauruses) semantics semasiology study of meaning semiotics = the study of verbal and nonverbal signs = semiology (Saussure)
main issues in lexicology

o
o o o o o
amorphous vs. discrete

o o o extra-linguistic reality (nonverbal world) = objects + ideas + actions + imaginary reality no clear-cut borderlines everything, before being given a name is subject to the process of abstraction seme = feature of meaning concept forms the nucleus of the meaning = a linguistic term language = conceptual system a system by which we conceptualize experience the concept may change with the development of mans knowledge of the world (e.g. child and adult have different scope) no direct relationship between the word and the item, the form (sound) and its content (meaning) the naming reality is based on convention and is arbitrary Reality described generally 2 gnoseological categories: substance & attribute (property attributed to a substance on the basis of senses, thought or consequence of behavior of it) The same extra-linguistic reality may have different categorization in different languages (not so much in kind, more in explicitness and degree) (opica monkey, ape)
segmentation and organization

o o o o
Different categorizations
o o
Word definition
o o Defined purely on formal grounds without semantic criteria Word (not compound) sequence of sounds (rarely a single sound) or its representation in writing that communicates a meaning, it cannot be divided into smaller units of independent use, although a linguistic analysis may uncover in it more than one morpheme, cannot accept any insertion of further material, relatively stable, can be arranged in structures with other such units to form sentences of language Word combination of vocal sounds (rarely one sound) used in a language to express an idea and thus communicate a meaning, consists of at least one morpheme, no other word can be inserted into a word, though a morpheme (infix) can be insterted, in a sense, each word is a lexico-grammatical unit, because it belongs to a particular word category (class of units that share the same function), one word may function even as a sentence There werent always spaces between words they became important later Extreme view: word is a nonexistent (not concrete) notion
Phonological and orthographic words

o o
22
o o
Phonological words Word as a sequence of sounds between pauses pause can happen even in the middle of a word Orthographic words The written form of every word varied (color/ colour) Words in synthetic languages (Czech, Slovak) usually have a more definite meaning than words in analytic languages (English, French)
Words in English and in synthetic languages

o
word vs. lexeme, phraseme

o lexeme = lexical unit (unit = one word/several words) denotatum for a class of objects/properties abstract unit bringing under one roof all the different word forms the cluster of inflectional variants/versions (go, goes, going, went, gone) and orthographic variants (theatre, theater) a potential unit phrasemes = fossilized constructions, stable collocations seme = the meaning of the phraseme it is not a sum of the parts of phraseme moeneme a word unalysable into two morphemes only one constituents is a real morpheme, the other is a meaningless stem (Monday, receive) lexeme and lexical unit are not always understood as synonymous lexical unit = sense = the union of lexical form and a single sense originate in metonymy and meaphors lexeme = family of lexical units, an item listed in the lexicon originate in WF
o o o
lexeme vs. lexical unit

o o o
lexemes are linguistic signs (a fusion of form and meaning), operates on phonological, morphological-syntactical, lexical-semantic level lexeme is a microsystem and a microstructure functioning in special ways in communicative situations (may be for communication purely or have phatic function aesthetic role or contact)
conceptual and other values

o lexical meaning = communicative value partly derived from its relation to other signs, partly a structure with a notional (central) core and a periphery and with various values= connotations that go with the notional content = denotation the meaning of a word should be treated in terms of how it functions in various sentences (communicative situations) Firth: grammatical words such as determiners, pronouns, conjunctions, particles make no less contribution to the sentence than concrete words. Yet, grammatical words are a closed set, to which new items are seldom added. Sense is either equivalent or hyponym of meaning There is a distinction between sense and meaning among those who distinguish between lexemes and lexical units Leech: sense is synonymous to conceptual meaning, the most central aspect of meaning, or the communicative value Curse: sense = discrete units of the superordinate meaning
o o
Meaning vs. sense

o o o o
Designation
Signification = denotative (cognitive, conceptual) meaning the most fundamental type of meaning Designation (reference) A metaphoric use (Youre a pig!) Multiple designation (house, building, cottage) Same designation (the victor at Austerlitz the loser at Waterloo Napoleon) different meanings, same designation Referent the object/event to which the lexeme (symbol) refers o o
23
Denotation (denotative meaning, signification)

o o May be arrived at in various ways Has notional core relevant features Leech: connotative meaning as subclass of associative meaning (associations when we hear a word) usually used as synonyms Lyons: instead of connotation uses social/expressive (interpersonal) meaning Hansen: connotation = stylistic, expressive, regional properties Connotation = additional properties to the denotations May be common to a group/individual person Is it a kind of association or a minor feature of denotation? Part of the connotation is the stylistic layer differentiations: Territorial Dialectisms and regionalisms National standards Ethnic variety (Black English) Social Stylistic (may involve differences in origin: domestic word/loanword) Temporal (dated or archaic/neologisms)
Connotation
o o o o o o o
relational features
Leech introduced thematic meaning related to Lipkas relational features (converseness) Converseness the relationship between teacher and pupil, own and belong Deictic features features that depend on locative and temporal orientation (here-there, come-go, pull-push) inferential meaning the new features read into words which later may become permanent part of the reference of the word (verbs: bark, meow, neigh containing the meaning of dog, cat, horse) may be regarded as not needed o o o
hierarchy of semes, binary opposition

o o to understand a term, we first decode the more important and relevant meanings, then move to less relevant lexical items are opposed to each other, this opposition yields distinctive features (semes, semantic elements), the content of a lexeme may be called sememe abstract constituents/features: ABSTRACT ACTION SUBSTANCE QUALITY HUMAN ANIMATE MALE NON-ADULT COMMON COUNTABLE Universal semes Semes present in the meaning of verbs (agent, goal, source) motion and space orientation (vertical, horizontal) In verbs also subject and object may play a role (run a race- requires animate subjects (with legs), run an organization requires human) intensity may distinguish not only synonyms but also the lexical field (hit/strike/touch) intention (kill) Each categorization is culture-dependent Meaning can be arrived with encyclopedic approach = definition found in monolingual dictionary (both semantic and collocative)
componential analysis (feature analysis)

o
o o o o o
Paradigmatic relations
o o o o o o Semantics = study of the sorts of meaning relations covered by reference Pragmatics = wider range of associations between what is said and other aspects of human behaviour Every item of language has paradigmatic relation with every other item which can be substituted for it On lexical level, paradigmatic contrasts indicate the word class (part of speech) On semantic level, paradigmatic substitutions allow items from a word (semantic) set to be grouped together 2 types of the subsystem in language: Paradigm Field At the level of sounds reveal which combinations are possible word beginnings in English
Syntagmatic relations
o
24
o o o
On the semantic level, syntagmatic associations indicate compatible combinations (the sun rose rather then the sun spoke) Collocation ranges peculiar to each word no 2 words share exactly the same range and frequency of occurences within a range Habitual collocation = clichs Lexicon contains systems of lexical items which are interrelated and the meaning of which depends on its opposition to other items in the set Inclusion / exclusion (the Earth goes round the Sun earth implies a planet, excludes moon) Scale each item has no absolute value but the value is shown by comparison (boiling hot - warm tepid cold, - ice-cold) Shift of meaning (kill a person/kill time, girl smiles/sun smiles) Causative relation only verbs (kill interpreted as cause sb to die or cause sb not to be alive)
Other relations in Lexicon

o o o o o
Language sign models

o Semiotic triangle (Ogden & Richard) Model of the relationship of the language sign and its relationship to extra-linguistic reality Denies any direct relationship between the word (symbol) and the referent (extra-linguistic object) The non-existence symbolized by the broken line connecting the two items Significant signifi Based on the principle of arbitrariness no connection between the signifi and significant However the arbitrariness has its limits(Bolinger) the onomatopoetic formations are motivated (bang) and there has been suggested some motivation behind sound symbolism (wee, teeny, chip smaller than chop i sounds smaller) Morphological motivation of a complex lexeme by its constituents (washing machine more motivated than washer) Bolinger: transparency, opaqueness (getable more transparent than accessible) Motivation in comparison of languages (centipede stonoka Tausendfssler) Icon = a nonarbitrary sign Iconicity in language is infrequent (superlative usually longer than positive long-longer, interesting more interesting, plural is longer than singular boy-boys, child-children)
Iconic sign
o o
Polysemy
o o o o o o o o Words with 2/more senses Hyperlexeme a lexeme with several meanings The distance from one sense to the next may be small (big town, big tree, big boy) or more apart (big boss) Revealed by means of antonymy (man X woman, man X animal; child X adult, child X parent) Special case of polysemy: when one sense is general and other specific (cat) Most often polysemy resolved simply by means of the context (but may be by different grammatical forms kohty/kohti) manifestation of the economizing tendency in language Basis for the development of additional meanings is usually a transfer performed on the bases of identity/similarity Homonyms 2/more words that are identical in form but different in meaning Real homonyms sound and look (in written form) identical (bank slope, bank place for money) homographs identical spelling, different pronunciation (lead, wind) homophones sound identical, different spelling (course-coarse, threw-through) may differ in declination or conjugation (kohtik) interlanguage homonyms = faux amis
Homonymy
o
o o
25
Synonymy
o o o Synonyms = words/phrases with similar meaning Synonymous relations link words from different lexical strata Non-synonyms:
Dialectal and slang synonyms (girl-bird) Spelling variants (colour-color) Pronunciation variants (digest [di-]/[dai-]) Morphological variants (brothers brethren, effectivity effectiveness) Nominal vs verbal constructions (smoke have a smoke) Doublets due to conversion (laughter-laugh) Paraphrases (bitch-female dog)
a different connotation creates synonymy (father-dad) absolute synonyms rare agreeing in denotation, connotation and distribution (kind sort) close synonyms differ in a single seme (shut-close) synonyms may differ in intensity (break-smash) stylistic synonyms are based on oppositions antonymy (oppositeness) o two words having opposite meanings o a word may have 2 monosynomous antonyms (sweet X sour-bitter) o types of antonymy contradictory (complementary) either-or relationship = simple binary opposition (above-below, absent-present, dead-alive, single-married) inversion (find-lose, buy-sell) cases of incompatible meaning (blue is incompatible with yellow, green) taxonomies set of items with the same points of similarity with distinguishing characteristics (sitting room, dining room, bedroom, bathroom) contrary antonyms denying one does not imply that the other is meant (the soup is not hot does not have to be cold) o marked unmarked relationship in adjectives (old X big unmarked, young X small marked) o negative words derived from positive by a negative affix derivatives with in-, un-, non-, dis- usually not antonyms -full X -less o Positive member missing (dreamless sleep X *dreamful sleep) Presence of some other seme in the positive member of antonymous pair (unknown well-known, unprincipled highly principled) o Antonyms in series (white red Civil War, krv voda Krv nie je voda)
o o o o o
Hyponymy, hyperonymy
o o o o o Languages differ in their superordinate terms Hyponym (archilexeme) = word/lexeme with a narrower/more specific meaning that comes under wider/more general meaning subordinate term Same word may be a hyponym of several superordinates Curse: hyponymy is a special case of endonymy (pairs endonym-exonym: animal: horse, horse: stable, hand: finger, hand: glove, foot: kick) Underspecification when a hyperonym is used instead of more specific term
The main developments in semantics (contributions of structuralism):

o Departure from atomism application of the structural approach to the analysis of vocabulary contrast with atomistic approach (describing the meaning of each word independently from the meaning of all others as in dictionary) meaning of a word is a function of its relations to other words in a particular field(lexical subsystem) centre vs. periphery distinction between the centre and the periphery of the system as a whole and of each subsystem members of the centre stability, high frequency, capable of productivity, neutral in style members of the periphery dying out words, new-born words, emotional words, idiosyncratic words with an isolated structure Grammar vs. semantics
26
Different combinations of the same words may yield a difference of meaning (back With his back to the wall, Lets go back to the wall) Bloomfield: meaning = something that can be deduced from a study of the situation in which speech is used the stimulus and the response Firth: you shall know a word by the company it keeps (syntagmatic properties)
balance in the system

o o o vocabulary a set of interconnected phenomena that affect each other lack of balance in the system unstable equilibrium with elements in the centre and in the periphery competing with one another opposing forces in the system: leading to integration and uniformity efforts to bring words from the periphery to the centre leading to diversification producing finer distinctions in meaning and cutting ogg morphological links (late-last, near-next)
Field as a network
o o By the nature or certain specific aspects of different cultures, some words are more tightly bound in system than others Trier: semantic field Significance of each unit is determined by its members the mutually defining words Fields linguistic realities between single words and the total vocabulary parts of a whole, resemble words in that they combine into some higher unit items in field may: o occur in sequences/cycles (numbers, seasons) o exhibit a part-whole relationship (finger is a part of a hand, hand is a part of body) o be ordered hierarchically (ranks) or by taxonomy (fruit trees, flowers) Dolnk: Each lexical unit enters: formal (F) oppositions semantic (S) oppositions The oppositions may be: privative (P) equipollent (E) identical (I) units with no basis for comparison are in disjunctive relations (D) elements (16 variants): formal level: FI FP FE FD semantic level: SI SP SE SD
examples: FD:SP = hyperonymy (motion-flight) FD:SE = co-hyponymy (snowdrop-violet) FE:SE = paronymy (walker-runner, odkvit-rozkvitn) FI:SD = homonymy
System and subsystems

o o o o Lexical system: subsystems (semantic/lexical fields, lexical domains) Subsystem = group/network of words/lexemes whose members are related by meaning Smallest subsystem = lexical set Lexical semantics studies the meaning of words in the subsystems and sets, rather than of words in isolation
Colour words, kinship terms, names of vessels, parts of the body, domestic animals, dicendi, verbs of motion, terms of quantity, special orientation Colour terms Vocabulary is nonisomporhic (one subsystem as a whole is not identical with a parallel subsystem) between 2 languages Red hair ryav (erven) vlasy Container terms Container is the archilexeme shared by every member of this set Distinguishing components: material, shape, size, content, function A polysemic member of the set may belong to two lexical fiels (vessel container/ship)
Samples of lexical fields

o o
27
One language may have more specialized terms (trough = koryto, ab) Cooking terms Components market +/- depending on their presence/absence in the meaning The table for cooking terms would apply +/- use of water, oil, steam, quantity of the liquid, mild/fierce process, short/long time, kind of vessel, whether the material is to become soft and whether it should retain its form Kinship terms More abstract More differences between languages (cousin, brother and sister, wife-ena) Space-orientation adjectives More abstract Objects may be conceived of as viewed from outside/inside (right, left) Dimensions (line, stripe)
Lexical configurations
o o By-products of particular sense relations Types of lexical configurations: Hierarchies fundamental relation: dominance (A is the father of B, he is the father of C) Branching (taxonomic/part-whole) Non-branching Proportional series relationships between the elements must be such that from x-1 elements the x can be determined (x = number of elements) (horse-foal cat-kitten, foot-shoe hand-glove, foot-toe hand-finger) Doublets exemplified by pairs of opposites Clusters groupings of lexical items which lack a structure (e.g. some groups of synonyms) Segmental parts Handle-door (handle is optional for door (knob) but compulsory for knife, broom, shopping bag) beard-face (beard is optional for face) House living room, kitchen, hall, cellar Systemic parts Body skeleton, bloof, vsessels, muscles, netves House roof, door Cruse: distinguishes one more category: Substance particle relation (grain-sand/salt, drop-rain, flake-snow) Meronymy points out that most groups have no specific items to designate their members (member of the family, cabinet, team,audience) but some have specific term (tribetribesman, senate-senator) When comparing two languages asymmetry (lion-lioness, horse-?) Existence of a gap does not imply underdevelopment of a language When a higher term is missing, the language will find a way out by using a nominal phrase (marry oeni sa, vyda sa) (a)symetry result of the importance of the concept for man Asymmetry may come out in the context only (bachelor, spinster she isnt a spinster yet, he isnt a bachelor yet the seme wants to find a partner absent in bachelor) Syntagmatic aspect (collocation, valency) The medicine healed the wound. The medicine cured the patient. The wound healed. *The patient cured. Asymmetry in WF (lecture also a verb, story- noun, narration-noun)
Part-whole relation
o
Asymmetry and gaps

o o o o o o
a diachronic phenomenon vocabulary increases either by absorbing new words or by giving a new, additional meaning to the existing lexical forms (polysemy, homonymy) with the arrival of a new meaning, the old meaning may disappear or they may coexist
aspects of approaching the change of meaning:

o logics widening/narrowing/branching of the meaning extension (widening of the meaning) widening may be based on:
28
a shift from a young creature to an adult (before bird, pig, pigeon only referred to the young animals, the adult bird was fawl, adult pig was swine) o a shift from animal species to an animal in general (dog was originally a special breed of dog, general word was hound) o a shift from a small to a large object (a box was originally a small container for jewels, medicines or money) o a shift from one special situation/category to a more general (holiday from holy day a day set apart for religious reasons) do, shall, will, may widening of lexical into grammatical meaning have originally implied ownership, now serves various grammatical functions turn, go, fall change of state but also the original meaning (turn pale, go mad, fall ill) restriction (narrowing) of the meaning) stink meant smell, now only bad smell many toponyms have narrowed their meaning down to a particular region (Highlands, Midlands, Avon) may be accompanied by an amelioration/deterioration (less/more frequent occurrence) of the meaning ethic terms tend to develop in a negative way (cunning from knowing, counterfeit from portrait to fake) branching of meaning makes words polysemous (paper, bar, board) head o basic meaning: part of the body (dominant features: round, at the front/top, association: important) o mental ability (have a good head) o life (it cost him his head) o an individual person (per head) o leader (head of a department) o culmination (things came to a head) o measure of length (the horse won by a head) o the top part (the address at the head of the letter) o front/prominent part (at the head of the table) o headland, promontory motivation objective reasons change in the extra-linguistic reality/change in the lexical system (e.g. conflict of synonyms/homonyms) change due to change in reality o most of the old changes o first cars = stoker car change due to a conflict in the systems o conflict of homonyms/synonyms o principle of language economy o homonyms within the same lexical field could obstruct communication subjective reasons a change in the interpretation of the original meaning (folk etymology) or social and psychological reasons (e.g. need for a more fashionable, less worn-off expression, more/less emotive, taboo word) folk etymology o change in the interpretation of meaning o many words of foreign origin, isolated in form, infrequent o yellow + amore (a plant that gives seeds which are bird food) = yellowhammer o route in Hyde Park: Rotten Row = Route de roi (royal road) o calques = literal translations of terms close to folk etymology transfer of meaning condition: similarity between the two denotations lexical transfer = transfer that entered the vocabulary metaphor based on the transfer of exterior features a shortened simile an icon
29
similarity: o in shape (bell a plant) o location (heel part of a shoe) o function (hand of a dial) o colour (ivory), o extent (heap heaps of time) most common types of transfers: personification, animation Weinreich: transfer features = unusual combinations (He was drinking carrots transfer from solid to liquid) Metonymy a figure of speech in which the name of an attribute of a thing is used instead of the thing itself crown as monarchy patterns of metonymy: o activity bearer (counsel) o condition bearer (youth) o activity product (building) o quality bearer (Your Honour) o material product (oil) o product person (chair (person) o place e persons (The White House) contextual metonymy product of a transfer from the artist to his work, form a place/date to the event linked to it (read Walter Scott, it was a Waterloo) synecdoche part refers to the whole or the whole refers to part soul there wasnt a soul around
designates a specific entity and is written with a capital letter and is distinguished from common noun, which designates a member of a class primarily personal names and place names no clear demarcation between proper and common nouns (kola from Coca-Cola) onomastics = study of names
potential sentences of any languages are infinite in number but formed from the total stock of words known to the speaker at any given time speakers word stock variable, may be regarded as fixed at any time total stock difficult to determine or estimate (depends on what we count) estimated vocabulary of English: 600 000 units (total number depends on the special terminologies included)
30
(Pavel Stekauer)
Contextual approach Studying the meaning of the words in separation insufficient Word vague term (rudiments, essentials different notions of the word) Lexical unit o Preferred term o Conditions for a lexical unit Has to be at least one word Has to have one semantic constituent o Combination of a single form and a single meaning = ideal linguistics sign (get back to theory of sign) o Lexeme Polysemantic unit Set of lexical units E.g. head head of a department, part of a body Meanings of the lexeme must be connected principle of compositionality o The meaning of any composite expression = meaning of its component parts o We need to know the grammatical functions of words o can be employed in syntax and in various degrees in semantics o never works perfectly in word-formation o fuzzy He kicked the bucket. = He died. bucket is not a lexical unit does not carry meaning Test of the recurrent semantic contrast o S1 = The cat sat on the mat. Is it a grammatical sentence? If we replace cat with a dog, do we get a new meaningful sentence? o Recurrence using the lexical units in a different grammatical function We bought a cat. cat and dog able to form a new sentence with a different meaning they carry meaning sentence realisation in speech = utterance o sentence not a concrete utterance, abstract outside time and place o utterance every utterance is individual, concrete (by a particular person, place ad time) Proposition = idea in our heads can take different grammatical forms (statement, question, command) We cannot discuss the meaning of words without a wider context Nobody can tell us a precise definition of a lexical unit the border line is always fuzzy Principle of composition can be safely applied only to syntactic phrases (and lower or higher), cannot be applied on context words Semantic composition can usually be defined by the test of the recurrent semantic contrast
Word o
smallest unit with positional mobility in a sentence His coolness surprised us. What surprised us was his coolness. *coolness nesscool we cannot exchange morpheme position they are fixed o largest unit which resists interruptions His extreme coolness. * His coolextremeness. Exception: phrasal verbs (take off take your coat off compound word) Lexical unit o Broader notion than word o Also idioms and collocations
31
o o
Clime nature of linguistic phenomenon Approach: treating linguistic phenomenon as stages of some quality Idioms = structurally complex and semantically simplex units Consist of several elements which represent a single semantic constituent True idioms are opa que we cannot identify they origin Opacity transparency idioms have different degrees of it and it is never either/or matter: Red herring opacity pole we cannot find out where did it come from To be in the brown study there is an indication of the origin Lady bird hints towards the origin closer to the transparency pole Blackboard closer to the transparency pole Irreversible binominals = lexical units which consist of two constituents, the position of which cannot be switched (fish and chips but not chips and fish) Collocations = words which occur next to each other = co-occur habitually It is difficult to tell them apart from compounds They are fully transparent Heavy wind, fine weather the bond between the constituents is strong they co-occur frequently Cohesion of the two collocation can be increased in two ways: when one of the constituents is not used in its core meaning o heavy smoker heavy not in the weight sense it refers to consumption when one of the constituents cannot be used with any other word o to foot the bill (to pay it - *to foot it) foot is connected firmly to bill
how the words are interpreted in different ways We finally reached the bank. o Ambiguous sentence it can have at least two different meanings o Bank = homonymy o Context disambigues the sentence we than make context-based selection My cousin visited us. o Cousin male or female = polysemy o Polysemy does not cause ambiguity just the modification of meaning semantic trait & status o the theory concentrates on the phenomenon of the modification of meaning variable reference depends on the time and topic constant reference time and topic independent
Semantic trait = the meaning of a lexical unit which contributes to the meaning of another lexical unit o Lexical unit participates on a definition of another the degree = status o 5 degrees of statuses Criterial Expected Possible Unexpected excluded
o dog Triangle Mother [mammal] expected [4 legs] expected [fur] criterial [riding on a bike] excluded [cat] excluded [three legs] canonical trait X [three angles] more criterial X [female] less criterial than
Canonical trait a semantic trait whose absence means defect
32
Lexical unit enter a number of paradigmatic relations Paradigmatic relations can be related to basic logical relations Logical relation = relations between two sets of elements o Paradigmatic relations: o A=B identity synonyms o AB overlap polysemy o A inclusion hyperonymy hyponymy o disjunction homonymy Synonymy o Absolute synonyms are rare (no point of having more words for the same object) o Cognitive synonyms Denotative meanings are identical but the respected connotation is different Denotative meaning = core meaning present in every single use of the meaning Connotative meaning = e.g. formal informal, slang, personal attitude Father daddy differ in the register (hypocoristic used in childish language) Homonymy o Represent two different lexemes o Ear ear (head of corn) today homonyms but were different went under formal convergion Polysemy Etymology can give us various different results: e.g. skirt and shirt were formally identical the original unit was polysemantic (the same case: person and parson, money and mint) Hyperonymy & hyponymy o The bases of lexical fields / lexical configurations o Taxonomy o Co-hyperonymy Antonyms o Complementary Based on bidirectional (if we say one is true, the other one has to be false) negative implication Relation between just two lexical units No third option E.g. death alive o Gradable Admit several degrees of a particular quality E.g. cold warm o Converses Based on sentences: John is Peters teacher. Peter is Johns student. teacher X student Binary relations Lexical units have a number of lexical traits o Combinability with other sentence members compatibility of semantic meanings o Death subject (must be: mortal, alive) Kick the bucket subject (must be: human being, mortal, alive) all the conditions are not logical o Semantic co-occurrence restrictions The conditions for the subject to be able to carry the meaning of the lexical unit Selectional restrictions logical Collocational restrictions not logically implied Referring expression refers to a particular unit o Generic sentences referring to a whole class of sth The whale is the largest mammal. o We can only refer by nouns and pronouns Equative sentence 2 referring expressions pointing to the same object or a person o How to find out if the sentence is eqautive we can switch positions Predicator of a sentence - most specific part after removing all the referring expressions Universe of discourse what is in our mind we perceive a situation Analytic sentence true in any context Synthetic sentence true/false depends on the context Contradiction 2 parts of a sentence exclude each other
33
Based on the postulation of theoretical abstracts The terms treated as concepts abstract Man [+animate] [+human] [male] [adult] Woman [+animate] [+human] [female] [adult] Boy [+animate] [+human] [male] [-adult] Disadvantage: hardly can be applied to the definition of the abstract units Advantage: ? Distinguishers o semantic components that can be applied only to one component unit o not generally applicable in contrast to semantic component Redundancy notation o saying something that is not needed o Man [+animate] [+human] [male] [adult] animate is implied by human, animate is not necessary for the definition of man Relational components o Express relations between at least two arguments o 5 > 6 argument predicate argument o Father x parent of y ^ male Brother x child of [parent of Y] ^ male
o have John X Change to John X Cause has have a book. Y a book. ? X have
got changed to
John took a book X Y Z have Y X cause A A = X have Y John X killed cause Peter. A
from his father. Z
Alive A = Z not alive Y
Generative grammar o took semantics, phonology, syntax as separate independent units - no connection to each other (Chomsky) Cognitive approach o Overwhelmed other approaches o Reaction to Chomsky o in linguistics there are no sharp boundaries o clines continual relation without boundaries o Rodger Langacker A description of grammatical structure that makes no preference to meaning is no more revealing than a dictionary providing only a list of undefined forms. o Goes back to Prague school of linguistics we cannot study language without a broader context o Cognitive semantics emphasises and stresses subjectivist nature of meaning what we say depends on our knowledge what we know, our experiences (with using language), aesthetic values, context (of our life) imagery Meaning is subjective and based on individual interpretation = imagery the individual subjective way of communication The glass is half full. The glass is half empty. different individual imagery All cats are playful. Every cat is playful. Any cat is playful. The meaning is a subjective matter
34
Simplifies the relations between the linguistic units 3 basic pillars (according to Langacker): o Symbolic units Have to oppose phonological and semantic units Different from Saussere in this meaning they are structures of different complexity Can be very complicated and complex can consist of more smaller symbolic units o a symbolic unit standing for a word class of nouns can stand for e.g. e.g.
Schema Rule upon which individual expressions are born A model o Categorising relationship [CVC] a schema that may be implemented in many ways [PET] instance of this schema phonological level [BIRD] [SPARROW] semantic level Each schema can be instantiated by a particular unit Relationship between a schema and its instance is a categorising relationship Contextual semantic value o Reflects linguistic, situation context and other circumstances o can be used as a guillotine but also as the harvest for cabbage
5 basic features: o Subjectivist approach Oak tree tree is redundant, however there are people who use both words There is a tendency to motivate the object labelled motivation is usually of binary nature trying to identify the general class and then specify a particular member of that class we see an object as a part of a class, not as a mere object Your cousin does smoke. emphasising the kind of an action against the background of the more general class the meaning is based on conceptualisation the meaning is not a mere sum of semantic components but it is a concept each meaning is conceptually founded o network of semantic relations relations can be based on schemas schemanticity relation extension relation
ring denotes circular entity it is a semantic pattern for circular entity circular geometrical figure circular object circular piece of jewellery (boxing) arena
serves as a schema for different meanings schemas do not modify the basic principles, the basic conceptualisation, in cases of extension some features are deleted and some added prototypes more common and better accepted by speakers prototypical meanings come to our minds first cognitive semantic domains semantic structures are characterised against certain cognitive semantic domains basic domains not analysable to smaller units used for interpretation of certain events domain of space, domain of time, domain of temperature hierarchical relations between domains Matrix all domains that participate on conceptualisation of meaning
35
Knife material, for what are they used, type, colour all these domains constitute a matrix Corner kick domain of space, domain of ball rules, domain of time Base and its profile Base represented by the matrix Profile semantic aspect which is stressed, highlighted Lamp and a table Table is under the lamp, lamp aluminates the table Imagery Once individual ability to portray a reality
Widely excepted theory of meaning, based on the ideas of cognitive semantics and / fuzzy edges (It is difficult to separate 2 or more categories by means of clear cut borderlines difficult to say to which category an item belongs, because of evaluation of data) BERLIN & RAY took up one of the most important experiments which had serious consequences for the theory of semantics prototypical exemplar - Colour spectrum/secretion o Colours sometimes very difficult to identify = the same with the language segmentation of a colour spectrum they determine the most typical colour o our judgement depends on illumination, environment o Colour spectrum/scale in one language green is specified as A in another language as B o Languages differ, but dont differ in the most typical attributes, the edges doesnt matter o Nature of colour = ambiguous, it depends on illumination (on our judgment), environment, etc o Different languages differ in structuring / segmentation, important: identification of the most typical color, the edges are not important (to identify the most typical red, blue) Prototypical exemplars:
All language have at least 2 colour terms : black, white 3 colour terms in a language: + red If 6, than + green, yellow and blue If 7 + brown Peripheral color terms: pink, orange, purple, gray Implicational universal (if there is brown, all the previous must be there)
Colour terms in languages- all the basic colours are o monomorphematic o monosyllabic (except for yellow & orange), o very short terms, they are easily acquired by children (they are not influenced by everyday speech) , easily identified by children (red, black ) o Not basic colour terms are acquired later, harder to identity (e.g.: navy blue) Facial expressions o 6 basic prototypical facial expressions expressing emotions: happiness, sadness, fear, disgust, surprise, anger Responses of exponents in terms of most typical birds o robin most typical, than sparrow, bluebird they can fly, least typical: chicken, turkey, penguin, ostrich (they cannot fly) each category has its specific attributes, according to its most typical features o toys: doll, furniture: chair, sports: football, clothing: pants, vegetable: carrot, fruit: apple the most typical exemplars are processed fast, unlike the less typical degree of typicality matter of scale, scalar nature Family resemblance typical parts and less typical always a scale of typicality individual members of a family resemble each other: in behaviour, physically. The closest relatives, the more similar. If we go further, the similarities fade out. st nd rd th o One member has the features : 1 member: ABCD 2 : CDEF 3 : DEFG 4 : EPGH st No similarities between the 1 and the last o this was first discussed by Wittgenstein (one of the greatest German philosophers) o The family resemblance applies to various categories: o E.g. ball games, card games, shooting games: some features are shared by different subclasses of the same category, some by neighbouring types but there is hardly any feature shared by all games Fuzzy edges:
Basic features of prototype theory
36
William Labou ( American psycholinguist) experiment: showed his respondents different containers and asked them to give names to them from: cup, bowl, vase. The individuals attributed some attributes to the terms, but some items were difficult to identify. Individuals were inconsistent in their own responses. The came container was differently named according to what did it contained: bowl: mashed potatoes, vase: flowers, cup : coffee. o We cannot see the world as black or white = we live in an undefined world, definitions tell us nothing they are not accurate, they try to identify the boundaries, but there are no boundaries / no clear boundaries. We must take into consideration the environment, the context to properly interpret a language. Rejection of the principle of necessary and sufficient conditions (identifying certain necessary features to define a thing) which controlled the formal generative semantics: o ball: 3D object, equidistant from one point it is easy to identify o beauty very relative hard to identify, hard to provide a complete list of attributes Eleonora Rosch most influential psycholinguist, end of 20 century o hypothesis, theory of basic level in each category, char. by features shared by the members of the category, numbers shared with other categories brought to minimum o degree of abstraction: relation between hyperonymy / hyponymy o animal fish fresh water fish - carp, plant tree - pine white pine, o naming preferences : short, morphologically simple, maximize the number of attributes shared within the category, minimize the attributes shared by other categories. Cue validity related to prototype theory, indicates the significance of a particular attribute to all the members of the category
o o
bird: [feather] [can fly] which attribute is more important?
th
The cue validity of feather is much higher, it is more prototypical feature (all birds have feathers, but not all can fly)
37
(what was not in Rudiments only, Livia Kortvelyessy)
Definitions (do not describe the meaning part of the language sign): o Words that are composed of two (or more) bases, roots, or stems (Lieber) o Derived forms resulting from the combination of two or more lexemes (Aronoff, Fudeman) E.g. space + ship spaceship o Words formed by combining roots (McCarthy) o Hen two/more words are combined into a morphological unit (Marchand) Always try to define a new meaning Compounds vs. syntactic phrases o none of the possible criteria give a reliable distinction between two types of construction o Criteria: Formal Spelling o if it is written together, it is a compound o no use in English: word-formation, word formation o we cannot decide (in English) according to the spelling whether it is a compound or not stress pattern o if the word has one main stress it is a compound o blackboard, (has main and level stress) o does not work in many cases: Czechoslovakia uniterruptibility (inseperatebility) of a compound o compounds are islands they have their own internal structure o Black ugly bird = syntactic phrase blackbird = compound Inadmissibility of omission of any of the components o We cannot omit the modifier o (black) ugly scary bird we can omit the modifier in the syntactic phrase but not in the compound Fixed sequence of constituents o A black bird birdblack Compounds are inflected as a whole o Shop shop windows (not shops windows) Impossibility of modification by very o a very black bird vs. a * very blackbird semantic semantic criterion vs. principle of compositionality o greenhouse vs. green carpet red carpet vs. red carpet o the principle of compositionality does not apply on the compounds recursiveness o typical for English compounds o committee organization organization committee training organization committee teacher training organization committee course teacher organization committee
Noun-incorporation o Nominal stem + verbal stem new verbal stem o A term in WF for the creation of a compound I which a noun is incorporated into a verb as its first element: baby + sit to baby sit o Vs. conversion Fingerprint (originally a noun converted to a verb) Scent-mark (originally a noun converted to a verb) Wallpaper (originally a noun converted to a verb)
38
Produce, protest, transport can be noun and a verb according to the stress position original meaning was the one with stress on the first syllable (nouns were the first)
Back formation o Bauer: the formation of a new lexeme by the deletion of a suffix, or supposed suffix from an apparently complex form by analogy with other instances where the suffixed and non-suffixed forms are both lexemes o Teacher: teach vs. editor: to edit vs. laser: to lase o Beggar to beg, peddler to peddle, sculptor to sculpt o Cannot be analyzed from the synchronic point of view it is a diachronic process English economy of speech Conversion o Change of the original paradigm without changing the form o Typical for English o Complete recategorisation o To book = book + 0 teacher = teach + er Noun-incorporation, derivation by zero morpheme, conversion, suprafixation ?? Secretion o Process of producing affixes
Prolegomena to a theory of word-formation Word-formation rules o used to compose affixes with bound stems, and assign the appropriate lexical category (word-class) of the output, indicate syntactic category (subject, object, predicate) and semantic information Filter o indicates all idiosyncrasies related to word-formation o 3 types: Semantic arrival/recital the word simply does not fit the rule Phonological produce/productivity e.g. 3-syllabic shortening rule Structural *arrivation accidental gaps, actual and potential words
Stony Brook University distinguished Professor in the Department of Linguistics (What is Morphology?) Word-formation in generative grammar (his thesis) o Admitted that there is a WF in generative grammar o Claims that ignoring meaning is beneficial (allows to focus on the form) and unbeneficial at the same time Actual and potential words o actual words Defined by lexicon (if there is a need we find the word in our lexicon and use it) o potential words Transparent we are coining a new word according the phonological and morphological rules of the language o Frequency Actual words have frequency (are more and less frequent) Potential words do not have frequency (not used not frequent) they have probability some of them are more probable
39
meaning actual words arbitrary meaning lexicalized meaning (lexicalization losing transparency getting a new meaning) potential words motivated by the rule according which they are formed their meaning is fluid o Aronoff also mentions possible words actual words that do not follow the rules of language (e.g. [sf] breaks the rules of the English language but borrowed words have this clusture) o WRF Word Formation Rule WRF directional device which forms potential words from actual words Consists of an actual word and derived category o Potentiation the productivity of a WRF varies with the morphological composition of the base e.g. nominal affix (creates nouns) -ation is potentated by a suffix ize from lexicalization we can form lexicalization and lexicalism but we choose ation because it is potentated productivity o part of speakers grammatical competence (competence performance of Chomsky) o more/less productive a pattern is vs. ability of the speaker to distinguish potential words from actual ones if the rule is more productive the speakers ability to decide whether it is potential or actual is lower o frequency vs. lexicalization frequency reflects lexicalization If a word is very frequent, it is fully lexicalized o frequency vs. productivity not the same thing! Productivity the rule creates new words (e.g. dom is not very productive nowadays but it can be in some texts), it is contextual
Motivation linguistic signs are not completely arbitrary Demotivation loss of any type of motivation Ullmans type of motivation: o Phonetic o Morphological o Semantic (metaphor, metonymy) o Mixed Bauer life of a naming unit: o Nonce formation a new complex word coined by a speaker/writer on the spur of the moment to cover some immediate need o Institutionalization only some/one of the possible meanings of a form are used the nonce formation starts to be accepted by other speakers as a known lexical item Nonce formation included in reference books o Lexicalization because of some change in the language system, the lexeme has/takes on a form which it could not have if it had arisen by the application of productive rules Lexicalization is essentially a diachronic process but the traces it leaves in the form of lexicalized lexemes have to be dealt with in a synchronic grammar Bauers types of lexicalization: o Phonological (e.g. stress words wit-ic usually the second syllable is stressed synchronic but e.g. choleric.) o morphological (eatable edible only the root eat is productive nowadays edible is lexicalized and must be specially marked in the dictionary o semantic (semantic compositionality meaning of the whole is not predictable from the meaning of the parts redskin) c, syntactic( exocentric compounds made up of a verbal stem and a noun which can be seen as the direct object of that verb pickpocket) o mixed
40
allomorph bound morpheme complex form co-hyponyms Determinans Determinatum empty morph engynomy free morpheme germination grammatical word idiosyncratic infix interfix lexeme listeme moneme morph morpheme paronyms phraseme root prefix seme simplex forms (monomorphemic) stem suffix suppletition
Realization of a morpheme A morpheme that appears only as a part of a word A word consisting of at least two morphemes
lexemes included at the same level under the same coordinate term specifies its typical features by which it differs from all other objects of the class identifies the object to be named with other similar objects represents the whole syntagma in that it can stand for it in all positions while determinans cannot
loved likeable
rose, tulip, dandelion washing washing machine machine
Morpheme that has no meaning

relation of concepts, such as part/whole, cause/consequence, producer/product, activity/place
Czechoslovakia
A morpheme that can stand on its own

when a spoken consonant is pronounced for an audibly longer period of time than the shorter consonant
Fulfill
night train night rain
- A word that has a grammatical form - A word that has a grammatical function
means one thing for somebody but other to someone else words are idiosyncratic signs
walks I have read
Affix inserted inside the word-stem Affix without meaning placed in between two other morphemes
abstract unit bringing under one roof all the different word forms a word/phrase that must be memorized because its sound/meaning foes not conform to some general rule (all roots, irregular forms and idioms) a word unalysable into two morphemes
Abso-fucking-lutely Tacho-meter
red herring geese Monday, receive, cranberry
Concrete realization of a morpheme Smallest unit that has form and meaning
words derived from the same root fossilized construction, stable collocation
lovely
to kick the bucket
Is a part of a word that cannot be further analysed and carries the lexical meaning Affix placed before the root
the meaning of the phraseme
Touch Unnaturally Touchable cat
A word consisting of one morpheme No grammatical morphemes but can have lexical What remains after the elimination of inflectional morphemes Affix placed after the root
different forms of the same word derived from noncognates
walking
good-better-best
transfix
Discontinuous affix that appears in more than one position in a word The concrete manifestation of the abstract units in speech Morpheme that has meaning but no form
word-form zero morpheme
Fish_, sheep_
41

Lexicology - All in All

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Lexicology - All in All

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Ester Demjanov Contrastive Lexicology Exam Notes (hey, isnt this recursiveness?

(Pavel Stekauer Rudiments)

because space between tables needed

-ness, -less, -ly, -al (noun), y (adj.) +Boundary = morpheme-boundary

Conversion = zero derivation

Blending = portmanteau = telescoped words

Shortening of complex words

Other productivity-restricting factors concerning WF bases (apart from blocking):

Actual and potential words

X = syntactic feature complex (syntactic relations)

Q = no category with the feature complex

Siegel & Allens model

(Pavel Stekauer - Handbook of WF)

Multi-level model of WF (linguistic sign theory)

Classification of meaning 4 types of a naming unit:

The act of naming

Conceptual (onomasiological) recategorization

An onomasiological approach to productivity

o Economy of speech o Explicitness of expression = comprehensibility 2 gradual oppositions:

economized expression of complex structure Type 2-3 writer, novelist

absolute economy X Type 5 switchN switchV

(Bogdan Szymanek - Handbook of WF)

Choice of rival affixes morphological doublets

Phonological form stress

(Jaroslav Peprnik - Rudiments)

main issues in lexicology

amorphous vs. discrete

segmentation and organization

Phonological and orthographic words

Words in English and in synthetic languages

word vs. lexeme, phraseme

lexeme vs. lexical unit

conceptual and other values

Meaning vs. sense

Denotation (denotative meaning, signification)

hierarchy of semes, binary opposition

componential analysis (feature analysis)

Other relations in Lexicon

Language sign models

The main developments in semantics (contributions of structuralism):

balance in the system

System and subsystems

Samples of lexical fields

Asymmetry and gaps

aspects of approaching the change of meaning:

Canonical trait a semantic trait whose absence means defect

from his father. Z

Alive A = Z not alive Y

Basic features of prototype theory

(what was not in Rudiments only, Livia Kortvelyessy)

Morpheme that has no meaning

A morpheme that can stand on its own

walks I have read

Touch Unnaturally Touchable cat

word-form zero morpheme

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen