scholarly journals Univerbation from the point of view of Serbian derivational morphology

2018 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-215
Author(s):  
Goran Milasin
Keyword(s):  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Word Formation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
Formation Processes ◽  
Derivational Morphology ◽  
Single Word

This paper analyzes different meanings of the term univerbation in the Serbian word-formation processes. The main goals were to investigate different perspectives on univerbation in Serbian derivational morphology, to compare it with the views in the Slavic, English and German papers and dictionaries, and then to offer some potential solutions. In derivational morphology, univerbation is usually defined as the process of transformation of a syntactic construction as a motivator into a new single word. However, when we consider examples of univerbation from Serbian word-formation processes, we get an impression that it is not yet completely clear what this process actually is, and what distinguishes it from the other word-formation processes. One of the problems is the term univerbation (from Latin unus - ?one? and verbum- ?word?), because it can be understood in several ways - as a name of the process of combining two or more words into a new single word: it can also include compounding, blending and syntactic word-formation, not only one type of the processes as it is often the case in Serbian derivational morphology. That is why we need to fi nd some better term to name the process in which the motivator is a syntactic structure adjective + noun, and a new word is made by adding some suffix on the base of an adjective (saobracajna nesreca ? saobracajka). We propose that this term can be deradixation, which suggests that a new word is made by eliminating some free morphemes (radices) from a motivator.

Combining Forms and Affixoids in Morphology

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dany Amiot ◽  
Edwige Dugas
Keyword(s):  
Major Part ◽  
Word Formation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
Formation Processes ◽  
Good Criterion ◽  
Part Of Speech ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The One

Word-formation encompasses a wide range of processes, among which we find derivation and compounding, two processes yielding productive patterns which enable the speaker to understand and to coin new lexemes. This article draws a distinction between two types of constituents (suffixes, combining forms, splinters, affixoids, etc.) on the one hand and word-formation processes (derivation, compounding, blending, etc.) on the other hand but also shows that a given constituent can appear in different word-formation processes. First, it describes prototypical derivation and compounding in terms of word-formation processes and of their constituents: Prototypical derivation involves a base lexeme, that is, a free lexical elements belonging to a major part-of-speech category (noun, verb, or adjective) and, very often, an affix (e.g., Fr. laverV ‘to wash’ > lavableA ‘washable’), while prototypical compounding involves two lexemes (e.g., Eng. rainN + fallV > rainfallN). The description of these prototypical phenomena provides a starting point for the description of other types of constituents and word-formation processes. There are indeed at least two phenomena which do not meet this description, namely, combining forms (henceforth CFs) and affixoids, and which therefore pose an interesting challenge to linguistic description, be it synchronic or diachronic. The distinction between combining forms and affixoids is not easy to establish and the definitions are often confusing, but productivity is a good criterion to distinguish them from each other, even if it does not answer all the questions raised by bound forms. In the literature, the notions of CF and affixoid are not unanimously agreed upon, especially that of affixoid. Yet this article stresses that they enable us to highlight, and even conceptualize, the gradual nature of linguistic phenomena, whether from a synchronic or a diachronic point of view.

Semantic niches and analogy in word formation

2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Hüning
Keyword(s):  
Word Formation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Formation Processes ◽  
New Words ◽  
Contrastive Linguistics ◽  
Morphological Differences ◽  
Difficult Terrain

Word formation, like other lexical phenomena, seems to be a difficult terrain for contrastive linguistics since it hardly allows for significant and insightful generalizations about the differences between two languages, as has been stated in the literature more than once. This paper investigates one factor leading to morphological differences and contrasts between historically related languages (Dutch and German). It is argued that word formation processes often show semantic fragmentation: in the course of time they develop ‘semantic niches’, i.e. groups of words (subsets of a morphological category) kept together by formal and semantic criteria and extendable via analogy. When looking at word formation from a contrastive point of view, these niches seem to allow for better generalizations in terms of systematic correspondences and differences between two languages than the category as a whole. As a consequence, productivity should not be seen as an absolute notion, but rather as a local and gradual phenomenon. Morphology should not only account for the possibility of coining new words but also for their probability, because language comparison shows that even allegedly equivalent word formation processes often differ with respect to the probability of their use. The paper therefore argues in favour of an analogy approach that takes the existence of semantic niches seriously.

Putting some order into morphology: reflections on Rice (2000) and Stump (2001) Keren Rice, Morpheme order and semantic scope: word formation in the Athapaskan verb (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Pp. xiii+453. Gregory T. Stump, Inflectional morphology: a theory of paradigm structure (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Pp. xvi+308.

2003 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 621-646 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANDREW SPENCER
Keyword(s):  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Word Formation ◽  
The Other ◽  
Inflectional Morphology ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Universal Principles ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Semantic Scope

This article reviews two important recent contributions to the theory of morphology, which take significantly different approaches to the subject. Both are centrally concerned with questions of morphotactics. Rice argues that morpheme order in Athapaskan is largely the consequence of universal principles of semantic scope (coded as syntactic structure). Stump argues for a conception of inflection based on the paradigm. There is virtually no overlap between the two books, yet each raises questions that are of great significance for the other. In this review I briefly evaluate each book and then sketch the possibility of a synthesis.

scholarly journals ON VARIOUS ASPECTS OF AUTONOMOUS SECONDARY NAMING PROCESS (IDIOMATIC USAGE) IN THE MODERN ARABIC LANGUAGE

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-14
Author(s):  
Y. S. Ayvazyan
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Morphological Characteristics ◽  
Arabic Language ◽  
Word Formation ◽  
Formation Processes ◽  
Single Word ◽  
Loan Words ◽  
Arabic Linguistics ◽  
Modern Arabic ◽  
Literary Arabic

The article is devoted to the study of the theoretical basis of autonomous secondary naming processes and scrutinizing the issues, related to this type of naming in the scope of modern Arabic lexicology as a productive means of assigning meanings to concepts.The article reviews approaches of native and Arabic authors to the comprehension of the phenomenon and features of autonomous secondary naming (in modern Arabic linguistics – ‘Al-Majaaz’).The paper deals with morphological nuances of word formation and specific aspects of functioning of lexical units formed as the result of Al-Majaaz. It also touches upon semantics of secondary autonomous units.The article shows the correlation between autonomous secondary nomination units and single-word semantic borrowings (loans). Morphological characteristics of single-unit loan words and the reasons of their functioning in Modern Literary Arabic are also subject to study.The paper considers the prospects of autonomous secondary units functioning in the context of their interconnection with polysemy, homonymy and synonymy.This paper will be of interest for students, who study Arabic and lexicology, semantics and morphology issues, as well as for translators interested in word formation processes.

scholarly journals Phonological and Morphological Functions of Palatalisation in Irish and Polish

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 99-134
Author(s):  
Eugeniusz Cyran ◽  
◽  
Bogdan Szymanek ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Word Formation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
Front Vowel ◽  
Verbal Nouns ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Status ◽  
Historical Origin ◽  
Nominal Inflection ◽  
Phonemic Status

The paper attempts to compare the status of palatalization of consonants in Modern Irish and Polish within the phonological and morphological systems of the two languages. Irish and Polish have been selected from the Celtic and Slavic groups due to the fact that both have palatalized consonants. One function, which is connected with the palatalized / non-palatalized distinction is expressing lexical contrast, e.g. Irish cúis [ku:ʃ] ‘reason’ vs. ciumhais [kʲu:ʃ] ‘edge’ and Polish beli [beli] ‘roll, Gen.sg.’ vs. bieli [bʲeli] ‘whiteness, Gen.sg.’. Phonologically speaking, the term ‘palatalization’ is rather broad and ambiguous, as it subsumes two quite disparate linguistic situations. Namely, it may be understood as a dynamic phonetic or phonological process of fronting or softening a consonant in the context of the following front vowel [i/e] or glide [j]. In this sense, palatalization is allophonic, that is, a context dependent assimilatory process, as may be the case with Irish bith [bʲi] ‘existence’, or Polish bił [bʲiw] ‘he beat’. On the other hand, both Irish and Polish seem to show that palatalization of consonants may also be independent of the context, in which case we are not dealing with a process, but with a genuine lexical property of given consonants, that is, a phonemic distinction. This point can be illustrated by such forms as Irish beo [bʲo:] ‘alive’ and Polish biodro [bʲodro] ‘hip’. Here the palatalized consonant is followed by a back vowel and could not have been derived by assimilation. Another argument for the phonemic status of palatalization in the two languages comes from the forms in which the presence of a front vowel does not guarantee that a consonant will be palatalized, e.g. Irish tuí [ti:] ‘straw’ (cf. tí [tʲi:] ‘house, Gen.sg.’) and Polish beli [beli] ‘roll, Gen.sg.’. It may appear that the phonological similarities between Irish and Polish palatalization are considerable. However, the appealing picture becomes more complicated when the two systems are looked at in detail. Once present in the phonological representation of words, the property of palatalization in Irish behaves quite disparately from what is observed in Polish. In Irish, palatalization behaves as an independent property (autosegment) and has a tendency to spread leftwards, affecting the preceding short vowels, e.g. sop / soip [sop / sipʲ] ‘wisp / Gen.sg’, consonants and vowels, e.g. olc / oilc [olk / ilʲkʲ] ‘evil / Gen.sg.’, or even entire syllables, e.g. dorn / doirn [dorən / dirʲinʲ] ‘fist / Gen.sg.’. Thus, palatalization as an assimilatory process is not entirely inactive. On the other hand, in Polish, there is some vestigial consonant-vowel interaction, practically limited to velar consonants, as well as some cluster assimilation. The paper aims to define the conditions on the phonological scope of palatalization in Irish and Polish from the point of view of the historical origin of the phenomenon, distributional restrictions, and participation in processes. Both languages successfully utilize the palatalized / non-palatalized distinction also in the respective morphological systems. This general similarity has a historical origin in the loss of final syllables. The paper surveys various lexical derivations and inflectional paradigms involving palatalization in Irish and Polish. From the formal point of view, there seem to be two main ways in which the palatalized / non-palatalized distinction is utilized morphologically, each of which has two subcategories: 1. Palatalization a. as a sole formative: C > Cʲ, e.g. Irish bád / báid [bɑ:d / bɑ:dʲ] ‘boat, Nom.sg. / Nom.pl.’, and Polish ryb-a / rybi-a [rɨba / rybʲa] ‘fish, Nom.sg. / adj.Nom.sg.fem.’. b. as a co-formative: C > Cʲ+vowel, e.g. Irish deas / deise [dʲas / dʲeʃə] ‘nice / Gen.sg.’, and Polish student / studenc-i [student / studeɲtɕi] ‘student, Nom.sg. / Nom.pl.’. 2. De-palatalization a. as a sole formative: Cʲ > C, e.g. Irish athair / athar [ahir / ahər] ‘father, Nom.sg. / Gen.sg.’. b. as a co-formative: e.g. Polish liść / list-ek [liɕtɕ / listek] ‘leaf / dim.’ From the functional viewpoint, these effects are seen, in Polish, in some paradigms of nominal inflection, the derivation of abstract nouns from adjectives and of possessive denominal adjectives, as well as in large areas of expressive word-formation, etc. In Irish, the morphological impact of palatalization is best observed in the nominal inflection, but it also present in verbal inflection and some derivations, e.g. Verbal Nouns. Further cross-linguistic comparison and typological research is called for in order to fully appreciate the status of palatalization as a link between phonology and morphology. This paper attempts to lay the foundations for such research.

scholarly journals SPELLING TERMS CONDITIONS CREATED BY CALKING

2021 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-18
Author(s):  
А. Aldash
Keyword(s):  
Language Policy ◽  
Close Relationships ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Word Formation ◽  
Written Communication ◽  
Single Word ◽  
The Republic

One of the important problems put forward by the language policy and language strategy in the Republic of Kazakhstan is the modernization of the spelling rules of the Kazakh language based on the new romanized alphabet. In this regard, taking into account the internal specifics of the language, active work is being carried out to update the spelling of the native Kazakh and borrowed words. Of particular relevance is borrowing, incl. phrases formed by tracing. The need to study this layer of borrowings also lies in the fact that traced word combinations are characterized by close relationships between word formation and the syntactic structure of the Kazakh language. As a result of such relations, composite nominative units are created that are semantically integral, stylistically neutral and functionally equal to a single word. When creating such phrases, productive word-forming formants (-лық / -лік and -лы / -лі) are involved, which have common functional meanings. In connection with the synonymy of the meanings of the formants in written communication, spelling variants of compound names appear. Spelling discrepancy is also observed in the terminological corpus of the Kazakh language. This article is devoted to the study of ways and methods of unification, codification of semantically integral compound names created by tracing and adding synonymous word-formation formants to the motivating component.

Derivational Morphology under the Influence of Language Contact in French and German

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 68-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Heinold
Keyword(s):  
Language Contact ◽  
Word Formation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Morphological Properties ◽  
Special Consideration ◽  
Derivational Morphology ◽  
The Past ◽  
Semantic Point

AbstractThis paper analyses deverbal nominalisations in English, German and French: under special consideration is the -ing-suffixation which appears in all three languages. In German and French, more and more -ing-derived loans have been adopted into the language during the past decades. In both languages, they have developed semantic and morphological properties of their own that overlap or contrast with rival native processes, such as the productive -ung and -en for German, and -age, -(t)ion and -ment for French. I will analyse this evolution especially from a semantic point of view and give reasons why the loan as well as the native forms can co-exist. Moreover, I will discuss the question of how far the -ing-suffixation can be considered an established and transparent word-formation rule for French and German.

Formes Simples en 0-

1995 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 429-441
Author(s):  
André Dugas ◽  
Yvette Yannick Mathieu ◽  
Blandine Courtois
Keyword(s):  
Word Formation ◽  
The Other ◽  
French Language ◽  
Formation Processes ◽  
Not Given ◽  
Written Form ◽  
Machine Readable

The linguistic fund, that is, the actual lexical inventory of a language, is always considerably larger than the sum total of the contents of dictionaries for that language. It corresponds to all the possibilities of derivation and compounding — with the associated word-formation rules. The exploitation of the latter within machine-readable dictionaries should therefore allow a far more accurate coverage of the linguistic fund, by generating thousands of additional entries, some being more or loss widely attested in their written form, some representing the set of virtual words generated by a productive rule that have not, for one reason or another, been recognized as existing words. Note that the boundary between the two subsets is not clearcut. The conditions which determine whether a generated form will belong to one or the other have not given rise to extensive studies, neither in linguistics nor in lexicology, in spite of their significance for a better understanding of lexical creativity and word-formation processes. The relevance of such phenomena seems to have been greatly underestimated — as is indicated by the fact that no studies have been fulfilled on the topic of words such as médico-légal and franco-québécois. We will demonstrate and illustrate for the French language the shortcomings of the simple compiling method and how ignoring them has led to unnecessary complications in the field of electronic lexicography.

The Derivational Processes of Coronavirus Related Terms in WHO Website "Mythbusters"

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Brando Pancarian Butar
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Word Formation ◽  
The Other ◽  
Formation Processes ◽  
Morphological Approach ◽  
Compound Process ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Derivation Process

The present research discusses about the derivational process of Coronavirus in WHO website “Mythbusters”. The reason of choosing the topic is because word formation processes occur in various area, including scientific areas. The impact of Coronavirus disease influenced the usage of spesific terms related with Coronavirus. People need to understand the Coronavirus related terms, so that they able to use and understand new terms to help them deliver different kinds of information. This research has the purpose of figuring out what types of derivational word formation of Coronavirus related terms are found in the WHO "Mythbusters." Thus, a morphological approach is used to facilitate the researcher on conducting the analysis. The researcher conducted a qualitative research using content analysis in analyzing the data. Based on the analysis of derivational processes in WHO website “Mythbusters” article, the researcher found 24 coronavirus related terms formed by derivational processes. There are 18 coronavirus related terms formed by derivation process, which consist of 10 nominalizer and 8 adjectivalizer found in the article. The derivational affixes occur in “Mythbusters” are {-ion}, {Anti-}, {-ness}, {-ment}, {-al}, {-ous}, {-ful}, and {-y}. There are 6 coronavirus related term formed by compound process. 5 terms are formed with compound noun process, while the other is formed by compound adjective.  Key words: Derivational, Coronavirus, WHO

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document