Outline

This chapter discusses in some detail the problems that arise with the implementation of the basic notions introduced in chapter 1 in the actual analysis of word structure in English. First the notion of the morpheme is scrutinized with its problems of the mapping of form and meaning. Then the phenomenon of base and affix allomorphy is introduced, followed by a discussion of the notion of word-formation rule. Finally, cases of multiple affixation and compounding are analyzed.

Identifying morphemes

In the previous chapter we introduced the crucial notion of the morpheme as the smallest meaningful unit. We have seen that this notion is very useful in accounting for the internal structure of many complex words (recall our examples employ-ee, invent-or, un-happy, etc.). In this section, we will look at more data and see that there are a number of problems involved with the morpheme as the central morphological unit.

The morpheme as the minimal linguistic sign

The most important characteristic of the traditional morpheme is that it is conceived of as a unit of form and meaning. For example, the morpheme un- (as in unhappy) is an entity that consists of the content or meaning on the one hand, and the sounds or letters which express this meaning on the other hand. It is a unit of form and meaning, a sign. The notion of sign may be familiar to most readers from non-linguistic contexts.

The existence of words is usually taken for granted by the speakers of a language. To speak and understand a language means – among many other things – knowing the words of that language. The average speaker knows thousands of words, and new words enter our minds and our language on a daily basis. This book is about words. More specifically, it deals with the internal structure of complex words, i.e. words that are composed of more than one meaningful element. Take, for example, the very word meaningful, which could be argued to consist of two elements, meaning and -ful, or even three, mean, -ing, and -ful. We will address the question of how such words are related to other words and how the language allows speakers to create new words. For example, meaningful seems to be clearly related to colorful, but perhaps less so to awful or plentiful. And, given that meaningful may be paraphrased as ‘having (a definite) meaning,’ and colorful as ‘having (bright or many different) colors,’ we could ask whether it is also possible to create the word coffeeful, meaning ‘having coffee.’ Under the assumption that language is a rule-governed system, it should be possible to find meaningful answers to such questions.

This area of study is traditionally referred to as ‘word-formation’ and the present book is mainly concerned with word-formation in one particular language, English. As a textbook for an undergraduate readership it presupposes very little or no prior knowledge of linguistics and introduces and explains linguistic terminology and theoretical apparatus as we go along.

Outline

This chapter introduces basic concepts needed for the study and description of morphologically complex words. Since this is a book about the particular branch of morphology called word-formation, we will first take a look at the notion of ‘word.’ We will then turn to a first analysis of the kinds of phenomena that fall into the domain of word-formation, before we finally discuss how word-formation can be distinguished from the other sub-branch of morphology, inflection.

What is a word?

It has been estimated that average speakers of a language know from 45,000 to 60,000 words. This means that we as speakers must have stored these words somewhere in our heads, our so-called mental lexicon. But what exactly is it that we have stored? What do we mean when we speak of ‘words’?

In non-technical everyday talk, we speak about ‘words’ without ever thinking that this could be a problematic notion. In this section we will see that, perhaps contra our first intuitive feeling, the ‘word’ as a linguistic unit deserves some attention, because it is not as straightforward as one might expect.

If you had to define what a word is, you might first think of the word as a unit in the writing system, the so-called orthographic word. You could say, for example, that a word is an uninterrupted string of letters which is preceded by a blank space and followed either by a blank space or a punctuation mark.

Chapter 1

Exercise 1.1

A grammatical word is a word that is specified for grammatical categories and can occur as such in a sentence. Thus, walked in (a) is a grammatical word because it is a verb that is specified for tense, in this case past tense. In (b), walk is also a grammatical word, because it is a verb used in the second person (even though second person is not overtly marked on the verb). Walked, walk, and walking are all different forms, i.e. ‘word-forms,’ of one underlying word, the so-called lexeme, walk. The word-forms walked, walk, and walking are also orthographic words, because they occur between blank spaces. The word-form walking is part of a larger grammatical word, the compound walking stick (‘a stick for walking’). This compound is represented by two orthographic words.

Exercise 1.2

Morpheme: the smallest meaningful unit, e.g. walk and -ed in walked.

Prefix: a bound morpheme that is attached in front of a base, e.g. de- in decolonialize.

Suffix: a bound morpheme that is attached after a base, e.g. -ed in walked.

Affix: the cover term for prefix, suffix, infix, e.g. de-, -ed, -bloody- are all affixes.

Compound: a word made up of two bases, e.g. apartment building.

Root: the smallest, central, meaningful element of the word, e.g. colony in decolonialize.

Truncation: a morphological process by which the derived word is created by subtracting material from the base, as in Rob (← Robert).

Outline

This chapter is concerned with compounds. Section 6.1 focuses on the basic characteristics of compounds, investigating the kinds of element compounds are made of, their internal structure, headedness, and stress patterns. This is followed by descriptions of individual compounding patterns and the discussion of the specific empirical and theoretical problems these patterns pose. In particular, nominal, adjectival, verbal, and neoclassical compounds are examined, followed by an exploration of the syntax–morphology boundary.

Recognizing compounds

Compounding was mentioned in passing in the preceding chapters and some of its characteristics have already been discussed. For example, in chapter 1 we briefly commented on the orthography and stress pattern of compounds, and in chapter 4 we investigated the boundary between affixation and compounding and introduced the notion of neoclassical compounds. In this chapter we will take a closer look at compounding and the intricate problems involved in this phenomenon. Although compounding is the most productive type of word-formation process in English, it is perhaps also the most controversial one in terms of its linguistic analysis and I must forewarn readers seeking clear answers to their questions that compounding is a field of study where intricate problems abound, numerous issues remain unresolved, and convincing solutions are generally not so easy to find.

Let us start with the problem of definition: what exactly do we mean when we say that a given form is a compound?

Outline

In this chapter we will look at the mechanisms that are responsible for the fact that some affixes can easily be used to coin new words while other affixes can not. First, the notions of ‘possible word’ and ‘actual word’ are explored, which leads to the discussion of how complex words are stored and accessed in the mental lexicon. This turns out to be of crucial importance for the understanding of productivity. Different measures of productivity are introduced and applied to a number of affixes. Finally, some general restrictions on productivity are discussed.

Introduction: what is productivity?

We have seen in the previous chapter that we can distinguish between redundancy rules that describe the relationship between existing words and word formation rules that can in addition be used to create new words. Any theory of word-formation would therefore ideally not only describe existing complex words but also determine which kinds of derivative could be formed by the speakers according to the regularities and conditions of the rules of their language. In other words, any word-formation theory should make predictions about which words are possible in a language and which words are not.

Some affixes are often used to create new words, whereas others are less often used, or not used at all, for this purpose. The property of an affix to be used to coin new complex words is referred to as the productivity of that affix.

Outline

In this chapter theories are introduced that try to find principled answers to two central problems of morphology. We will first examine the theory of Lexical Phonology as a theory that tries to model the interaction of phonology and morphology. In the second part of the chapter we discuss how different morphological theories conceptualize the form and nature of word-formation rules.

Introduction: why theory?

This chapter is devoted to theory and the obvious question is ‘why?’. Haven't we so far rather successfully dealt with numerous phenomena without making use of morphological theory? The answer is clearly ‘no.’ Whenever we had to solve an empirical problem, i.e. to explain an observation with regard to complex words, we had to make recourse to theoretical notions such as ‘word,’ ‘affix,’ ‘rule,’ ‘alternation,’ ‘prosody,’ ‘head,’ etc. In other words, during our journey through the realm of complex words, we tacitly developed a theory of word-formation without ever addressing explicitly the question of how our theoretical bits and pieces may fit together to form an overall theory of word-formation.

But what is a theory? Webster's Third defines the term ‘theory’ as “a coherent set of hypothetical, conceptual and pragmatic principles forming the general frame of reference for a particular field of inquiry (as for deducing principles, formulating hypotheses for testing, undertaking actions)” (Webster's Third, s. v. theory). In a more restricted sense a certain theory is a “hypothetical entity or structure explaining or relating an observed set of facts” (Webster's Third, s. v. theory).

This book could not have been written without the support of many people. Numerous colleagues have provided critical comments at various stages of this project, some of them even reading subsequent versions of the same chapter. Their feedback was simply invaluable and has made me reformulate my ideas and arguments over and over again. Whoever commented on the text contributed very special insights and taught me that a text can be read and understood (and, yes, also misread and misunderstood) in many different ways. The following friends and colleagues have generously put in their time and energy: Birgit Alber, Harald Baayen, Maria Braun, Hartmut Gembries, Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Sabine Lappe, Martin Neef, and Jörg Meibauer. Needless to say, they are not to blame for the remaining flaws and inadequacies.

I also have to thank my student assistants Guido Bongard and Karina Lückoff, who read chapters, worked on the exercises and helped in various ways in the preparation of the manuscript. Special thanks go to Maria Braun for her meticulous work on the exercises, which made clear to me where things could go wrong and needed revision. Gisela Schwung made life much easier for me during the past two years by her efficient handling of all kinds of organizational matters.

Outline

This chapter provides an overview of the affixational word-formation processes of English. First, it discusses how affixes can be distinguished from other entities. This is followed by an introduction to the methodological problems of data gathering for the study of affixation through dictionaries and electronic corpora. Then some general properties that characterize the system of English affixation are introduced, and a survey of a wide range of suffixes and prefixes is presented. Finally, we investigate cases of infixation.

What is an affix?

In chapter 1 we defined ‘affix’ as a bound morpheme that attaches to bases. Although this seems like a clear definition, there are at least two major problems. First, it is not always easy to say whether something is a bound morpheme or a free morpheme, and second, it is not always obvious whether something should be regarded as a base or an affix. We will discuss each problem in turn.

Consider the data in (1) through (4), which show the putative affixes -free, -less, -like, and -wise in a number of derivatives, illustrated with quotations from the BNC:

1. (1) There was never an error-free text, Cropper said.

2. (2) Now the lanes were carless, lawless.

3. (3) Arriving on her broomstick at the prison-like school gates, Mildred peered through the railings into the misty playground.

4. (4) She had been a teacher, and made sure the girl went to a good school: “my granny had more influence on me education-wise.”