E-Book, Englisch, Band 64, 477 Seiten
Stekauer / Lieber Handbook of Word-Formation
1. Auflage 2006
ISBN: 978-1-4020-3596-8
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark
E-Book, Englisch, Band 64, 477 Seiten
Reihe: Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
ISBN: 978-1-4020-3596-8
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark
This volume, intended both for advanced students and scholars of linguistics, traces the many strands of study in the field of word formation that have developed since the seminal work of Marchand and Lees in the 1960s. In mapping the state of the art in the field of word formation, it avoids a biased approach by presenting different, but mutually complementary frameworks within which research into word formation has taken place. It covers the historical development of theories of word formation within generative grammar, and affords a solid introduction to the treatment of word formation in cognitive grammar, natural morphology, optimality theory, Lexeme Morpheme Base Morphology, onomasiological theory, and other recent frameworks. Each topic is presented by an expert who has contributed significantly to the field. In addition to surveying theoretical developments from both European and North American perspectives, it looks specifically at individual English word formation processes (derivation, compounding, conversion) and reviews some of the ways in which they have been analyzed since Marchand?s comprehensive treatment nearly five decades ago.
Zielgruppe
Linguistics (general)
Autoren/Hrsg.
Weitere Infos & Material
1;CONTENTS;6
2;PREFACE;18
3;CONTRIBUTORS;20
4;BASIC TERMINOLOGY- ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY;24
4.1;1. THE NOTION OF THE LINGUISTIC SIGN;24
4.2;2. MORPHEME AND WORD;29
4.3;3. ‘MORPHEMES’ SINCE THE 1960S;39
5;WORD-FORMATION AND PHONOLOGY- ELLEN M. KAISSE;44
5.1;1. INTRODUCTION;44
5.2;2. EFFECTS OF LEXICAL CATEGORY, MORPHOLOGICAL STRUCTURE, AND AFFIX TYPE ON PHONOLOGY;45
5.3;3. MORPHOLOGY LIMITED BY THE PHONOLOGICAL FORM OF THE BASE OF AFFIXATION;51
5.4;4. LEXICAL PHONOLOGY AND MORPHOLOGY AND ITS ILLS;53
5.5;5. MORE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS OF LEXICAL PHONOLOGY AND MORPHOLOGY;57
5.6;6. HOW DO RELATED WORDS AFFECT EACH OTHER? THE CYCLE, TRANSDERIVATIONAL EFFECTS, PARADIGM UNIFORMITY AND THE LIKE;58
5.7;7. DO THE COHERING AFFIXES FORM A COHERENT SET? SPLIT BASES, SUBCATWORD AND PHONETICS IN MORPHOLOGY;60
5.8;8. CONCLUSION;64
6;WORD-FORMATION AND INFLECTIONAL MORPHOLOGY- GREGORY T. STUMP;68
6.1;1. THE CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INFLECTION AND WORD-FORMATION;68
6.2;2. THE INFLECTIONAL CATEGORIES OF ENGLISH;69
6.3;3. PRACTICAL CRITERIA FOR DISTINGUISHING INFLECTION FROM WORD-FORMATION;72
6.4;4. PRACTICAL CRITERIA FOR DISTINGUISHING INFLECTIONAL PERIPHRASES;78
6.5;5. SOME SIMILARITIES BETWEEN INFLECTION AND WORD-FORMATION;79
6.6;6. COMPLEX INTERACTIONS BETWEEN INFLECTION AND WORD-FORMATION;80
6.7;7. INFLECTIONAL PARADIGMS AND WORD-FORMATION PARADIGMS;84
7;WORD-FORMATION AND SYNTAX- ANDREW SPENCER;92
7.1;1. INTRODUCTION;92
7.2;2. LEXICAL RELATEDNESS AND SYNTAX;93
7.3;3. SYNTACTIC PHENOMENA INSIDE WORDS;101
7.4;4. ARGUMENT STRUCTURE REALIZATION;102
7.5;5. THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO WORD FORMATION;108
7.6;6. SUMMARY AND AFTERWORD;112
8;HANS MARCHAND AND THE MARCHANDEANS- DIETER KASTOVSKY;118
8.1;1. INTRODUCTION;118
8.2;2. HANS MARCHAND;119
8.3;3. KLAUS HANSEN;126
8.4;4. HERBERT ERNST BREKLE;128
8.5;5. LEONHARD LIPKA;131
8.6;6. DIETER KASTOVSKY;133
8.7;7. GABRIELE STEIN (LADY QUIRK);135
8.8;8. CONCLUSION;137
9;CHOMSKY’S REMARKS AND THE TRANSFORMATIONALIST HYPOTHESIS- TOM ROEPER;144
9.1;1. NOMINALIZATIONS AND CORE GRAMMAR;144
9.2;2. THE SUBJECT ENIGMA;147
9.3;3. CASE ASSIGNMENT;152
9.4;4. INTRIGUING ISSUES: ASPECTUAL DIFFERENTIATION OF NOMINALIZATION AFFIXES;155
9.5;5. WHERE DO AFFIXES ATTACH?;157
9.6;6. ELABORATED PHRASE STRUCTURE AND NOMINALIZATIONS;160
9.7;7. CONCLUSION;163
10;THE LEXICALIST APPROACH TO WORD-FORMATION AND THE NOTION OF THE LEXICON- SERGIO SCALISE AND EMILIANO GUEVARA;166
10.1;1. A DEFINITION;166
10.2;2. A BRIEF HISTORY;167
10.3;3. THE LEXICON;170
10.4;4. LEXICALISM;172
10.5;5. SOME MAJOR ISSUES;185
10.6;6. MORE ON THE NOTION OF LEXICON;190
10.7;7. LEXICALISM TODAY;192
10.8;8. CONCLUSION;200
11;LEXEME-MORPHEME BASE MORPHOLOGY- ROBERT BEARD AND MARK VOLPE;208
11.1;1. INTRODUCTION;208
11.2;2. THE THREE BASIC HYPOTHESES OF LMBM;208
11.3;3. TYPES OF LEXICAL (L-) DERIVATION;213
11.4;4. CONCLUSION;219
11.5;APPENDIX;220
12;ONOMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO WORDFORMATION- PAVOL ŠTEKAUER;226
12.1;1. INTRODUCTION;226
12.2;2. METHODS OF ONOMASIOLOGICAL RESEARCH;227
12.3;3. THEORETICAL APPROACHES;228
13;COGNITIVE APPROACH TO WORD-FORMATION- DAVID TUGGY;252
13.1;1. BASIC NOTIONS OF COGNITIVE GRAMMAR (CG);252
13.2;2. SCHEMAS AND PROTOTYPES;254
13.3;3. SCHEMAS FOR WORD FORMATION;259
13.4;4.OVERVIEWOF OTHER ISSUES;277
13.5;5. WHAT’S SPECIAL ABOUT ENGLISH WORD FORMATION?;280
13.6;6. CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS OF ACCOUNTING FOR MORPHOLOGY BY SCHEMAS;281
14;WORD-FORMATION IN NATURAL MORPHOLOGY- WOLFGANG U. DRESSLER;286
14.1;1. INTRODUCTION;286
14.2;2. UNIVERSAL, SYSTEM-INDEPENDENT MORPHOLOGICAL NATURALNESS;287
14.3;3. TYPOLOGICAL ADEQUACY;297
14.4;4. SYSTEM-DEPENDENT NATURALNESS;298
15;WORD-FORMATION IN OPTIMALITY THEORY- PETER ACKEMA AND AD NEELEMAN;304
15.1;1. INTRODUCTION;304
15.2;2. COMPETITION BETWEEN DIFFERENT MORPHEMES;306
15.3;3. COMPETITION BETWEEN COMPONENTS;317
15.4;4. COMPETITION BETWEEN DIFFERENT MORPHEME ORDERS;322
15.5;5. CONCLUSION;330
16;PRODUCTIVITY: THEORIES- LAURIE BAUER;334
16.1;1. INTRODUCTION;334
16.2;2. PRE-GENERATIVE THEORIES OF PRODUCTIVITY;335
16.3;3. SCHULTINK (1961);336
16.4;4. ZIMMER (1964);337
16.5;5. ARONOFF;337
16.6;6. NATURAL MORPHOLOGY;340
16.7;7. KIPARSKY (1982);341
16.8;8. VAN MARLE (1985);342
16.9;9. CORBIN (1987);343
16.10;10. BAAYEN;343
16.11;11. PLAG (1999);345
16.12;12. HAY (2000);346
16.13;13. BAUER (2001);347
16.14;14. SOME THREADS;349
16.15;15. CONCLUSION;351
17;CONSTRAINTS ON PRODUCTIVITY- FRANZ RAINER;354
17.1;1. INTRODUCTION;354
17.2;2. UNIVERSAL CONSTRAINTS;354
17.3;3. LANGUAGE-SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS;359
17.4;4. FINAL REMARKS;368
18;LEXICALIZATION AND INSTITUTIONALIZATION- PETER HOHENHAUS;372
18.1;1. INTRODUCTION;372
18.2;2. LEXICALIZATION ;372
18.3;3. INSTITUTIONALIZATION;378
18.4;4. PROBLEMS;382
19;ENGLISH WORD-FORMATION PROCESSES Observations, Issues, and Thoughts on Future Research- ROCHELLE LIEBER;394
19.1;1. INTRODUCTION;394
19.2;2. COMPOUNDING;394
19.3;3. DERIVATION;402
19.4;4. CONVERSION;437
19.5;5. CONCLUSION;441
20;THE LATEST TRENDS IN ENGLISH WORD-FORMATION- BOGDAN SZYMANEK;448
20.1;1. INTRODUCTION;448
20.2;2. DERIVATIONAL NEOLOGISMS;449
20.3;3. ANALOGICAL FORMATIONS, LOCAL ANALOGIES;450
20.4;4. CHANGES IN THE RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE OF TYPES OF WORDFORMATION PROCESSES;450
20.5;5. SECRETION OF NEW AFFIXES;454
20.6;6. ‘LEXICALISATION’ OF AFFIXES;455
20.7;7. CHANGES IN THE PRODUCTIVITY, RELATIVE PRODUCTIVITY AND SCOPE OF INDIVIDUAL AFFIXES;455
20.8;8. SEMANTICS: CHANGES IN FORMATIVE FUNCTIONS;457
20.9;9. TRENDS IN THE FORM OF COMPLEX WORDS;460
21;SUBJECT INDEX;468
22;NAME INDEX;478
HANS MARCHAND AND THE MARCHANDEANS (S.99)
DIETER KASTOVSKY
1. INTRODUCTION
Hans Marchand’s contribution to the theory of word-formation in general and to the description of English word-formation in particular has unquestionably been extremely influential, and his handbook The categories and types of Present-day English word-formation (1st ed. 1960, 2nd. ed. 1969) is still an unsurpassed landmark in the field.
A discussion of the basic assumptions underlying his approach is therefore certainly appropriate in the context of this volume. But what about the term ‘Marchandean’, which was suggested by the editors of this volume? What does it mean to be a ‘Marchandean’? This certainly needs some kind of specification. Is it the fact that one has worked directly under Marchand’s supervision as a research assistant, like Herbert Ernst Brekle, Leonhard Lipka, myself and Gabriele Stein (the names are given in chronological order of appointment)?
Does it mean that someone has been very much influenced by his ideas, like Klaus Hansen, although he never met him personally? Or does it mean that someone has worked as part of a circle of linguists (nowadays sometimes called the ‘Tübinger Schule’), to which Marchand also belonged, but where other influences (e.g. Mario Wandruszka, Eugenio Coseriu in Romance and general linguistics, Hans-Jürgen Heringer, Otmar Werner in German linguistics) had also been very strong, as in the case of Hans Martin Gauger, Franz Hundsnurscher, Wilfried Kürschner or Christian Rohrer?
And even in the case of Marchand’s assistants, these latter linguists and other influences (especially from generative-transformational grammar) are clearly visible, since none of them would take over Marchand’s approach completely unchanged. Tübingen in the 1960s and 1970s was a hotbed of modern linguistics, with an active linguistic circle and a lot of cross-fertilisation also due to guests from outside. Therefore, the term ‘Marchandeans’ is perhaps somewhat problematic.
On the other hand, there is no denying that Marchand did have a great influence on many of us working on wordformation in Tübingen in the 1960s and 1970s and also later on, and therefore the term ‘Marchandean’ has a certain amount of justification, especially in view of the fact that there is a certain common theoretical basis underlying the work done by us. In the present context, it is of course not possible to take into consideration the more general influence of Marchand on many colleagues in Tübingen, who had not been members of the English Department, and I can only deal with the ‘inner circle’, i.e.
Marchand’s research assistants as well as Klaus Hansen, who Marchand regarded as his oldest pupil, although Hansen knew Marchand only by reading his publications and by an intensive correspondence, and, second-hand, through his contacts with Brekle, Lipka, Stein and myself. Moreover, I will concentrate on contribution to word-formation and not to the many other fields in which they have been active.
Also, I will focus on those areas in which the Marchandeans have added to or modified Marchand’s theory rather than sketching their overall theoretical approach, which has already been done in Štekauer (2000).
