1.2.1. Word-formation is that branch of the science of language which studies the patterns on which a language forms new lexical units, i.e. words. Ford-formation can only treat of composites which are analysable both formally and semantically. [...] The study of the simple word, therefore, insofar as it is an unanalysable, unmotivated sign, has no place in it. It is a lexical matter. A composite rests on a relationship between morphemes through which it is motivated. By this token, do-er, un-do, rain-bow are relevant to word-formation, but do, rain, bow are not.
1.2.2. The terms analysable composite and motivation require some comment. [...] While admitting that we have complete motivation only in combinations composed of full linguistic signs, i. e. combinations intellectually motivated by the significates (as in rain-bow, do-er, un-do where a certain form goes with a certain underlying concept) we find that this is not the only kind of motivation that occurs in the coining of new words. This book, therefore, will deal with two major groups: 1) words formed as grammatical syntagmas, i. e. combinations of full linguistic signs, and 2) words which are not grammatical syntagmas, i. e. which are composites not made up of full linguistic signs. To the first group belong Compounding, Prefixation, Suffixation, Derivation by a Zero Morpheme and Backderivation, to the second Expressive Symbolism, Blending, Clipping, Rime and Ablaut Gemination, Word-manufacturing. [...] What is common to both groups is that a new coining is based on a synchronic relationship between morphemes. Where there is no relationship in praesentia, we have to do moneme. That chap, for instance, is historically derived from chapman, is of no synchronic relevance. For the present-day speaker, no such relationship exists, therefore chap is a moneme.
1.2.3. As for derivatives of group 1), we have to state that a derivative is a syntagma consisting of a determinant and a determinatum, whether we have a compound (e. g. head-ache), a suffixal derivative (e. g. father-hood), or a prefixal derivative (e. g. un-do). Both parts are morphemes, i. e. signs based on a significate/significant relation. In the event of full compounds, the syntagma is opposable to either morphemic element (head-ache to head and ache). Prefixal and suffixal derivatives must be opposable to their unprefixed and unsuffixed bases (un-do to do, father-hood to father) and to other derivatives containing the same dependent morpheme (un-do to un-fasten, un-roll, etc., father-hood to mother-hood, boy-hood, etc.).
1.2.4. The process called backderivation (backformation) has diachronic relevance only. That peddle vb is derived from peddler sb through reinterpretation is of historical interest. However, for synchronic analysis the equation is peddle: peddler = write: writer, which means that the diachronic process of backderivation does not affect the derivative correlation for present-day speakers who do not feel any difference between the relationship write: writer on the one hand and peddle: peddler on the other.
|
|
|
1.2.5. The derivative element may be absent in the significant of the derivative in which case we speak of derivation by a zero morpheme (father vb treat as a father, idle vb be idle, etc.). [...] Yet one cannot caw without a caw, i. e. the concept caw is implied in the verbal concept saw. Though the problem is more complex than this isolated case suggests the general principle will be to assume that the concept which for its definition is dependent on the concept of the other pair member must be considered that of the derived word. [...]
1.2.6. From what has been stated about the syntagmatic character of derived words it is evident that whenever a word is not analysable as consisting of two morphemes it is a moneme, not a derivative. Defense, apply are opposable as whole units only, not to fence, ply (as far as the signs are concerned which are not identical with the sound clusters of the second syllable fence, -ply). [...]
1.2.7. It should be clear that loans from other languages, unless they have become analysable syntagmas (as e. g. dis-agreable and trans-alpine in English) have no place in a study of word-formation. [...]
Questions
1. How does Marchand define word-formation?
2. What does Marchand understand by the terms composite, moneme, full linguistic sign, determinant, determinantum?
3. What distinction is made between the two major groups of words from the point of view of their formation?
4. What is understood by derivative correlation?
KARL E. ZIMMER
