This article deals 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 group belong 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.

Derivatives of group

A derivative is a syntagma consisting of a determinant and a determinatum, whether we have a compound - head-ache - , a suffixal derivative - father-hood - , or a prefixal derivative - un-do -. Both parts are morphemes (signs based on a significate/significant relation.)
Prefixal and suffixal derivatives must be opposable to their unprefixed and unsuffixed bases (un-do to do) and to other derivatives containing the same dependent morpheme (un-do to un-fasten, un-roll).

I.1. Word formation

I.1.1. Definition of the field of word-formation

I.1.1.a. According to Hans Marchand: “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. Word-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.” (Marchand, 1975: 111)

I.1.1.b. Valerie Adams writes: “An important autonomistic principle is that all elements, roots and affixes, should have only one meaning each; and the meaning of an element must remain the same in all its combinations. This means that word-formation can be seen as always strictly an additive process, semantically as well as formally. […] for every rule by which we build up a combination, we should be able to formulate a rule which is its exact reverse, to analyse and dissect that combination.” (Adams, 1992: 202)

I.1.2. Methods of word-formation
“Two principal methods are applied in the science of language: the synchronic and the diachronic one. With regard to word-formation, the synchronic linguist would study the present-day system of formative types while the scholar of the diachronic school would write the history of word-formation.” (Marchand: 116)

I.2. Compounding

I.2.1. Compounding and stress
“For a combination to be a compound there is one condition to be fulfilled: the compound must be morphologically isolated from a parallel syntactic group. […] Blackbird has the morpho-phonemic stress pattern of a compound, black market has not, despite its phrasal meaning; the latter therefore is a syntactic group, morphologically speaking. Stress is a criterion here. “[…] “On the other hand, there are many combinations with double stress which are undoubtedly compounds. Most combinations with participles as second-words belong here: easy-going, high-born. ” […] “Other relations are of a purely semantic nature. The following cases involve forestress pattern. The underlying concept is that of purpose, destination: theater ticket, […] paper clip, reception room, etc. The significance of the second-word is naturally dependent on that of the first-word: windmill, watermill, etc. The first-word denotes the originator of what is expressed by the second-word: rainwater, rainbow, etc. The underlying concept is that of resemblance: blockhead […] horse-fish, etc.” (Marchand: 118-119)

“As a combination of two independent words, basically speaking, a compound combines two elements which are characterized by presence of stress. Absence of stress in general indicates grammaticalization of a morphemic element. The determinant has the heavy, the determinatum the middle stress. Thus the usual pattern is raínbow, which is also followed by combinations with a zero derivatum (pick-pocket). ” (Marchand: 120)

I.2.2. Adams discusses compounding and derivation together. She writes: “A ‘compound word’ is usually understood to be the result of the (fixed) combination of two free forms, or words that have an otherwise independent existence […] These items, though clearly composed of two elements, have the identifying characteristics of single words: their constituents may not be separated by other forms, and their order is fixed. In a ‘derived word’, at least one element, the affix, is a bound form, with no independent existence and, characteristically, the more general meaning that one would expect a ‘grammatical’ element to have. Thus, compounding may be distinguished from derivation both formally, in terms of the presence or absence of a bound form, and semantically, according to whether both elements are ‘lexical’ or not. ” (Adams: 30)

I. 3. Prefixation

I.3.1. Prefixing on a Neo-Latin basis of coining
“There are many prefixes, chiefly used in learned words or in scientific terminology, which have come into the language through borrowing from Modern Latin, as
- ante-,
- extra-,
- intra-/meta-,
- para-, etc.

They may represent
1. such elements as are prefixes in Latin or Greek, as a- (acaudal), semi- (semi-annual)
2. such elements as exist as prepositions or particles with an independent word existence, as intra, circum/hyper, para,
3. such as are the stems of full words in Latin or greek, as multi-, omni-/astro-, hydro-.
[…] they represent loan elements in English with no independent existence as words.
[…]Only such particles as are prefixed to full English words of general, learned, scientific or technical character can be termed prefixes. Hyper- in hypersensitive is a prefix, but hyper- in hypertrophy is not, as -trophy is no word.” (Marchand: 123)

“A pre-particle or prefix combination may be based on three different conceptual patterns and accordingly present the prefix in three functional aspects:
- the prefix has adjectival force (co-hostess)
- the prefix has adverbial force (informal, rewrite)
- the prefix has prepositional force (prewar years, postgraduate)

I.3.2.Adams traces back the origins and history of Greek and Latin stems
“In Greek and Latin, the stem, the lexical form which underlines all the members of an inflectional paradigm, is an incomplete form, since it is never used without an ending. In a complex word, as first element, the ending takes the form of a ‘combining vowel’, unless the second element begins with a vowel, in which case the combining vowel is omitted.” She further talkes about some neo-classical elements, that may only occur in initial position in words (bio-, crypto-, pseudo-), or only in final position (-cracy, -nym, -scope). She also makes the distinction between affix and neo-classical compound-element. (Adams: 31-32)

I.4. Suffixation

I.4.1. Suffixation Definition

“A suffix is a derivative final element which is or formerly was productive in forming words. A suffix has semantic value, but it does not occur as an independent speech unit. ” […] “It is necessary to point out the similarity and difference between derivative and functional morphemes. […] The -s of citizens is the inflectional formative of the grammatical category ‘plural’, whereas -ry forms a class of words with the semantic basis ‘group, collectivity of…’ A suffixal derivative is primarily a lexical form. It is a two-morpheme word which behaves like a one-morpheme word in that it is “grammatically equivalent to any simple word in all the constructions where it occurs” (Bloch-Trager, OLA 54).An inflected word is primarily a grammatical form which does not meet the requirements just stated.” (Marchand: 125)
Marchand from this point onwards talks about the origin of suffixes.

I.4.2. The two morphological bases of derivation

Six ways of the several methods of suffixing: (The first three groups being referred to as word-formation on a native basis of coining.)

1. Derivation by native suffixes, as goodness from good. This process involves no changes of stress, vowels or consonants in derivative as against the basis.

2. Derivation by means of imported suffixes under the same phonologic conditions as group 1, as lovable from love.

3. Derivation by means of imported suffixes, involving phonologic changes of stress, vowels or consonants, as Japanese from Japan.

4. The suffix is tacked on not to an English word but on to a Latin stem which closely resembles, however, the word that stands for it in English, as scient-ist from science.

5. The suffix is tacked on to a Latin or Greek stem which has, however, no adapted English equivalent, as lingual from L lingua.

Groups 4 and 5 are referred to as word-formation on a foreign or Neo-Latin basis of coining.

6. Words which have originally been borrowed separately come to take on the form of derivative alternations in English on whose pattern new words may be derived: on the analogy of piracy as from pirate. This method will be referred to as correlative derivation.” (Marchand: 131-132)

I.5. Derivation by a zero-morpheme

I.5.1.The characteristic of derivation without a derivative morpheme
is that “a certain stem is used for the formation of a categorically different word without a derivative element being added. In synchronic terminology, we have syntagmas whose determinatum is not expressed in the significant (form). The significate (content) is represented in the syntagma but zero marked (i.e. it has no counterpart in form): Dloan vb is ‘make a loan’.” (Marchand: 132)

I.5.2. Adams writes : “Derivation by the simple addition of an ending appropriate to one class attached to a root of another class, […], is called ‘direct’ or ‘immediate’ derivation.” (Adams: 203)

I.6. Backderivation
“Synchronically speaking, not all backderivations have the same status. We distinguish two groups:

1. burgle V from burglar
swindlers Su from swindle V.
While a swindler is ‘one who swindles’, surely a burglar is not ‘one who burgles’.[…] swindler is considered a genuine derivative from swindle V. […] The verb burgle is zero derived from burglar.” (Marchand: 133)

I.7.Clipping

I.7.1. What is clipping?
“Clipping consists in the reduction of a word to one of its parts. […] The difference between the short and thelong word is obviously not one of logical content. […]
What makes the difference between mag and magazine, […] is the way the long word and the short word are used in speech. They are not interchangeable in the same type of speech. […]The process of clipping, therefore, has not the grammatical status that compounding, prefixing, suffixing, and zero-derivation have, and is not relevant to the linguistic system itself but to speech.

I.7.2. Different kinds of clipping
1. Back clipping: lab for laboratory;
2. Fore-clipping: plane for airplane;
3. Clipping-compounds: navicert for navigation certificate.

[…] In a few cases the full words have died out, so the clippings become new roots. This is the case with chap (chapman), etc.” (Marchand: 141-144)

I.8. Blending

I.8.1 Definition of Blending
” Blending […] is an intentional process of word coining.” Parts of words merge into one new word. […] Blending […] has no grammatical, but a stylistic status. The result of blending is, indeed, alwways a moneme, […] an unanalysable, simple word, not a motivated syntagma. ” (Marchand: 144)

Reference List

Marchand, Hans. 1975. “The Categories And Types of Present-Day English Word-
Formation.” xxx
Adams, Valerie. 1992. An Introduction To Modern English Word-Formation. London: Longman Group Ltd.

Technorati Profile