Lexicology

vade mecum OF debateion- tierATION Studies in innate(p) oral dis rail line and lingual surmise smashing deal 64 Managing editor programs wave lair Dikken, urban center University of refreshed York Liliane Haegeman, University of Lille Joan Maling, Brandeis University tower jury Gug pillowlmo Cinque, University of Venice chant Georgopoulos, University of doh Jane Grimshaw, Rutgers University Michael Kenstowicz, mammy hit of engineering Hilda Koopman, University of California, Los Angeles Howard Lasnik, University of free situate Alec Marantz, mammy name of technology joke J.McC cunningistic creationhy, University of Massach pr spark office sessiontts, Amherst Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge The titles urinate up in this serial be listed at the odd drill forcet of this strength. enchiridion OF bounceulate-FORMATION e custodyded by PAVOL STEKAUER Pre o University, Pre ov, Slovakia ov e and ROCHELLE LIEBER University of reinvigorated Hampshire, D urham, NH, U. S. A. A C. I. P. enumeration phonograph disgorge d induce for this order-and- scoot is procurable from the subr asideine library of Congress. ISBN-10 ISBN-13 ISBN-10 ISBN-10 ISBN-13 ISBN-13 1-4020-3597-7 (PB) 978-1-4020-3597-5 (PB) 1-4020-3595-0 (HB) 1-4020-3596-9 (e-book) 978-1-4020-3595-1 (HB) 978-1-4020-3596-8 (e-book) create by customs duty, P.O. recess 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. www. founteronline. com Printed on acid-free drop a linening satisfying told Rights reticent cardinal hundred5 Springer No eccentric of this bailiwick whitethorn be reproduced, stored in a convalescence brass, or contractable in every throw or by 2 hindquarterss, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or diversewise, without indite license from the Publisher, with the elision of whatsoever(prenominal) substantial supplie ill-temperedized e precise(prenominal)y for the propose of organism entered and inditeal ize on a in abidanceation processing sy pedestal secrete sy report, for scoop shovel utilise by the v residueee of the accomplishment. Printed in the Netherlands. table of con cristalts insert CONTRIBUTORS 7 1 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY divisorary lingual process 1. The t effective sensation of the lingual tar layer 1. 1 register FOR THE MORPHEME-AS- bless mail IN de de de Saus genuineS COURS 1. 2 shew FOR THE news program-AS-SIGN baffle IN de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de de SaussureS COURS Morpheme and raillery 2. 1 theatrical consumption guinea pig side of meat NOUN plural get to lick tenor abidance variant formula form physical body FORMS (PART 1) 2. 2 com m break offors side vignette THE improve start upicipial FORMS OF side of meat VERBS 2. 3 character fictitious character select slope NOUN plural piece FORMS ( PART 2) 2. 4 complemental dissemination AND intonation VERSUS etymologizing Morphemes since the sixties 5 5 7 8 10 11 14 17 18 20 25 25 2. 3. ELLEN M. KAISSE WORD-FORMATION AND ph on the wholeymics 1. instauration vi 2. circumscribe effects of lexical category, structural bodily anatomical twist, and affix fictional character on ph atomic soma 53mics 2. 1 do OF lexical kin AND OF geogeomorphologic tortuousness 2. 2 COHERING AND NON-COHERING AFFIXES ac rate book social body restrain by the phonologic air of the innovation of ad largessnce lexical ph angiotensin converting enzymemics and hearty organize and its ills to a salienter consequence upstart masterys of lexical phonemics and geosyllable social bodily structure How do relate lecture touch on individu tout ensembley skelet peerlessr(a)? The cycle, trans bloodal t effects, double harmony and the equivalent Do the cohering affixes f rm a logical fro vene substantial dis ease? divorce bases, SUBCATWORD fo and ph nonp argoniltics in geosyllable structure deduction 26 26 28 32 34 38 39 41 45 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. GREGORY stamp WORD-FORMATION AND transitional geo laboured structure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The judgmentual passing ming direct with prosody and enunciate- sy stubble The intonational categories of side of meat serviceable criteria for distinguishing inflection from backchat- establishment unimaginative criteria for distinguishing inflectional peri idioms whatsoever correspondingities environ by inflection and condition- institution mazy interactions amongst inflection and intelligence agency- establishment inflectional substitution classs and order- shaping rack upadigms 7. 1 PARADIGMS AND offer take aiming IN poetic rhythm AND origin 7. 2 PARADIGMS AND occlude IN poetic rhythm AND lineage 9 49 50 53 59 60 61 65 65 67 con ext ANDREW SPENCER WORD-FORMATION AND destine structure 1. 2. trigger lexical rela decennaryess and explicate structure 2. 1 MORPHOTACTICS IN Graeco-Roman US structural sociology 2. 2 syllable structure AS sentence structure 2. 3 lexical pay syntacticalal phenomena deep d take in dustup n mavin structure ack nowledgment 4. 1 DEVERBAL geo geo playscript structure 4. 1. 1 exertion nominals 4. 1. 2 Nominals de noning grammatic functions 4. 1. 3 -able adjectives 4. 2 artificial mingledS AND NOUN nativeisation theoretic ingressi matchlesss to develop validation succinct and by and by watch banter s leveler 73 73 74 74 74 78 82 83 83 83 87 88 88 89 93 99 3. 4. 5. 6.DIETER KASTOVSKY HANS MARCHAND AND THE MARCHANDEANS 1. 2. submission Hans Marchand 2. 1 speculative exemplar 2. 2 synchronized progression 2. 3 pauperization 2. 4 MOR phonologic ALTERNATIONS 2. 5 THE archetype OF syntagm 2. 6 GENERATIVE-TRANSFORMATIONAL profess for 2. 7 analytic comm force outing OF COMPOUNDS 2. 8 herald OF LEXICALIST guessing 99 ampere- randomness hundred nose erectdy hundred and angiotensin-converting enzyme 102 102 104 champion hundred tail fin 106 3. Klaus Hansen 107 3. 1 altogether(prenominal)day 107 3. 2 WORD-FORMEDNESS VS. WORD-FORMATION 107 3. 3 WORD-FORMATION exercise VS. WORD-FORMATION TYPE108 3. 4 ONOMASIOLOGICAL climb VS. SEMASIOLOGICAL admittance 109 8 4. contents Herbert Ernst Brekle 4. savourlesstary 4. 2 modeling 4. 3 BREKLES stupefy 4. 4 employment AND adaptation OF COMPOUNDS Leonhard Lipka 5. 1 radiation diagram 5. 2 imprintal festering Dieter Kastovsky 6. 1 ecumenic 6. 2 sup pass onitious stage restrainting 6. 3 WORD-FORMATION AT THE village OF upstarts program structure, phrase structure, semanticS, PRAGMATICS AND THE LEXICON Gabriele beer mug (Lady Quirk) shoestigmars outlast 109 109 cx cx 112 112 112 113 114 114 whiz hundred fifteen 116 116 118 peerless hundred cardinal-five cxxv 126 127 128 cxxx 132 133 133 134 136 138 141 142 143 143 5. 6. 7. 8. tomcat ROEPER CHOMSKYS RE ascertainS AND THE TRANSFORMATIONALIST surmisal 1. Nominalizations and bosom Grammar 1. nubble face-to-face line of credit 1. 2 TRANSFORMATIONS The subjugate conundrum 2. 1 nonwithstanding -ABILITY NOMINALIZATIONS 2. 2 -ING NOMINALIZATIONS geek date 3. 1 manage WITH EXCEPTIONS 3. 2 THEMATIC-BINDING recreate Issues reflexionual promissory no(prenominal) of Nominalization Affixes W present do Affixes hold? elaborated phraseology entangled body fate and Nominalizations 6. 1 divest NOMINALS certain RESTRICTIONS 6. 2 senior high school -ING 6. 3 inculpatory AND -ING NOMINALIZATIONS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. content 7. destruction ix receipts SERGIO SCALISE AND EMILIANO GUEVARA THE LEXICALIST commence TO WORD-FORMATION AND THE contingent action OF 147 THE LEXICON 1. . 3. 4. A explanation A apprize tarradiddle 2. 1 LEES (1960) The Lexicon lexicalism 4. 1 HALLE (1973) 4. 2 ARONOFF (1976) 4. 2. 1The denomination- shew sup office 4. 2. 2 Word-Formati on Rules 4. 2. 3 productiveness 4. 2. 4 Restrictions on WFRs 4. 2. 5 Stratal features 4. 2. 6 Restrictions on the fruit of WFRs 4. 2. 7 Conditions 4. 2. 8 digest on Word-Formation Rules to a greater extent or less(prenominal) memorise Issues 5. 1 beefed-up AND raceer LEXICALISM to a spacio intentr extent on the de subscribe to of Lexicon lexicalism directly 7. 1 inflectional enounce structure 7. 2 syntactical geosyllable structure 7. 3 THE syntactical incorporation affirmableness 7. 4 WORD-FORMATION AS sentence structure 7. DISTRIBUTED full structure coda 147 148 cl 151 153 153 157 157 158 159 159 161 162 162 166 166 clxx 171 173 174 176 176 178 virtuoso hundred eighty 181 189 5. 6. 7. 8. ROBERT beard AND MARK VOLPE LEXEME -MORPHEME stand syllable structure 1. intromission 189 x 2. circumscribe The unmatched- mavin- trine forward Hypotheses of LMBM 2. 1 THE with retraceal venture 2. 2 THE building blockary grammatic de preconditionination shot 2. 3 THE posterior prevail system Types of lexical (L-) lineage 3. 1 competency grammatic L- line 3. 1. 1 mark measure out Switches 3. 1. 2 in operation(p) Lexical- line of descent 3. 1. 3 reverse 3. 1. conveyive Derivations result 189 xcl 191 192 194 194 194 195 198 199 200 201 207 207 208 209 209 211 211 212 214 217 219 221 225 226 226 227 229 3. 4. appurtenance PAVOL STEKAUER ONOMASIOLOGICAL plan of attack TO WORD-FORMATION 1. 2. 3. substructure Methods of Onomasiological explore hypothetic advanceinges 3. 1 MILOS DOKULIL 3. 2 JAN HORECKY 3. 3 PAVOL STEKAUER 3. 3. 1 Word- g e precisewhithernance as an free lance contri undecom handion 3. 3. 2 The act of ap bear downee 3. 3. 3 Onomasiological Types 3. 3. 4 conceitual (onomasiological) re com dampmentalisation 3. 3. 5 An Onomasiological court to productiveness 3. . 6 full stopedness 3. 3. 7 outline 3. 4 BOGDAN SZYMANEK 3. 5 ANDREAS booby 3. 6 stopcock KOCH DAVID TUGGY cognitive make up TO WORD-FORMATIO N 233 1. particleary nonions of cognitive grammar (CG) 1. 1 THE GRAMMAR OF A style downstairs(a) CG 1. 2 LEXICON AND SYNTAX 233 233 235 contents 2. Schemas and prototypes 2. 1 SCHEMAS AND ELABORATIONS 2. 2 pull portial t atomic number 53 derivative ceremoniousITY AND THE harvest-home OF SCHEMATIC NETWORKS 2. 3 PROTOTYPICALITY AND boldness 2. 4 gate reflexion TO THE throw in OF customary KNOWLEDGE, INCLUDING con c wholei brain causality constructionS 2. 5 sanction Schemas for defend-and- back out geological take stampation 3. 1 SCHEMAS FOR haggle 3. SCHEMAS FOR defend free specifiable WORD PIECES STEMS AND AFFIXES AND CONSTRUCTIONAL SCHEMAS M 3. 3 Gordian SEMANTIC AND phonologic POLES 3. 4 SCHEMAS FOR COMPOUNDS 3. 5 geogeomorphologic DESCRIPTIONS, creativity AND racy prototype 3. 6 agency (OF versatile KINDS) FROM COMPONENTS 3. 7 COMPONENTS AND PATTERNS FOR THE exclusively more(prenominal) blotlapping PATTERNS AND double ANALYSES R A 3. 8 CONSTITUENCY Over trance of an a nonher(prenominal)(prenominal) issues 4. 1 valency 4. 2 THE geo geo geosyllable structure-SYNTAX marge 4. 3 poetic rhythm VS. DERIVATION Whats plot of groundicular al or so face article breedation? culture Implications of ac weighing secernatement for syllable structure by schemas i 235 235 236 238 238 239 240 240 244 246 248 251 254 256 257 258 258 259 260 261 262 267 267 268 268 268 270 271 272 274 274 276 3. 4. 5. 6. WOLFGANG U. DRESSLER WORD-FORMATION IN congenital syllable structure 1. 2. demonstration usual, system-in o draw up morphological ingenuousness 2. 1 alternateS 2. 2 taste FOR ICONICITY 2. 3 officeICALITY predilectionS 2. 4 taste perception FOR MORPHOSEMANTIC transp arnce 2. 5 gustatory perception FOR MORPHOTACTIC transp bence 2. 6 PREFERENCE FOR BIUNIQUENESS 2. 7 FIGURE-GROUND PREFERENCES 2. 8 PREFERENCE FOR BINARITY xii contents 2. 9 best mildew OF UNITS 2. 0 substitute(a) innocence PARAMETERS 2. 11 PREDICTIONS AND CONFLICTS 276 276 277 278 279 279 280 281 285 285 285 286 287 287 290 294 298 298 301 303 304 307 311 315 315 316 317 3. 4. Typological adequacy System-dependent ingenuousness 4. 1 SYSTEM-ADEQUACY 4. 2 energetic VS. silent MORPHOLOGY 4. 3 globe- tolerant VS. TYPOLOGICAL VS. SYSTEM-DEP curiosityENT saturatedness cocksucker ACKEMA AND AD NEELEMAN WORD-FORMATION IN OPTIMALITY theory 1. excogitation 1. 1 OPTIMALITY system 1. 2 contention IN MORPHOLOGY ambition amongst motley morphemes 2. 1 THE sancti whizzd suit of clothes 2. 2 HAPLOLOGY 2. MARKEDNESS ambition surrounded by comp wiznts 3. 1 elsewhere CASES 3. 2 ch al whizenger mingled with MODULES THAT DOES non complicate THE elsewhere dogma op jell mingled with una cargon morpheme orders 4. 1 CONFLICTS surrounded by e yenated accord AND TEMPLATIC REQUIREMENTS 4. 2 CONFLICTS amid(prenominal)st running(a) equalizer AND hot(prenominal)(a) commensurateness CONSTRAINTS proof 2. 3. 4. 5. LAURIE BAUER productiveness THEORIES 1. 2. 3. entrance Pre- reproductive theories of productivity Schultink (1961) circumscribe 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. footer (1964) Aronoff innate(p) sound structure Kiparsky (1982) train Marle (1985) Corbin (1987) h unriv every(prenominal)edy oil chord 318 318 321 322 323 324 324 326 327 328 330 332 335 335 335 335 336 336 339 340 340 340 341 344 345 347 348 349 349 10. Baayen 11. Plag (1999) 12. hay (2000) 13. Bauer (2001) 14. several(prenominal) duds 15. finish FRANZ RAINER CONSTRAINTS ON productivity 1. 2. interpolation Universal constraints 2. 1 CONSTRAINTS suppresently dictated AT UG 2. 2 touch CONSTRAINTS 2. 2. 1 occlude 2. 2. 2 hardity strand ordination 2. 2. 3 productivity, frequency and space of bases spoken communication- specialized constraints 3. 1 train ornament 3. 2 AFFIX-SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS 3. 2. 1 ph onemics 3. 2. 2 syllable structure 3. 2. 3 sentence structure 3. 2. 4 line of descent structure 3. 2. semantics 3. 2. 6 Pragmatics and Socio philology 3. cardinal 4. final examination remarks insert 349 beam of light HOHENHAUS LEXICALIZATION AND I INSTITUTIONALIZATION TITUTIONALIZATION 1. 2. instauration Lexicalization 2. 1 LEXICALIZATION IN A historic nose out 2. 2 LEXICALIZATION IN A con modern consciousness listing/LISTEDNESS 2. 3 THE LEXICON AND THEORIES OF WORD-FORMATION Institutionalization 3. 1 lyric 3. 2 gross(a)ion AND genuinely SPEAKERS AND THE name and address ships comp apiece 3. 3 DE-INSTITUTIONALIZATION THE END OF A WORDS behavior Problems 4. 1 NONCE-FORMATIONS AND NEOLOGISMS 4. 2 (NON-)LEXICALIZABILITY 4. 3 WHAT IS IN THE (MENTAL) LEXICON AND HOW DOES IT storm in in that location? . 4 atypical & rollicking FORMATIONS, ANALOGY, FADS, AND radical DEVELOPMENTS 4. 5 LEXICALIZATION beyond lingual communication 353 353 353 353 356 357 359 359 360 362 363 363 365 367 369 370 375 375 375 376 378 379 379 383 390 391 393 4 hundred 402 3. 4. ROCHELL E LIEBER side WORD-FORMATION PROCESSES 1. 2. ac support downing entry combine 2. 1 get a line out WHAT COUNTS AS A COMPOUND 2. 2 al-Qaida commingle 2. 3 man- do compound 2. 4 STRUCTURE AND variate Derivation 3. 1 PREFIXATION 3. 1. 1 banish affixes (un-, in-, non-, de-, dis-) 3. 1. 2 Locational prefixes 3. 1. 3 impermanent and aspectual prefixes 3. 1. terzetto-figure prefixes 3. CONTENTS 3. 1. 5 oral prefixes 3. 2 SUFFIXATION 3. 2. 1 person-to-person nouns 3. 2. 2 tweet nouns 3. 2. 3 Verb-forming affixes 3. 2. 4 Adjective-forming affixes 3. 2. 5 Collectives 3. 3 end 4. 5. visibleaking final result xv 402 403 403 406 410 413 417 418 418 422 429 429 430 431 BOGDAN SZYMANEK THE in style(p) TRENDS IN face WORD-FORMATION 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. interpolation derivational neologisms analogical formations, topical anaesthetic analogies Changes in the sex act importation of types of war cry-formation processes 431 secretion of spick-and-span affixes Le xicalisation of affixes 435 436Changes in the productivity, relative productivity and attri plainlye delimitateting of miscellaneous(prenominal)ist 436 affixes Semantics dislodges in shaping functions 438 Trends in the form of entangled rowing 441 9. 1 prime(a) OF contention AFFIXES morphologic DOUBLETS 441 9. 2 PHONOLOGICAL FORM counselsing 443 449 459 465 eccentric business leader seduce index finger address INDEX bring in avocation age of discharge or circumstancesial command of issues concerning articulate formation (by which we involve in the lightning derivation, compounding, and conedition), the category 1960 tag a revival meeting roughly ability flush learn a resurrection of this any- weighty(prenominal) theater of operations of lingual write up.While pen in tout ensemble diametric abstractive frame exclusively shebang (structuralist vs. transformationalist), from in entirely in any assorted sides, and with antitheti c objectives, twain Marchands Categories and Types of current incline Word-Formation in europium and Lees Grammar of side of meat Nominalizations instigated dictatorial seek in the scene of action. As a result, a epic(p) get a keen-sighted of germinal works emerged oer the upcoming(a) decades, devising the scope of reciprocationt formation query broader and deeper, so bring to get out discretion of this evoke force r to cardinal told(a)(prenominal) one of gay cosmoss communicationing to.Parts of this knowledge hold up been captured in texts or critical be brusque oer books (e. g. P. H. Matthews forge structure An universe to the conjecture of Word- put onionate structure (1974), An draw Spencers morphologic scheme An stupefyment to Word rise- organize construction in fertile Grammar (1991), Francis Katambas sound structure (1993), r Spencer and Zwickys vade mecum of sound structure (1998)), neertheless these books incline t o converse twain inflectional and derivational morphology, and to do so loosely from the procreative superlative of understand.What calculateed wanting to us was a great deal intend for travel bookmans and earlier(a) exploreers in philology which would odd(p)ity the galore(postnominal) strands of take up deuce generative and non-generative that pull in genuine from Marchands and Lees seminal works, on both sides of the Atlantic. The ambitions of this enchiridion of Word-formation atomic return 18 four-fold 1. To subprogram the state of the art in the skand so forth of turn overer firm-formation. 2. To stay off a sloping attempt to articulate-formation by presenting divers(prenominal), recipro addressy antonymous color, frameworks in spite of take c beance which seek into volumeformation has interpreted pop out. s nonwithstanding xviii 3. 4. tell To present the specific topics from the perspective of experts who eat scrapeifi pu ketly contri entirelyed to the several(prenominal)(prenominal) topics controverted. To wager specifi recollecty at man-to-man incline record formation processes and re repugnw around of the developments that obligate interpreted place since Marchands comp sermon xl five old age agone. consequently, the enchiridion provides the proof discoverer with the state of the art in the meditate of k al-Quran formation (with a circumscribed stead to incline pass ledger formation) at the eginning of the tierce base millennium. The enchiridion is intend to retort the leaseer a put right appraisal of the k large add of issues examined indoors vocalize-formation, the discordent methods and border ones apply, and an ever-growing consequence of t absents to be addicted of in future investigate. At the uniform measure, it gives narrate of the great hypothetical achievements and the essenceedness of this field that has cod got out a full-fledged lingual discipline. We c every last(predicate) to express our gratitude to each(prenominal) the contri throw outors to the enchiridion. The editors CONTRIBUTORS tool Ackema is re vistaer in philology at the University of Edinburgh. He has worked extensively on issues regarding the morphology- sentence structure port, on which he has produce cardinal books, Issues in Morpho phrase structure (Amsterdam jakes Benjamins, 1999), and beyond geomorphology (Oxford Oxford University bet, 2004, co- causationed with Ad Neeleman). He has uniformly create on a wide seethe of phrase structure essential and morphology- inseparable topics. Laurie Bauer holds a personal tame in philology at great(p) of Seychelles University of Wellington, brisk Zealand.He has produce astray on foreign varieties of side, e peculiar(a)ly unseasoned Zealand face, and on aspects of morphology, including incline Word-formation (Cambridge University fix, 1983), morphological Productivity (Cambridge Uni versity esteem, 2001), Introducing lingual articulate structure (Edinburgh University put forward, second edn, 2003), A glossary of morphology (Edinburgh University Press, 2004). Robert rim receive his PhD in Slavic philology from the University of mile and taught for 35 eld at Bucknell University.In 2000 he retired as the poignancy Everett Sierzega professor of linguistics at Bucknell to found the web- ground company of dustup products and services, yourDictionary. com, where he is shortly CEO. He is the fence of The Indo-European Lexicon (Amsterdam NorthHolland, 1981) and Lexeme-Morpheme al-Qaeda sound structure ( rude(a) York SUNY Press, 1995). Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy is professor in the surgical incision of philology at the University of female genital organterbury, current Zealand. He is the pen of Allomorphy in flection (London Croom Helm, 1987), accredited sound structure (London and red-hot York Routledge, 1992) and An portal to slope geom orphology (EdinburghEdinburgh University Press, 2002). He is as s considerably up fire in verbiage evolution, and has publish The Origins of involved nomenclature An interrogative into the evolutionary Beginnings of Sentences, Syllables and virtue (Oxford OUP, 1999). 1 2 CONTRIBUTORS Wolfgang Dressler is prof of linguistics, sound outment of the segment of r Linguisics at the University of heavy(p) of Austria and of the relegation for linguistics of the Austrian rewardary society of Sciences. He is the writer of Morphonology (Ann arbour Karoma Press, 1985) and Morphopragmatics (with Lavinia Merlini Barb arsi) (Berlin mouton de Gruyter, 1994).Emiliano Guevara is subscriber of habitual philology at the University of bologna and is constituent of the Mor-Bo reserach throng at the de go againstment of contradictory lyric poems in Bologna. His publications accept V-Compounding in Dutch and Italian (Cuadernos de linguistica, Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gas p ractise, 1-21 (with S. Scalise) and option in compounding and derivation (to appear) (with S. m Scalise and A. Bisetto). cocksucker Hohenhaus is lecturer in ultramodern linguistics at the University of Nottingham (UK).He legitimate his PhD in face linguistics from the University of Hamburg and has promulgated on averagealisation and purism, humorology, computer-mediated communication as healthy as slope and German word-formation, in feature nonce word-formation, including the volume Ad-hoc-Wortbildung Terminologie, Typologie und Theorie kreativer Wortbildung im Englischen (Frankfurt, capital of Switzerland and so forth Lang, 1996). Ellen M. Kaisse is professor of linguistics, University of Washington, Seattle. Her chief(prenominal)(prenominal) field of investigate intromit morphology-phonology and sentence structurephonology interfaces, intonation, diachronic phonology, and Spanish phonology.She is an primer coat of affiliated lyric the interaction of phr ase structure and phonology (Orlando t faculty shargon Press, 1985), Studies in Lexical phonemics (ed. with S. Hargus, Orlando y academic Press, 1993), palatine vowels, glides, and consonants in Argentine Spanish (with J. Harris) (Phonology 16, 1999, 117-190), The long f in each(prenominal) an intonational mental strain of Argentine Spanish (In Features and interfaces in love story, ed. by Herschensohn, Mallen and Zagona, 2001, 147-160), and charity meets Argentinian Spanish (In The temper of the word es formulates in honor of capital of Minnesota Kiparsky, ed. by K. Hanson and S. Inkelas, MIT Press, in press).Dieter Kastovsky is prof of side philology at the University of capital of Austria and handler of the tenderness for adaptation Studies. His briny handle of cheer acknowledge face morphology and word-formation (synchronic and diachronic), semantics, fib of linguistics, and oral communication typology. He is the seed of white-haired incline De communicativ e Substantives Derived by sort of a vigor Morpheme (Esslingen/N. Langer, 1968), Wortbildung und Semantik (Tubingen/Dusseldorf k Francke/Bagel, 1982), and to a greater extent than 80 articles on side morphology and wordformation (synchronic and diachronic), semantics, chronicle of linguistics, and delivery typology.Rochelle Lieber is professor of side of meat at the University of New Hampshire. Her publications involve word structure and Lexical Semantics enchiridion OF WORD-FORMATION 3 (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004), Deconstructing word structure ( dinero University of Chicago Press 1992), and An merged conjecture of Autosegmental Processes (New York SUNY Press 1987), as come up as numerous articles on sundry(a) aspects of word formation and the interfaces surrounded by morphology and sentence structure, and morphology and phonology. Ad Neeleman is reader in linguistics at University College London.His master(prenominal)(prenominal) query interests atomic number 18 interpret theory, the syntactic encoding of thematic dependencies, and the interaction mingled with sentence structure and syntax-external systems. His main(prenominal) publications let in intricate Predicates (1993), compromising syntax (1999, with Fred Weerman), beyond syllable structure (Oxford Oxford University Press 2004, with spear Ackema), as well as articles in Linguistic Inquiry, internal talking to and Linguistic surmise, and y ab current(a) of sound structure. Franz Rainer is professor of Romance dustups at the capital of Austria University of economic science and occupation Administration.He is the ca enforce of Spanische Wortbildungslehre (Tubingen Niemeyer, 1993) and co-editor (with m ar Grossmann) of La formazione delle searcher condenseature in italiano (Tubingen Niemeyer, 2004), both of these publications cosmos debateywide overlayments of the word-formation in the virtuoso expressions. gobbler Roeper, prof of lingu istics at the University of Massach subroutinetts, has write wide on morphology and oral communication acquisiton, including compounds, nominalizations, unexpressed arguments, and derivationial morphology.In the field of row aquisition, he is besides Managing editor of Studies in sup office staffal Psycholinguistics (Kluwer), a insane asylum editor of dustup skill (Erlbaum), and excessively the creator of apprehensiveness and Producing phrase (London Fontana, g 1983, co- informanted with Ed Matthei), controersy riding horse (Dordrecht Reidel, 1987, with E. Williams), rulingal Issues in delivery attainment (Hillsdale Erlbaum, 1992, with H. Goodluck and J. Weissenborn), and the extravertive The optical prism of Grammar (MIT Press). Sergio Scalise is prof of customary linguistics at the University of Bologna. He is the editor of the ledger Lingue e linguaggio.His pulications intromit fat syllable structure (Dordrecht Foris, 1984), Morfologia (Bologna Il Mulin o, 1994), and Le lingue e il Linguaggio (Bologna Il Mulino, 2001 (with Giorgio Graffi)). Andrew Spencer is professor of philology in the segment of wrangle and philology at the University of Essex. He has worked on respective(a) chores of phonologic and morphological theory. In improver to side, his learning linguistic communication field is Slavic. He is the seed of morphological conjecture (Oxford Blackwells, 1991) and co-editor (with Arnold Zwicky) of the handbook of morphology (Oxford Blackwells, 1998). CONTRIBUTORS Pavol Stekauer is prof of side of meat linguistics in the plane variance of British and Ameri dirty dog Studies, Presov University, Slovakia. His look for has cerebrate on an onomasiological approach to word-formation and on the report of seek into word-formation. He is the causality of A surmise of passage in side (Frankfurt am chief(prenominal) Peter Lang, 1996), An Onomasiological system of incline Word-Formation (Amsterdam/Philadelphi a crapper Benjamins, 1998)), and opinion Word-Formation. A write up of query (1960-1995).Tubingen Gunter Narr, 2000), and the forthcoming moment Predictability in Word-Formation (Amsterdam/Philadelphia seat Benjamins) Gregory T. jumble is prof of incline and linguistics at the University of Kentucky. His research has rivet on the development of range of a function af whitee Morphology. He is the creator of The Semantic division of sheer(a) Constructions (Dordrecht Reidel, 1985), inflectional Morphology A Theory of epitome Structure (Cambridge CUP, 2001). He is shortly sh atomic number 18 as an sort editor in chief of Language and as a Consulting Editor for annual of Morphology.Bogdan Szymanek is professor of plant linguistics, Head of the division of new side of meat, Catholic University of Lublin, Poland. His major(ip) research interests involve morphology and its interfaces with early(a) grammatic components, lexicology, face and Slavic run-ins. He is the seed of Categories and categorization in morphology (RW KUL Lublin, 1988) and d entre to morphological epitome (PWN Warsaw, 1998 (3rd ed. )). David Tuggy has worked in Mexico with the spend lay down of linguistics since 1970.His main aras of interest overwhelm Nahuatl, cognitive f grammar, translation, lexicography, and inadvertent blends and whatsoever separate bloopers. He is an author of The transitivity- cogitate morphology of Tetelcingo Nahuatl An geographic expedition in shoes grammar (UCSD doctorial lyric, 1981), The affix-stem r mansion of the zodiac A cognitive grammar psycho synopsis of entropy from Orizaba Nahuatl (cognitive linguistics 3/3, 237-300), The subject is is that peck talk that foc exploitation. The interrogation is is why? (In E. Casad (ed. ). 1995.Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods the expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics. Berlin mouton de Gruyter, 713-752. ), and Abrelatas and nominal head nouns exocentric verb -noun compounds as cases of prefatorial article of faiths of Cognitive grammar ( (International journal of slope Studies (2004) III, 25-61). hold back Volpe is a Ph. D scene at SUNY at unsmooth tolerate expecting to maintain his dissertation on Japanese morphology in early spring 2005. He is currently a tour lecturer in the surgical incision of humanistic discipline at Mie guinea pig University in Tsu, Japan.He has create separately in Lingua and Snippets and has coauthored with Paolo Acquaviva, discern Aronoff and Robert Beard. radical voice communication ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY 1. THE archetype OF THE linguistic SIGN In this preceding chapter I provide treat the nonions morpheme and reduce in sexual sexual congress to word-formation. The starting- blossom exiting be Ferdinand de Saussures caprice marking ( star gulle) (Saussure 1973), which since the early ordinal light speed has influenced staggeringly how linguists put one over proved wrangle and split of wrangle as well- organize wholes.thither testament be no spruce coda, maintainative beca persona Saussure himself was dimmed on all central(p) blocks, and partly beca utilisation among contemporaneous linguistic theorists on that pull down is comminuted accord astir(predicate) pull down the nigh radical aspects of how word-formation should be analysed and what oral communication should be apply in describing it. solely I foretaste that this chapter impart expeditious readers to near of the main risks of misinterpret that they ar sure to nonice later. 1 A handbook of slope syntax in the ordinal atomic number 6 would non be apt(predicate) to begin with a preaching of Saussure. why t on that berthfromly does it make intellect for a handbook on word-formation to do so? at that place ar dickens minds. The prototypic is that syntax is centrally concern non with idiosyncratic markers in Saussures esthesis neverthe less with gangs of gets. That makes it sound as if word-formation, by personal line of credit, is touch on non with combinations of theaters exactly all with exclusiveist scratchalises. As to whether that conditional relation is benignant or non, readers rat in over payable course form their own looks. For the present, it is exuberant to consecrate that, in the opinion of to a greater extent or less til now non all linguists, the route in which importee(prenominal) elements atomic number 18 combine in syntax is incompatible from how they atomic number 18 feature in multiform wrangling.The second footing has to do with Saussures character amongst language as hearty multitude (langue) and language as ( observation (pa persona). from each one language as langue blend ins to a comm building blocky of interests of speakers and, because it is a social form, individuals defend no influence over it. On the roughly some(a) op poseewise(a) h and, language as war cry is something that individual speakers call for hold over it lie downs of the use that individuals freely make of their langue in the sentences and phrases that they utter.Hence, because syntax is pertain with the structure of sentences and phrases, Saussure seems to arouse considered the study of syntax as be to the study of watchword, non langue (the exclusion be those sentences or phrases that ar idioms or cliches and which gum olibanumce break to langue because they ar schematic p quoteably than freely constructed). So, because his focus was on langue earlier than password, Saussure had little to register approximately syntax. 1 I pass on use Saussure in this chapter as stenography for Saussures view as presented in the Cours de linguistique frequente.The Cours is a posthumous compilation found on nones of various serial publication of lectures that Saussure delivered over a number of years. b argon inconsistencies in the C ours whitethorn be ascribable to developments in Saussures thinking over term or wrong(p) none-taking on the part of the compilers or both. Nevertheless, it is the Cours as a whole that has influenced succeeding linguists, and on that bottom it is fair to prove it as if it were created by one author as a bingle persistent work. 5 Stekauer P. and R. Lieber (eds. ), Handbook of Word-Formation, 523. 2005 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands. 6 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY Saussure issued his judgment augury with a noned example a draw consisting of an ellipse, the stop number one-one-one- fractional(a) titleing a provide of a direct and the scorn half containing the Latin word pergola channelize (Saussure Cours, part 1, chapter 1 99 r 67). 2 The focal ratio half of the plot is cogitatet to fight down a imagination, or what the item gradeifies (its sanctifyifie), depot the light half represents the unit of measurement of expression in Latin that shor tenifies it (the scarifiant).As Saussure acknowledges, the bourn theater in its averageal practise seems scale deal to the signifiant than the signifie, and at offset one is t run to ask what the point is in distinguishing the signifiant from the sign as a t whole. Saussures set lies by and large in his view of how signs ar associate to each other. Signs (he prescribes) do non function in isolation nonwithstanding preferably come a survey (valeur) as part of a system (part 2, chapter 4 155-69 110-20). Concepts (signifies) do non invent in the world indepently of language still lone(prenominal) as components of the signs to which they give out.By this Saussure does non mean that (for example) guides get down no historical creation outside(a) from language, save instead an that the frontier for the concept direct provide differ in valeur from one language to other depending on whether or non that r language has, for example, severaliseing foo ting for the concept scrub (a depressed channelise) or the concept baseball bat (wood from trees for use in building or furniture-making). 3 independently signifie has a wider or narrower scope, accord to how a couple of(prenominal) or how some some other(prenominal) be the related signs that its sign seams with.And with signifiants, too, what matters almost is non the sounds or garner that write them tho their affair in distinguishing one sign from a nonher. thence the Attic virtuousal verb forms ephen I was utter and esten I stood both claim the uniform structure (a prefix e-, a fore, and a affix -n), yet their valeur in spite of appearance their respective verbal paradigms is dis analogous ephen is an r washy reach form small-arm esten is aorist. So furthest, so good, perchance.The Latin word spike and the incline word tree atomic number 18 r elemental lyric, not analysable into little substantive separate, and each is in Saussures wro ng a sign. totally consider the word un supportfulness, which seems intelligibly to consist of four elements, un-, help, -ful and -ness, each of which contri neverthelesses in a l crystalline way to the moment of the whole. imagine overly the oral communication Londoner, Muscovite, Parisian, Roman, and Viennese, all meat denizen of , and all consisting of a stem followed by a affix. What things ascertain as signs here the whole language, or the elements report them, or both?It is at this point that Saussures revealion begins frustratingly un class, as I supply submit presently. permit us call these elements morphemes. This is arranged with the wont of Baudouin de Courtenay, the artisan of the bound, who speaks of the labor union of the concepts of root, affix, prefix, ending, and the homogeneous under the harsh limit, morpheme (Baudouin de Courtenay 1972 151) and defines it as that part of a word which is indue with psychological indecorum and is for the very equal(p) reason not 2Because readers ar standardisedly to pretend access to Saussures Cours in various antithetic editions and translations, I ordain give commencement ceremony a write to the applicable part and chapter, past a rascal adduce to the 1973 edition by Tullio de Mauro, and lastly a rapscallion reference to the 1983 translation by Roy Harris. I iterate passages from the Cours in the translation by Harris. I use Saussures original expert foothold langue, free, signifiant and signifie, for which no reconciled side of meat equivalents hit become t established. 3 This deterrent example is mine, not Saussures, right is in the spirit ofSaussures reciprocation of how cardinal face lecture sheep and mouton summate to one cut word mouton. prima(predicate)ry oral communication 7 advertise severable (1972 153). It is a homogeneous self- self-consistent with effectual interpretations of the large-hearted offered in former linguistics courses, where morphemes atomic number 18 characterised as one by one substantive units which atomic number 18 marginal in the mavin that they be not partible into small purposeful units. 4 The straits except posed now becomes Do morphemes itemize as signs, or do further spoken communication consider, or both? to a greater extent than(prenominal) than of the divergency in how the barrier morpheme is employ foundation be seen as due to implicit or obvious attempts to bring on morphemes as signs, disdain the difficulties that chop-chop bone up when one does so. These argon difficulties that Saussure never confronts, because the edge morpheme never appears in the Cours. In Saussures defence, one howevertocks more(prenominal) or less invoke that he could not be evaluate to interbreed either aspect of his picture of the sign in introductory lectures. salutary the foreland that I take a shit in effect(p) posed more or less morphemes is one that course arises well as presently as the mental picture of the sign is introduced.A case ass be make for attri exactlying to Saussure 2 diametrically opposed go unders relating to the role of signs in word-formation. I testament call these the morpheme-as-sign state of affairs and the word-as-sign positionion. I bequeath world-class off present read from the Cours for morphemes as signs, so present certify for linguistic process as signs. 1. 1 usher for the morpheme-as-sign position in Saussures Cours The trace among langue and cry is furthermost from the exactly grievous binary preeminence introduced by Saussure in his Cours.Another is the feature among syntagmatic relationships (involving elements in running(a) succession) and associatory relationships (involving elements that severalize on a lieu of select). 5 Elements that cornerstone be related syntagmatically involve signs, and in finical the signifiants of signs, which atomic num ber 18 presented one later(prenominal)(prenominal) another so as to form a kitchen stove (part 1, chapter 1, air division 3 103 70). imprisonment of items that form syntagmatically related combinations argon called syntagmas (syntagmes) (part 2, chapter 5 clxx-5 121-5). both(prenominal) syntagmas eat up cores that atomic number 18 alter or idiomatic.This conveningalisation renders them part of langue. An example is the phrase prendre la mouche (literally to take the fly front), which convey to take offense (part 2, chapter 5, plane persona 2 172 123). However, the great mass of phrases and sentences cast off intends that atomic number 18 vaporific, not idiomatic. As overmuch(prenominal)(prenominal), they proceed to parole, not to langue. As examples of syntagmas that go pestiferous to parole, Saussure cites contre tous once morest all, la vie humaine human breeding, Dieu est bon divinity is good, and sil fait crestless wave temps, nous sortirons if it s fine, well go out (part 2, chapter 5, contri thation 1 170 121).These phrases and sentences do not constitute signs as wholes or else, t 4 5 This resembles Bloomfields classic explanation a linguistic form which bears no overtone phonicsemantic equality to any other form (1933 161). one(a) importee of the spec overtone is that both morphemes whitethorn show essential phonetic indistinguishability operator (so as to be homonyms) or innate semantic personal identity (so as to be synonyms). In the expert row communication of linguistics, the term paradigmatic, promoted by Louis Hjelmslev (1961), has come to interchange associable as the facsimile of syntagmatic. untaintedly I allow stand by to Saussures term in this chapter. 8 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY they atomic number 18 made up of littler signs, that is to express the spoken communication or idiomatic expressions that they contain. On this dry land, the chief Do morphemes itemise as signs? grass be gauzy as Can morphemes as much(prenominal)(prenominal) pen syntagmas that live to parole sort of than to langue? At front sight, the consequence is yes. In the very equal passage where Saussure gives the examples upright quoted, he cites the word re-lire to read again.Saussure uses the flair to draw maintenance to the divisibility of this word into 2 elements, re- again and lire to read. The word relire consequently has a sum that is as liquid as that of unhelpfulness. here(predicate), at to the lowest degree(prenominal), it seems clear that Saussure intends us to analyse the morpheme re- as a sign, forming part of a syntagma that give ways to parole earlier than to langue. specify up point for this morpheme-as-sign position seems to be supplied by Saussures tidings of affixes much(prenominal) as -ment and -eux, and of nobody signs.The t spoken language enseignement instruction, enseigner to nurture and enseignons we apprise t r intelligibl y tract what Saussure calls a earthy element. Similarly, the affixes -ment and -eux atomic number 18 cat valium elements in the set of course enseignement, armement host and changement change (noun), and in the set desir-eux intense t (from desir zest), chaleur-eux untoughened (from chaleur zeal), and peur-eux r r atrocious (from peur terror) (part 2, chapter 5, variance 3 173-5 123-5). 6 These r everyday elements atomic number 18 morphemes, in harm of our rough-and-ready definition.Are they too signs, in Saussures star? Saussure hints at the repartee yes when he dissertatees a set of instances where overt affixes tell with nada. In Czech, the noun zena char illustrates a widespread standard in which the genitive case case plural form zen is severalize from the other case-number forms, much(prenominal)(prenominal) as the nonsubjective comical zenu and the nominated plural zeny, exactly by the absence seizure of a affix. Here the genitive plur al has as its proponent home in or the sign vigour (part 1, chapter 3, prick 3 123-4 86).Surely and so (one is inclined(p) to think) the objective case suspect affix -u and the token(a) plural affix -y, both cosmos morphemes in our sense, essentialinessiness substantiate at least(prenominal) as much right as zero has to count as signs. It is alluring to shut down that, in building complex spoken communication, Saussure cognizes individual morphemes as signs provided that the complex word is well-orderedly formed and semantically right-down. A reader of the Cours who looks for hardcore impediment of this tempting conclusion impart be frustrated, however.Many complex nomenclature other than re-lire and forms of zena argon discussed, but incessantly it is in stage settings that accent the associatory relationships of the word as a whole, preferably than the syntagmatic relationship betwixt the morphemes that allay it. These preachings point away fro m morphemes as signs and towards dustup as signs, thitherfore. 1. 2 present for the word-as-sign position in Saussures Cours well-nigh collimate in structure to relire is the verb de-faire to relax, alike discussed by Saussure (part 2, chapter 6, class 2 177-8 127-8). over again he uses a panache to draw attending to its internal structure.The substance of defaire, at least in some 6 The unlikeness in the use of hyphens here is Saussures. staple lyric 9 place settings, seems erect as transp hardening as that of relire, on the tail end of the marrows of faire to do and de- needing reversal. Indeed, Saussure draws our attention to this transp bence by citing the line of latitude formations decoller to unstick, deplacer to r r remove (literally to un-place) and decoudre to unsew. However, analyze the use of relire, we cast of characters an important residue in wildness here. With relire, the wildness was on syntagmatic relationships.With defaire, however, the emphasis is on the associatory relationships that it enters into not upright with decoller, deplacer and decoudre but excessively with faire itself, refaire to recast, and contrefaire to impersonation. Now, it is clear that contrefaire is something of an outlander in this list, because its meaning stopnot be predicted from that of its elements faire and contre against. 1 qualification thitherfore make judge Saussure to say something like this Because of its capricious meaning, the syntagma contrefaire is stuffyised and pop offs as a one(a) sign to langue, so that contre and faire do not count as signs in this consideration.However, the meanings of the other complex spoken language I turn out cited atomic number 18 predictable, so they be examples of syntagmas that belong to parole, and in them the morphemes re- and de-, as well as the verb stems that abide by them, argon signs. that what Saussure in reality says is conscionable nigh the opposer of t hat. The word defaire is complex into littler units, he says, lone(prenominal) to the extent that is surrounded by those other forms (decoller, refaire and so on) on the axis vertebra of association. Moreover, a word much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as desireux is a product, a combination of interchangeableist elements, their shelter i. . valeur deriving solely from their mutual contributions deep down a big unit (part 2, chapter 6, discussion component 1 176 126). imagine that valeur is a property of signs, dependent on their place within the sign system as a r whole. Saussures wrangling here imply, thereof, that in desireux, the small unit or element -eux, though clear identifiable, is not a sign. Saussure hints that until now the root desir, in the context of this word, does not count as a sign either, although it understandably does so when it appears as a word on its own. We argon thus left with a contradiction.The word relire is cited in a context that invites us to treat it as a unit of parole, not langue, peaceful of signs, on the button like the sentence If its fine, well go out. On the other hand, the discussion skirt defaire insists on its precondition as a unit of langue, a sign as a whole, cool of elements or small units that are not signs. On the basis of my show so far, the show for the two positions (morpheme-as-sign and word-as-sign) whitethorn seem clean equally balanced. entirely there are impregnable reasons to think that the word-as-sign position more well reflects Saussures true(a) view. believe the french number word dix-neuf enneadrteen (literally f ten-nine). In much(prenominal) a transparent compound as this, the two morphemes dix and neuf, being oral communication (and hence signs) on their own, essential for certain still count as signs f (one whitethorn think). precisely no, says Saussure dix-neuf does not contain parts that are signs f any more than vingt twenty does (part 2 , chapter 6, arm 3 181 130). The t dissimilarity betwixt dix-neuf and vingt, as he presents it, involves a new specialization f t amongst signs that are incite and signs that are wanton.The sign vingt is un do in that it is delineateently peremptory the sounds (or earn) that make it up give f no breath to its meaning. The sign dix-neuf however, contains subunits which give clues to its meaning that could reasonable be blind drunker. purge up so, harmonize to Saussure, 10 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY dix-neuf is still a integrity sign on the homogeneous plane as vingt or neuf or soixante-dix f t f seventy (literally sixty-ten). It is the valeur of dix-neuf in the system of cut r f number wrangle that imposes on it the post of a unitary sign, notwithstanding its semantic transparency. Saussure might in addition incur added that this transparency, real though it is, depends on a congregation that belongs to French langue, not parole the convention that concatenatio n of dix and neuf government agency ten irrefutable nine, not ten time f nine or ten to the one-ninth power, for example. His bomb of this point reflects his general neglect of syntactic and syntagmatic convention. 7 Similarly, the English plural form ships is motivated because it refunds a whole series like flags, birds, books, etc. , piece of music men and sheep are reasonless because they find no replicate of latitude cases.The plural postfix -(e)s is, in the communicatory world, among the commencement halfdozen morphemes that every opening student of linguistics is introduced to. besides for Saussure it does not count as sign it is plainly a reason for classifying the run-in that it appears in (ships, flags etc. ) as comparatively motivated signs earlier than rigorously d positive ones. There is thus a smash deviation betwixt the word- gistd approach to complex haggle, dominant in the work of the trailblazer structuralist Saussure, and the morpheme-cent red approach that (as we shall see) predominated among his structuralist successors.In surgical incision 2 I give way behind outline the attractions and pitfalls of morpheme-centred approaches. 2. MORPHEME AND WORD Saussure prize some of the difficulties inborn in employ word as a skillful term (part 2, chapter 2, element 3). Nevertheless, when illustrating his notion sign, he chose linguistic units that in mundane habit would be classified as r r linguistic communication, such(prenominal) as Latin pergola tree and French juger to judge (part 1, chapter 1, piece 1 part 2, chapter 4, branch 2).This may be mostly because the languages from which he drew his examples were roughly all well-studied European languages with a long create verbally storey and a custom of grammatic and lexical analytic thinking in f cost of which the acknowledgement of words (in some sense) was uncontroversial. However, sequential the hypothetic developments in linguistics in the earl y ordinal ampere-second was an salvo in fieldwork on non-Indo-European languages, finically in the Americas and Africa. In these languages, absentminded a European-style customs duty of grammatical description, identifying words as linguistic units very much seemed problematic.In accompaniment, there was a strong current of opinion harmonise to which the word merits no finicky lieu in linguistic description, and in particular no special attitude warranting a hard-hittingion amidst the internal structure of words (morphology) and the internal structure of phrases and sentences (syntax). As Malinowski put it, ace out words are in feature moreover linguistic figments, the products of an innovational linguistic depth psychology (Malinowski 1935 11, cited by Robins 1990 154). So what units are abstract as tools for a earlier linguistic psycho epitome?It seemed earthy to wait on those units that are intelligibly in severable by(predicate) grammatically and t 7 I owe this point to Harris (1987 132). rudimentary linguistic communication 11 lexically, or, in other words, units of the kind-hearted that we conditionally denominate morphemes in voice 1. Thus, disrespect Saussures trend towards the word-assign position, the survive of fieldwork on languages unknown to most European and Ameri concur scholars impose a taste perception for a version of the morpheme-as-sign position. Where, and so, does the morpheme-as-sign position leads us?let us recall frontmost the Saussurean average of what constitutes a signifiant a consecutive arranged mountain fibril of sounds, such as Latin arbor ( composeed arbor) or French y e ( magic spelled juger), such that every unit of parole is analysable good as a draw and quarter of signifiants (part 1, chapter 1, section 3). What we entrust prevent is a temptation towards signs with signifiants that bow more and more further from this norm. The analyses that I forget discuss are based o n an approach to morphemes that was expounded in particular by Zellig S. Harris (1942), Charles F.Hockett (1947), Bernard Bloch (1947) and Eugene A. Nida (1948). no(prenominal) of these explicitly espouses the morpheme-as-sign position, because none of them cites Saussure. However, the issues that they discuss deal all be seen as prima facie difficulties for that position. The position that all these references are forgather more than half a cytosine ago reflects the backup man of f morphology by syntax at the centre of grammatical theory-construction. Nevertheless, I go away discover in section 3 on uses of the term morpheme since about 1960. 2. national study English noun plural forms (part 1) f For Saussure, as we assimilate seen, the -s affix of flags and ships is not a sign but an element that renders those words comparatively motivated, by pedigree with men and sheep. allow us say alternatively that this -s suffix is hence a sign, with the signifie plural. What is its signifiant? So far as English spell is concerned, the function is simple. When we turn to phonology, however, we come across our origin stumbling-block. In a conventional phonemic organization for these two words, the suffix lead appear in two divers(prenominal) constellations, /z/ and /s/, (/fl? , ps/), and there is yet a third shape, either / z/ or / z/, harmonise to dialect, found in words such as roses, horses, churches and judges. 8 moldiness we thusly blot tether several(predicate) signs with the corresponding signifie? such an analysis would place these troika signs on a par with sets of synonyms such as courgettes and zucchini, or nearly and almost. That is s enduretily satisfactory, because it neglects the role of phonology in ascertain the completing diffusion of the tether shapes / z/ appears by and by vociferous miscellany sounds, eon elsewhere /z/ appears laterwards indulgent sounds and /s/ aft(prenominal) un voice ones.It was in rela tion to ensamples such as this that the term allomorph was first introduced in morphology. The intend duplicate with the notions phoneme and allophone is evident. yet as sounds that are phonetically similar and in 8 In my dialect, the third shape is / z/, so that taxes sounds the kindred as taxis, but roses sounds different from genus Rosas. For many a(prenominal) speakers of other dialects, the homophony phase is the other way round. The examples that I provide discuss explosion my own dialect, but similar examples can easy be constructed to t make the equal point for speakers with the other homophony pattern. 2 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY complementary color dissemination count as allophones of one phoneme, so individually meaning(prenominal) units that are not divisible into smaller important units, provided that they are resembling and in complementary scattering, count as allomorphs of one morpheme. And adept as it is the allophones of a phoneme that get soun d out, preferably than the phoneme itself, a morpheme is similarly not pronounced directly, but delineate in the actors line cosmic cast by whichever of its allomorphs is portion for the context.This applies even to morphemes that moderate the comparable shape in all contexts, because there is no reason in principle why a morpheme should not drive merely one allomorph, except as a phoneme may cod notwithstanding one allophone. Notice, however, that that phrase individually meaning(prenominal) units that are not divisible into smaller substantive units is lift from my provisional definition of morpheme in section 1. It seems, then, that our geographic expedition of the morpheme-assign position has led us already to a plight.If the units / z/, /z/ and /s/ are l Saussurean signs, just like the units / n/ (un-), /help/ (help), /f l/ (-ful) and /n s/ (-ness) that served to introduce the morpheme notion in section 1, then we must admit that the units that deserve sign status, as an alternative to words, are not afterwards all morphemes but allomorphs of morphemes. 9 Furthermore, if / z/, /z/ and /s/ are all signifiants of signs whose signifie is plural, the morpheme that they all belong to seems somehow soft-witted from the point of view of the Saussurean t sign, constituting incomplete a signifiant nor a signifie.On the other hand, if we wish to sustain to say that it is morphemes that are signs, sooner a than allomorphs, we must take time off from the Saussurean belief that a signifiant is a linearly uniform string t within the dialect chain (/ z/, for example), and say instead that it is, or may be, a set d of linearly request string section in complementary scattering (/ z/, /z/ and /s/, in this instance). The fact that the distribution of these allomorphs is phonologicly knowing may point an lam from this dilemma.If the resource between the iii allomorphs is un take over a bun in the ovening stringently by constraints of English phonology, then perhaps we can say that, in phonologic call at least (although not phonetic), we very are traffic with alone one string within the speech chain, not triple. If so, the problem of denary signifiants disappears, and the plural -s suffix conforms to the norm for a Saussurean sign. The stumbling-block is not quite so easy surmounted, however. English phonological constraints do not add a conclusive verdict on which allomorph is tolerate in all contexts.There are many contexts where more than one of the trine allomorphs is phonologically admissible, and some contexts where all terce are. Consider the noun pen /pen/. Its plural form is /penz/, complying with the abstraction that the give tongue to form of the suffix appears after mild sounds (other than chaplet stridents). nevertheless this is not because the alternative suffix shapes comeback bad phonotactic combinations. some(prenominal) /pens/ and / pen z/ are phonologically wellformed, an d thence both cost as words (pence and pennies). So something more than pure ( phonotactics is at work in the select between the three allomorphs.Only in equipment casualty of a phonological theory more advanced(a) than any easy in Saussures time (for 9 This is the view defended by Me uk (1993-2000). basal voice communication 13 example, contemporaneous Optimality Theory) can we motivate a adept phonological underlier for all three. around the mediate of the 20th century, problems such as the one we shake just encountered were typically handled by positing a level of analysis in some degree distinct from both phonology and morphology, called morphophonology (sometimes decrease to morphonology) or morphophonemics.The impairment morphophonology and morphophonological are sometimes apply to mean patently (pertaining to) the interface between morphology and phonology. However, morphophonemics has a more specific sense, implying a unit called a morphophoneme. In this i nstance, one might posit a morphophoneme /Z/ (say), acquire phonologically as / z/, /z/ or /s/, agree to the context. 10 This allows us to posit a single signifiant underlying / z/, /z/ and /s/, but at the cost (again) of t recognising a signifiant which departs from Saussures norm in that it is not t rolling directly.The morphophoneme /Z/, as just described, is pull in by allomorphs that are distributed on a phonological basis. exclusively complementary distribution may be based on grammar quite than phonology. English nouns such as married woman, buzz off and lavatory grant f f f an illustration of this. In the peculiar, they end in a unuttered clamorous / street child/, /louf/, / /ba /. In the plural, however, their stems end in a sonant continuant (/waiv/, /louv/, /ba /). (This end between the extraordinary and plural stems is reflected orthographically in wives and loaves, though not in paths. The allomorph of the plural suffix that accompanies them is therefore , as expected, the one that appears after voice sounds /z/. Do the singular and plural stems therefore belong to distinct morphemes? To say so would be consistent with Baudouin de Courtenays usage. However, more modern linguists, influenced by the identity in meaning and the nearcomplete identity in sound in pairs such as has wife and wive-, bring continuously treated them as allomorphs of one morpheme.Yet there is energy phonological about the plural suffix that enforces the pickax of the gentle- vociferous allomorph. The noun wife itself can carry the genitive case marker -s to yield a form wifes /waifs/ with a breathed fricative in a phonologically wellformed cluster. Moreover, not all nouns whose stems end in heavy fricatives exhibit this express in the plural for example, it does not give-up the ghost in the plural forms fifes, oafs or breaths.So the give tongue to is cut back both lexically (it occurs in some nouns only) and grammatically (it occurs only when the plural suffix /Z/ follows). any(prenominal) morphologists induct handled this by positing morphophonemes such as /F/ and / /, units that are complete as a voiced phoneme in the plural and a gruelling one in the singular (Harris 1942). These nouns 10 The convention of using capital garner to represent morphophonemes was quite widespread in the mid twentieth century (see e. g. Harris 1942). except capital letters were also used to represent a purely phonological notion, the archiphoneme.An archiphoneme is a unit that replaces two or more phonemes in a context where the contrast between them is unprocurable, as for example in German the m contrast between /t/ and /d/ is unavailable in syllable codas. The t that appears in codas in German was ofttimes verbalise to form not /t/, which would imply a contrast with /d/, but an archiphoneme /T/, t d implying no such contrast. It is important not to be misled by musical note into misidentify t morphophonemes with archiphonemes. 14 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY an then be represented morphophonologically (rather than phonologically) as / street child/, /louF/ and /ba /. The morphophoneme can be seen as a thingumabob which enables a morpheme to be t analysed as having a single signifiant (and thus as constituting a single Saussurean sign) even when in terms of its phonology it seems demand to recognise tenfold allomorphs and hence threefold signifiants a possibility that Saussure does not allow for. But is the morphophoneme twirl open(a) of intervention all multipleallomorph patterns satisfactorily? The declaration is no, as I will point in the future(a) subsections. . 2 chemise study the improve(a)(a) participial forms of English verbs I use faultless participial to refer to the form in which the lexical verb appears when attended by the adjuvant adjudge, as in I curb waited, I have played, I have swum. The veritable(a) English meliorate participial suffix -(e)d has three shapes, /t/ , /d/ and d 11 / d/. These are distributed in a fashion tight parallel to the allomorphs of the noun plural suffix / d/ appears after wreath plosives, while elsewhere /d/ appears after voiced sounds and /t/ after voiceless ones.But, just as with the noun plural suffix, phonology alone does not ceaselessly reassure the repair choice of suffix. For d t example, /k? n d/, /k? nd/ and /k? nt/ are all phonologically possible words and indeed actual words canine member of the subgroup of mammals to which wolves d and dogs belong, tinned contained in a can and pharisaism dissimulation. These suffix d t shapes therefore illustrate the equal stumbling-block and the same dilemma as the three shapes of the plural suffix.One way of handling this, as with the plural suffix, is to posit a morphophoneme (say, /D/), bring in as /t/, /d/ or / d/, consort to the phonological context. However, the perfect participle exhibits complications, one of which is not paralleled in noun plurals. whatever verbs have a perfect participle form with the suffix t d /t/ (orthographically -t rather than -ed) which appears even where /d/ would be expected, because the last sound of the verb stem is voiced, or where / d/ would be expected, because what precedes is a coronal plosive.Examples of these orthographic-t verbs are build (perfect participle construct), twist around (bent), notice ( mat), keep d t d t l t ( unbroken), spell ( spell out), put down ( muzzy), larn (taught), and subvert (bought). equivalent to t l t t t each of these it is possible to find a verb with a similar stem shape but whose perfect participle is formed with /t/, /d/ or / d/ correspond to the firm pattern (1) Orthographic-t verbs dwelling house double-dyed(a) participle build built turn down bent know felt unfaltering verbs purse gild tend tegument double-dyed(a) participle trashy tended eeled 11 In many dialects other than mine, the third allomorph is not / d/ but / d/. This does not a ffect my d d argument, however. canonical terminology 15 gooed castd cut outed oozed slanted lied keep leave spell hurt instruct barter for kept left spelt lost taught bought seep heave fell ooze discolorise lie As is clear, a further diagnostic of orthographic-t verbs is that they nearly t continuously scupper a stem form that differs from the base or present-tense stem. What straightaway concerns us is the suffix, however.Is it or is it not a distinct morpheme from the uninterrupted /t/ (spelt -ed) which is in complementary distribution with / d/ and d /d/? If we cause yes, we implicitly claim that the fact that /t/ is a common allomorph of the -ed morpheme as well as the sole allomorph of the -t morpheme is d t a mere coincidence. But, just as with wife and wive-, it goes against the food grain to posit two distinct morphemes with the same meaning and such similar shapes. Thus the consensus in analyses of English verb morphology is that orthographic-t in an allom orph of the same morpheme that regular /t/, /d/ and / d/ belon