Review of "Word Formation", a chapter from "The Grammar of Words" by Geer Booij, presented by Heidyanne R. Kaeni (Linguistik-UI, February 2012)

1. from “The Grammar of Words”
by Geer Booij
Presented by Heidyanne R. Kaeni
S2 Liguistik – FIB UI
February 2012

2. The Word Formation
Derivation
Word
Formation
Compounding

3. A. Derivation
Derivation
1. 2. 3. 5.
4.
Lexeme Template & Constraints Affix
Productivity
formation Idiosyncrasies on ordering
derivation

4. A1. Lexeme formation Derived
lexemes
Lexem
Same category
lexemes
N, A, V
Open classes
Adv
Words
Closed classes Function words: pronoun, conjungtion, etc.
Category-determining Nominalization, verbalization, adjectivalization, adverbialization
Derivation process
Category-neutral

5. Examples of Lexeme Formation (Dutch)
Derivation of nouns
A  N suffixation schoon “beautiful” schoon-heid “beauty”
V  N prefixation praat “to talk” ge-praat “talking”
N  N prefixation zin “sense” on-zin “nonsense”
Derivation of adjectives
N  A suffixation meester “master” meester-lijk “masterly”
V  A suffixation lees “to read” lees-baar “readable”
A  A prefixation gewoon “common” on-gewoon “uncommon”
Derivation of verbs
N  V suffixation analyse “analysis” analys-eer “to analyse”
A  V suffixation kalm “calm” kal-eer “to calm down”
V  V prefixation rijd “to ride” be-rijd “to ride on”

6.  Parasynthetic word formation :
simultaneous attachment of prefix and suffix
 (Dutch) aanraakbaar  onaanraakbaar
 Rules for derivational pattern describe:
 Formal (phonology & synctatic) properties
 Semantic properties
 Meaning of a complex word =
compositional function {meaning of base + morphological structure}
 Specific subclasses of verbs can be created by derivational process
 a case of change in synctactic valency
 (Bolivian Quechua) churi-y-ta llank’a-chi-saq
son-1SG-ACC work-CAUS-1SG-FUT
“I will make my son work”

7. A2. Templates & Idiosyncrasies
Example of Inheritance Tree: -bar adjectives (Dutch)
-bar
ess zahl halt
“can be V-ed”
“eat” “pay” “keep”
essbar zahlbar haltbar
“can SAFELY be eaten” “MUST be paid” “can be kept LONG”

8. A3. Constraints & Derivation
Input constraints: specific syntactic subclass
-baar drink “to drink” drink-baar Vtr  A
“drinkable”
Input constraints: phonological
-aar luist[e]r “to listen” luister-aar “listener” [e]r , [e]l
duik[e]l “to tumble”  duikel-aar “tumbler”
-er veeg “to sweep”  veg-er “sweeper” other than [e]r , [e]l
Output constraints: prosodic restriction
?ge ?ge-ont-dek, ?ge-ont-bos, ?ge-be-loof [stressless tone+…](avoided)
Hér hér-ont-dek, hér-be-gin, hér-ge-bruik [stressed tone+… ](no problem)

9. Stratal constraints
-iteit absurd  absurd-iteit “absurdity” Non native adjective
stabil  stabil-iteit “stability”
-heid groen “green”  groen-heid “green-ness” Native adjective
zeker “certain”  zeker-heid “certainty”
Base-driven restriction
-ize  -ation verbalize  verbalization (not verbaliz-ion),
summarize  summarization (not summarion)
-able  -ity parsable  parsability (not parsablenes)
suistanable  suistanability (not suistableness)

10. A4. Productivity
Language- Existence of competing word-formation
internal processes
factors e.g. –lijk  –baar (Dutch, “able”)
Productivity
Language- Cultural habits & politeness rules
external e.g. –in (German) vs –in (Dutch)
factors
How to measure the degree of productivity (P) = n1/N
 Type frequency (V) : number or different word type or a certain
morphological type
 Token frequency (N) : summed frequency of use of all the words of
the particular type in a sample language of use
 Hapaxes (n1) : new word types that occur only once in corpus
 (Shakespeare) Hororificabilitudinitatibus

11. A5. Affix Ordering
Affix order might be predicted / determined by:
 Input constraints
 readibility (N) = (read + able) + ity
 –ity selects adjectives as bases & creates nouns
 Stratal restriction:
 non native root + non-native suffixes + native suffixes
 stabiliseer-baar (not: stabil-baar-iseer)
 Intended semantic scope of the affixes used
(Bolivian Quechua)
 llank’-schi-rpari-in “He really helped him work”
 qunga-rpari-schi-wa-n “He helped me forget completely”

12. B. Compounding / Composition
Compounding
1. 2. 3. 5.
4.
Compounding Compounds Compounds Synthetic
Interfixes & compounds &
types & phrases and derived
allomorphy noun
words
incorporation

13. B1. Compound Types
 Compounding  combination of 2 words, one word
modifies the meaning of the other
 General pattern  XY
 “head” in compounds
 Germanic language: using Right Hand Rule (RHR)
 in some other languages: left-headed compounds
 Some examples:
(English)butt call
(Dutch) huis-vrouw  “house wife”
(Maori) wai mangu  “lit. water black”  “ink”

14.  Endocentric compounds : with a head
 Exocentric compounds : without head
 (Italian) porta-lettere  “carry letters”  “postman”
 Bahuvrihi compounds: with special semantic interpretation
 (Dutch) spleet-oog  “slit eye”  “people of Chinese”
 Copulative compounds : coordination relation between constituent
 Dvandva compounds : function as dual/plural expression
 (Punjabi) candrā-dityā-u “the moon and the sun”
 Appositive compounds: singular object, not combination
 (German) fürstbischof  “prince and bishop”

15. B2. Compounds & Phrases
Compounds Phrases
Word-internal constituents CAN’T be Word-internal constituents are affected by
affected by syntactically conditioned rule syntactically conditioned rule
 (German) Rótkòhl “red cabbage”  (Dutch) ròde kóol “red cabbage”
 (German) ein rot-er Kohl “a red cabbage”
 (French) salle(-s) à manger “dining room”
Main stress is on the non head Main stress is on the head
 Rótkòhl , bláckbòard  ròde kóol, blàck bóard
Classify a thing / give name for a Description of a thing
 Constructional idiom
particular kind of thing  atom bomb  atomic bomb
 Separable complex
Constructional idiom : have a verbs Separable complex verbs: the constituents
lexicalized syntactic pattern that create can be separated in syntax
new labels / new lexical expressions (Hungarian) level-et (nem) ir
Down’s syndrome, Murphy’s law “He is (not) engaged in letter writing”

16. B3. Compounds & Derived Words
 Compounding  each constituent = form of a lexeme
 Derivation  involves affixes (= non-lexeme)
But a lexeme may develop into a derivational morpheme
(grammaticalization):
 (a) melk-boer “lit. milk farmer  “dairy man”
 (b) sigaren-boer  “cigar seller”
 (c) tijdschriften-boer  “magazines seller”
 From (b) & (c): -boer = suffix “seller”
 -boer as affix-like morpheme  affixoids

17. B4. Interfixes & Allomorphy
Case for Greek compounds:
First constituent ends in the vowel /o/ which is added to
the stem-form of the lexeme.
pag-o-vuno “ice mountain, ice berg”
sime-o-stolizmos “flag decoration”
The vowels are called interfixes / linking elements
Phonologically, interfixes belong to the 1st constituent.
 pa.go.vu.no / pag.o.vu.no  stem allomorphy

18. B5. Synthetic Compounds
& Noun Incorporation
 Synthetic compounding:
when a word-formation looks like the simultaneous
use of compounding & derivation
sword swallower, heart breaker, church goer, …
show that possible words can function as building
blocks in word-formation.
the semantic role of the non-head maybe determined
by the argument structure of the verbal base of the
head noun.

19. B5. Synthetic Compounds
& Noun Incorporation
 Noun Incorporation:
combination of a noun & a verb into a verbal
compound, where the nouns are non referential.
Compare Noun Incorporation & VerbPhrase:
(Ponapean)
(a) I keng-winih-la “I completed my medicine-taking”
(b) I kanga-la wini-o “I took all that medicine”
 In (a), the nouns are non-referential, while in (b), the
object is syntactically independent.