Lexicology

handbook OF WORD-FORMATION Studies in internal Language and lingual theory mass 64 Managing Editors Marcel den Dikken, urban center University of new- fartherm York Liliane Haegeman, University of Lille Joan Maling, Brandeis University Editorial Board Gug harplmo Cinque, University of Venice hum Georgopoulos, University of Utah Jane Grimshaw, Rutgers University Michael Kenstowicz, Massachusetts Institute of engineering science Hilda Koopman, University of California, Los Angeles Howard Lasnik, University of Maryland Alec Marantz, Massachusetts Institute of engineering science John J.McCarthy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge The titles bring in in this serial argon listed at the end of this pile. handbook OF WORD-FORMATION Edited by PAVOL STEKAUER Pre o University, Pre ov, Slovakia ov e and ROCHELLE LIEBER University of naked Hampshire, Durham, NH, U. S. A. A C. I. P. Catalogue depict for this book is available from the Libr ary 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) produce by Springer, P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. www. origineronline. com Printed on acid-free report card All Rights Reserved cc5 Springer No eccentric of this drub whitethorn be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any(prenominal)(prenominal) flesh or by any pie-eyeds, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, writ decennium text or differentwise, without writ hug drug permission from the Publisher, with the ex communication of any material supplie particularised eachy for the consumption of organism entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed in the Netherlands. table of contents give substance CONTRIBUTORS vii 1 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY grassroots speech communication 1. The nonion of the lingual quality 1. 1 EVIDENCE FOR THE MORPHEME-AS-SIGN local anaestheticization IN de de de de de de de de de de de de de SaussureS COURS 1. 2 EVIDENCE FOR THE WORD-AS-SIGN POSITION IN SAUSSURES COURS Morpheme and enunciate 2. 1 CASE examine slope NOUN plural social class signifier form form form breed FORMS (PART 1) 2. 2 CASE STUDY THE PERFECT PARTICIPLE FORMS OF side VERBS 2. 3 CASE STUDY side NOUN PLURAL FORMS (PART 2) 2. 4 COMPLEMENTARY DISTRIBUTION AND rhythmic pattern VERSUS DERIVATION Morphemes since the 1960s 5 5 7 8 10 11 14 17 18 20 25 25 2. 3. ELLEN M. KAISSE WORD-FORMATION AND PHONOLOGY 1. introduction vi 2.table of contents Effects of lexical category, structural social organisation, and affix type on ph whizmics 2. 1 EFFECTS OF lexical course of instruction AND OF geogeomorphologic multifactorialITY 2. 2 COHERING AND NON-COHERING AFFIXES name bodily structure limited by the phonologic body of the grip of affixation lexical phonology and treatment of honor structure and its ills More recent in complete laws of lexical phonology and syllable structure How do colligate linguistic process affect each an separate(a)(prenominal)? The cycle, transderivational t effects, paradigm uniformity and the the equal Do the cohering affixes f rm a crystal clear set? Split bases, SUBCATWORD fo and ph cardinaltics in morphology c drowse off 26 26 28 32 34 38 39 41 45 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. GREGORY beat WORD-FORMATION AND flectionAL sound structure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The conceptual exit in the midst of inflection and password- institution The inflectional categories of incline Practical criteria for distinguishing inflection from word- defining Practical criteria for distinguishing inflectional periphrases close to homogeneousities among inflection and word- brass coordination compound interactions betwixt inflection and word- validation Inflectional paradigms and word- est ablishment paradigms 7. 1 PARADIGMS AND HEAD MARKING IN INFLECTION AND DERIVATION 7. 2 PARADIGMS AND BLOCKING IN INFLECTION AND DERIVATION 9 49 50 53 59 60 61 65 65 67 contents ANDREW SPENCER WORD-FORMATION AND SYNTAX 1. 2. appearance lexical related t nonpareilss and article of faith structure 2. 1 MORPHOTACTICS IN guileless US STRUCTURALISM 2. 2 word structure AS SYNTAX 2. 3 LEXICAL INTEGRITY Syntactic phenomena inside delivery rail line structure genuineization 4. 1 DEVERBAL sound structure 4. 1. 1 Action nominals 4. 1. 2 Nominals de noning grammatical functions 4. 1. 3 -able adjectives 4. 2 synthetical COMPOUNDS AND NOUN INCORPORATION Theoretical approaches to word formation com framedium and laterword vii 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. insane asylum Hans Marchand 2. 1 nonional FRAMEWORK 2. 2 co subsistent prelude 2. 3 MOTIVATION 2. 4 MORPHONOLOGICAL ALTERNATIONS 2. 5 THE CO NCEPT OF SYNTAGMA 2. 6 GENERATIVE-TRANSFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE 2. 7 ANALYSIS OF COMPOUNDS 2. 8 PRECURSOR OF LEXICALIST venture 99 coke 100 100 101 102 102 104 cv 106 3. Klaus Hansen 107 3. 1 GENERAL 107 3. 2 WORD-FORMEDNESS VS. WORD-FORMATION 107 3. 3 WORD-FORMATION PATTERN VS. WORD-FORMATION TYPE108 3. 4 ONOMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH VS. SEMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH 109 viii 4. CONTENTS Herbert Ernst Brekle 4. GENERAL 4. 2 FRAMEWORK 4. 3 BREKLES mystify 4. 4 PRODUCTION AND meter reading OF COMPOUNDS Leonhard Lipka 5. 1 GENERAL 5. 2 THEORETICAL cultivation Dieter Kastovsky 6. 1 GENERAL 6. 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 6. 3 WORD-FORMATION AT THE articulation OF morphology, SYNTAX, SEMANTICS, PRAGMATICS AND THE LEXICON Gabriele Stein (Lady Quirk) expiry 109 109 whiz hundred ten 110 112 112 112 113 114 114 115 116 116 118 125 125 126 127 128 ace hundred thirty 132 133 133 134 136 138 141 142 143 143 5. 6. 7. 8. TOM ROEPER CHOMSKYS REMARKS AND THE TRANSFORMATIONALIST scheme 1. Nominalization s and encumbrance Grammar 1. CORE CONTRAST 1. 2 TRANSFORMATIONS The pillow pillowcase Enigma 2. 1 PASSIVE -ABILITY NOMINALIZATIONS 2. 2 -ING NOMINALIZATIONS Case As betokenment 3. 1 get by WITH EXCEPTIONS 3. 2 THEMATIC-BINDING Intriguing Issues Aspectual extraity of Nominalization Affixes Where do Affixes Attach? Elaborated idiomatic feel anatomical structure and Nominalizations 6. 1 BARE NOMINALS sure RESTRICTIONS 6. 2 HIGH -ING 6. 3 objective AND -ING NOMINALIZATIONS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. CONTENTS 7. finishing ix gross SERGIO SCALISE AND EMILIANO GUEVARA THE LEXICALIST APPROACH TO WORD-FORMATION AND THE NOTION OF 147 THE LEXICON 1. . 3. 4. A description A Brief History 2. 1 LEES (1960) The Lexicon Lexicalism 4. 1 HALLE (1973) 4. 2 ARONOFF (1976) 4. 2. 1The news-establish Hypothesis 4. 2. 2 Word-Formation Rules 4. 2. 3 Productivity 4. 2. 4 Restrictions on WFRs 4. 2. 5 Stratal features 4. 2. 6 Restrictions on the sidetrack of WFRs 4. 2. 7 Conditions 4. 2. 8 Summary on Word-For mation Rules Some Major Issues 5. 1 dependable AND WEAK LEXICALISM More on the spirit of Lexicon Lexicalism Today 7. 1 INFLECTIONAL MORPHOLOGY 7. 2 SYNTACTIC MORPHOLOGY 7. 3 THE SYNTACTIC INCORPORATION HYPOTHESIS 7. 4 WORD-FORMATION AS SYNTAX 7. DISTRIBUTED MORPHOLOGY Conclusion 147 148 150 151 153 153 157 157 158 159 159 161 162 162 166 166 170 171 173 174 176 176 178 180 181 189 5. 6. 7. 8. ROBERT whiskers AND MARK VOLPE LEXEME -MORPHEME BASE MORPHOLOGY 1. mental hospital 189 x 2. CONTENTS The Three grassroots Hypotheses of LMBM 2. 1 THE SEPARATION HYPOTHESIS 2. 2 THE UNITARY GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION HYPOTHESIS 2. 3 THE BASE RULE HYPOTHESIS Types of Lexical (L-) Derivation 3. 1 competence GRAMMATICAL L-DERIVATION 3. 1. 1 Feature protect Switches 3. 1. 2 Functional Lexical-Derivation 3. 1. 3 policy compound 3. 1. Expressive Derivations Conclusion 189 190 191 192 194 194 194 195 198 199 200 201 207 207 208 209 209 211 211 212 214 217 219 221 225 226 226 227 229 3. 4. Appendix P AVOL STEKAUER ONOMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO WORD-FORMATION 1. 2. 3. unveiling Methods of Onomasiological look into Theoretical approaches 3. 1 MILOS DOKULIL 3. 2 JAN HORECKY 3. 3 PAVOL STEKAUER 3. 3. 1 Word-formation as an independent voice 3. 3. 2 The act of naming 3. 3. 3 Onomasiological Types 3. 3. 4 Conceptual (onomasiological) re miscellanea 3. 3. 5 An Onomasiological memory access to Productivity 3. . 6 Headedness 3. 3. 7 Summary 3. 4 BOGDAN SZYMANEK 3. 5 ANDREAS BLANK 3. 6 PETER KOCH DAVID TUGGY COGNITIVE APPROACH TO WORD-FORMATION 233 1. raw material patterns of cognitive grammar (CG) 1. 1 THE GRAMMAR OF A quarrel UNDER CG 1. 2 LEXICON AND SYNTAX 233 233 235 CONTENTS 2. Schemas and prototypes 2. 1 SCHEMAS AND ELABORATIONS 2. 2 PARTIAL SCHEMATICITY AND THE harvest-feast OF SCHEMATIC NETWORKS 2. 3 PROTOTYPICALITY AND SALIENCE 2. 4 ACCESS TO THE STORE OF CONVENTIONAL KNOWLEDGE, INCLUDING beside STRUCTURES 2. 5 SANCTION Schemas for word formation 3. 1 SCHEMAS FOR WORDS 3. SCHEMAS FOR CLEARLY recognizable WORD PIECES STEMS AND AFFIXES AND CONSTRUCTIONAL SCHEMAS M 3. 3 COMPLEX SEMANTIC AND PHONOLOGICAL POLES 3. 4 SCHEMAS FOR COMPOUNDS 3. 5 STRUCTURAL DESCRIPTIONS, CREATIVITY AND PRODUCTIVE customs duty 3. 6 SANCTION (OF VARIOUS KINDS) FROM COMPONENTS 3. 7 COMPONENTS AND PATTERNS FOR THE WHOLE OVERLAPPING PATTERNS AND MULTIPLE ANALYSES R A 3. 8 CONSTITUENCY Overview of separate issues 4. 1 VALENCE 4. 2 THE MORPHOLOGY-SYNTAX BOUNDARY 4. 3 INFLECTION VS. DERIVATION Whats special around side of meat word formation? Conclusion Implications of ac directing for morphology 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 NATURAL MORPHOLOGY 1. 2. inst eitheration Universal, system-independent morphological naturalness 2. 1 tasteS 2. 2 PREFERENCE FOR ICONICITY 2. 3 mogulICALITY PREFERENCES 2. 4 PREFERENCE FOR MOR PHOSEMANTIC TRANSPARENCY 2. 5 PREFERENCE FOR MORPHOTACTIC TRANSPARENCY 2. 6 PREFERENCE FOR BIUNIQUENESS 2. 7 FIGURE-GROUND PREFERENCES 2. 8 PREFERENCE FOR BINARITY xii CONTENTS 2. 9 OPTIMAL SHAPE OF UNITS 2. 0 ALTERNATIVE NATURALNESS 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 naturalness 4. 1 SYSTEM-ADEQUACY 4. 2 high-powered VS. STATIC MORPHOLOGY 4. 3 usual VS. TYPOLOGICAL VS. SYSTEM-DEPENDENT NATURALNESS PETER ACKEMA AND AD NEELEMAN WORD-FORMATION IN OPTIMALITY possibility 1. Introduction 1. 1 OPTIMALITY THEORY 1. 2 COMPETITION IN MORPHOLOGY disceptation between dis kindred morphemes 2. 1 THE BASIC CASE 2. 2 HAPLOLOGY 2. MARKEDNESS Competition between components 3. 1 ELSEWHERE CASES 3. 2 COMPETITION BETWEEN MODULES THAT DOES NOT carry THE ELSEWHERE PRINCIPLE Competition between incompatible morpheme orders 4. 1 CONFLICTS BE TWEEN analogue CORRESPONDENCE AND TEMPLATIC REQUIREMENTS 4. 2 CONFLICTS BETWEEN analogue CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE CONSTRAINTS Conclusion 2. 3. 4. 5. LAURIE BAUER PRODUCTIVITY THEORIES 1. 2. 3. Introduction Pre-generative theories of productiveness Schultink (1961) CONTENTS 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Zimmer (1964) Aronoff Natural morphology Kiparsky (1982) new wave Marle (1985) Corbin (1987) iii 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. Some go 15. Conclusion FRANZ RAINER CONSTRAINTS ON PRODUCTIVITY 1. 2. Introduction Universal constraints 2. 1 CONSTRAINTS SUPPOSEDLY set AT UG 2. 2 PROCESSING CONSTRAINTS 2. 2. 1 Blocking 2. 2. 2 Complexity base Ordering 2. 2. 3 Productivity, frequency and distance of bases Language-specific constraints 3. 1 LEVEL ORDERING 3. 2 AFFIX-SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS 3. 2. 1 Phonology 3. 2. 2 sound structure 3. 2. 3 Syntax 3. 2. 4 Argument structure 3. 2. semantics 3. 2. 6 Pragmatics and Sociolinguistics 3. xiv 4. last-place remarks PREFACE 349 PETER HOHENHAUS LEXICALIZATION AND I INSTITUTIONALIZATION TITUTIONALIZATION 1. 2. Introduction Lexicalization 2. 1 LEXICALIZATION IN A historic SENSE 2. 2 LEXICALIZATION IN A SYNCHRONIC SENSE LISTING/LISTEDNESS 2. 3 THE LEXICON AND THEORIES OF WORD-FORMATION Institutionalization 3. 1 TERMINOLOGY 3. 2 type AND REAL SPEAKERS AND THE SPEECH COMMUNITY 3. 3 DE-INSTITUTIONALIZATION THE END OF A WORDS LIFE Problems 4. 1 NONCE-FORMATIONS AND NEOLOGISMS 4. 2 (NON-)LEXICALIZABILITY 4. 3 WHAT IS IN THE (MENTAL) LEXICON AND HOW DOES IT GET THERE? . 4 UNPREDICTABLE & PLAYFUL FORMATIONS, ANALOGY, FADS, AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS 4. 5 LEXICALIZATION BEYOND WORDS 353 353 353 353 356 357 359 359 360 362 363 363 365 367 369 370 375 375 375 376 378 379 379 383 390 391 393 400 402 3. 4. ROCHELLE LIEBER ENGLISH WORD-FORMATION PROCESSES 1. 2. Introduction Compounding 2. 1 de bou ndine WHAT COUNTS AS A COMPOUND 2. 2 ROOT COMPOUNDING 2. 3 synthetic COMPOUNDING 2. 4 STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION Derivation 3. 1 PREFIXATION 3. 1. 1 minus affixes (un-, in-, non-, de-, dis-) 3. 1. 2 Locational prefixes 3. 1. 3 Temporal and aspectual prefixes 3. 1. Quantitative prefixes 3. CONTENTS 3. 1. 5 literal prefixes 3. 2 SUFFIXATION 3. 2. 1 Personal nouns 3. 2. 2 Abstract nouns 3. 2. 3 Verb-forming affixes 3. 2. 4 Adjective-forming affixes 3. 2. 5 Collectives 3. 3 CONCLUSION 4. 5. Conversion Conclusion xv 402 403 403 406 410 413 417 418 418 422 429 429 430 431 BOGDAN SZYMANEK THE LATEST TRENDS IN ENGLISH WORD-FORMATION 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Introduction Derivational neologisms Analogical formations, local analogies Changes in the relative signifi tin tince of types of word-formation processes 431 secretion of new affixes Lexicalisation of affixes 435 436Changes in the productivity, relative productivity and scope of individualist 436 affixes Semantics changes in constructive functions 438 Trends in the form of k nonty delivery 441 9. 1 CHOICE OF RIVAL AFFIXES MORPHOLOGICAL DOUBLETS 441 9. 2 PHONOLOGICAL FORM puree 443 449 459 465 SUBJECT INDEX NAME INDEX LANGUAGE INDEX PREFACE adjacent years of complete or failial tone deteriorate of issues concerning word formation (by which we fee-tail primarily derivation, heighten, and conversion), the year 1960 marked a revival few competency so off the beaten track(predicate) say a resurrection of this important region of linguistic choose.While written in altogether in every last(predicate) different theoretical frameworks (structuralist vs. transformationalist), from completely different perspectives, and with different objectives, twain Marchands Categories and Types of current slope Word-Formation in Europe and Lees Grammar of incline Nominalizations instigated systematic query in the field. As a result, a thumping subject of seminal works emerged eachplace the borde ring decades, making the scope of wordt formation interrogation broader and deeper, so contri exactlying to better concord of this exciting atomic number 18a of forgiving wording.Parts of this development contrive been captured in texts or check into books (e. g. P. H. Matthews Morphology An Introduction to the Theory of Word-Structure (1974), Andrew Spencers morphological Theory An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar (1991), Francis Katambas Morphology (1993), r Spencer and Zwickys enchiridion of Morphology (1998)), unbosom these books tend to dissertate twain inflectional and derivational morphology, and to do so nearlyly from the generative geological period of view.What seemed lacking to us was a volume intended for advanced students and other researchers in linguistics which would trace the many strands of study some(prenominal)(prenominal) generative and non-generative that en looker highly-developed from Marchands and Lees seminal works, on twain sides of the Atlantic. The ambitions of this handbook of Word-formation argon four-fold 1. To map the realm of the art in the field of word-formation. 2. To vitiate a biased approach to word-formation by presenting different, mutu in all in ally antonymous, frameworks in spite of frontance which research into wordformation has interpreted place. vii xviii 3. 4. PREFACE To present the specific topics from the perspective of experts who urinate signifi dejectiontly contri entirelyed to the several(prenominal) topics addressed. To look specifically at individual side word formation processes and review some of the developments that take over interpreted place since Marchands comprehensive preaching forty five years ago. on that pointfore, the enchiridion provides the reader with the state of the art in the study of k word formation (with a special view to face word formation) at the eginning of the triad millennium. The vade mecum is intended to give the reader a clear idea of the k large count of issues examined in spite of appearance word-formation, the different methods and approaches apply, and an ever-growing number of tasks to be dis comprise of in future(a) research. At the analogous time, it gives essay of the dandy theoretical achievements and the vitality of this field that has run a full-fledged linguistic discipline. We esteem to express our gratitude to all the contri moreoverors to the Handbook. The editor programs CONTRIBUTORSPeter Ackema is reader in linguistics at the University of Edinburgh. He has worked extensively on issues regarding the morphology- sentence structure interface, on which he has produce twain books, Issues in Morpho phrase structure (Amsterdam John Benjamins, 1999), and beyond Morphology (Oxford Oxford University bid, 2004, co- causationed with Ad Neeleman). He has as easily print on a big range of syntaxinternal and morphology-internal topics. Laurie Bauer holds a personal tone down in linguistics at capital of Seychelles University of Wellington, New Zealand.He has published widely on international varieties of space, especially New Zealand face, and on aspects of morphology, including daub Word-formation (Cambridge University Press, 1983), Morphological Productivity (Cambridge University Press, 2001), Introducing lingual Morphology (Edinburgh University Press, 2nd edn, 2003), A polish of Morphology (Edinburgh University Press, 2004). Robert Beard received his PhD in Slavic linguistics from the University of Michigan and taught for 35 years at Bucknell University.In 2000 he retired as the Ruth Everett Sierzega prof of philology at Bucknell to entrap the web- ground company of wrangle products and services, yourDictionary. com, where he is currently CEO. He is the author of The Indo-European Lexicon (Amsterdam NorthHolland, 1981) and Lexeme-Morpheme invertebrate foot Morphology (New York SUNY Press, 1995). Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy is professo r in the incision of Linguistics at the University of green goddessterbury, New Zealand. He is the author of Allomorphy in inflexion (London Croom Helm, 1987), Current Morphology (London and New York Routledge, 1992) and An Introduction to slope Morphology (EdinburghEdinburgh University Press, 2002). He is excessively takeed in lyric evolution, and has published The Origins of Complex Language An Inquiry into the evolutionary Beginnings of Sentences, Syllables and Truth (Oxford OUP, 1999). 1 2 CONTRIBUTORS Wolfgang Dressler is professor of linguistics, Head of the cream off subdivision of r Linguisics at the University of capital of Austria and of the Commission for Linguistics of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. He is the author of Morphonology (Ann spike Karoma Press, 1985) and Morphopragmatics (with Lavinia Merlini Barb besi) (Berlin Mouton de Gruyter, 1994).Emiliano Guevara is lecturer of General Linguistics at the University of Bologna and is member of the Mor-Bo r eserach theme at the Department of Foreign phraseologys in Bologna. His publications embroil V-Compounding in Dutch and Italian (Cuadernos de Linguistica, Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset, 1-21 (with S. Scalise) and Selection in compounding and derivation (to appear) (with S. m Scalise and A. Bisetto). Peter Hohenhaus is lecturer in modern linguistics at the University of Nottingham (UK).He received his PhD in position Linguistics from the University of Hamburg and has published on standardization and purism, humorology, computer-mediated communication as well as English and German word-formation, in headt nonce word-formation, including the volume Ad-hoc-Wortbildung Terminologie, Typologie und Theorie kreativer Wortbildung im Englischen (Frankfurt, Bern etc. Lang, 1996). Ellen M. Kaisse is professor of Linguistics, University of Washington, Seattle. Her master(prenominal) fields of research take morphology-phonology and syntaxphonology interfaces, intonation, his torical phonology, and Spanish phonology.She is an author of affiliated speech the interaction of syntax and phonology (Orlando t Academic Press, 1985), Studies in Lexical Phonology (ed. with S. Hargus, Orlando y Academic Press, 1993), palatalized vowels, glides, and consonants in Argentinian Spanish (with J. Harris) (Phonology 16, 1999, 117-190), The eagle-eyed fall an intonational melody of Argentinian Spanish (In Features and interfaces in Romance, ed. by Herschensohn, Mallen and Zagona, 2001, 147-160), and Sympathy meets Argentinian Spanish (In The nature of the word essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky, ed. by K. Hanson and S. Inkelas, MIT Press, in press).Dieter Kastovsky is professor of English Linguistics at the University of Vienna and Director of the Center for displacement Studies. His main fields of interest embarrass English morphology and word-formation (synchronic and diachronic), semantics, explanation of linguistics, and nomenclature typology. He is the author of Old English Deverbal Substantives Derived by Means of a nought in Morpheme (Esslingen/N. Langer, 1968), Wortbildung und Semantik (Tubingen/Dusseldorf k Francke/Bagel, 1982), and more than 80 articles on English morphology and wordformation (synchronic and diachronic), semantics, story of linguistics, and language typology.Rochelle Lieber is Professor of English at the University of New Hampshire. Her publications include Morphology and Lexical Semantics HANDBOOK OF WORD-FORMATION 3 (Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2004), Deconstructing Morphology ( gelt University of Chicago Press 1992), and An Integrated Theory of Autosegmental Processes (New York SUNY Press 1987), as well as legion(predicate) articles on various aspects of word formation and the interfaces between morphology and syntax, and morphology and phonology. Ad Neeleman is Reader in Linguistics at University College London.His main research interests ar case theory, the syntactical encoding of thematic depen dencies, and the interaction between syntax and syntax-external systems. His main publications include Complex Predicates (1993), Flexible Syntax (1999, with Fred Weerman), beyond Morphology (Oxford Oxford University Press 2004, with Peter Ackema), as well as articles in Linguistic Inquiry, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, and yearbook of Morphology. Franz Rainer is Professor of Romance languages at the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration.He is the author of Spanische Wortbildungslehre (Tubingen Niemeyer, 1993) and co-editor (with maria Grossmann) of La formazione delle pa eccentric in italiano (Tubingen Niemeyer, 2004), both of these publications being comprehensive litigatements of the word-formation in the respective languages. Tom Roeper, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Massachusetts, has written widely on morphology and language acquisiton, including compounds, nominalizations, implicit arguments, and derivationial morphology.In the field of language aquisition, he is also Managing Editor of Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics (Kluwer), a Founding editor of Language Acquisition (Erlbaum), and also the author of Understanding and Producing Speech (London Fontana, g 1983, co-authored with Ed Matthei), Parameter Setting (Dordrecht Reidel, 1987, with E. Williams), Theoretical Issues in Language Acquisition (Hillsdale Erlbaum, 1992, with H. Goodluck and J. Weissenborn), and the forthcoming The optical prism of Grammar (MIT Press). Sergio Scalise is Professor of General Linguistics at the University of Bologna. He is the editor of the journal Lingue e Linguaggio.His pulications include Generative Morphology (Dordrecht Foris, 1984), Morfologia (Bologna Il Mulino, 1994), and Le lingue e il Linguaggio (Bologna Il Mulino, 2001 (with Giorgio Graffi)). Andrew Spencer is Professor of Linguistics in the Department of Language and Linguistics at the University of Essex. He has worked on various problems of phonological and morphological theory. In addition to English, his major language atomic number 18a is Slavic. He is the author of Morphological Theory (Oxford Blackwells, 1991) and co-editor (with Arnold Zwicky) of the Handbook of Morphology (Oxford Blackwells, 1998). CONTRIBUTORS Pavol Stekauer is Professor of English linguistics in the Department of British and American Studies, Presov University, Slovakia. His research has boil downsed on an onomasiological approach to word-formation and on the history of research into word-formation. He is the author of A Theory of Conversion in English (Frankfurt am Main Peter Lang, 1996), An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-Formation (Amsterdam/Philadelphia John Benjamins, 1998)), and English Word-Formation. A History of Research (1960-1995).Tubingen Gunter Narr, 2000), and the forthcoming intend Predictability in Word-Formation (Amsterdam/Philadelphia John Benjamins) Gregory T. Stump is Professor of English and Linguistics at the University of K entucky. His research has focused on the development of figure Function Morphology. He is the author of The Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions (Dordrecht Reidel, 1985), Inflectional Morphology A Theory of Paradigm Structure (Cambridge CUP, 2001). He is currently serving as an Associate Editor of Language and as a Consulting Editor for Yearbook of Morphology.Bogdan Szymanek is Professor of English linguistics, Head of the Department of novel English, Catholic University of Lublin, Poland. His major research interests include morphology and its interfaces with other grammatical components, lexicology, English and Slavic languages. He is the author of Categories and categorization in morphology (RW KUL Lublin, 1988) and d Introduction to morphological abstract (PWN Warsaw, 1998 (3rd ed. )). David Tuggy has worked in Mexico with the summertime Institute of Linguistics since 1970.His main aras of interest include Nahuatl, Cognitive f grammar, translation, lexicography, an d accidental blends and other bloopers. He is an author of The transitivity-related morphology of Tetelcingo Nahuatl An exploration in Space grammar (UCSD doctorial dissertation, 1981), The affix-stem r sign A Cognitive grammar analysis of data from Orizaba Nahuatl (Cognitive Linguistics 3/3, 237-300), The thing is is that people talk that way. The pass is is why? (In E. Casad (ed. ). 1995.Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods the magnification of a new paradigm in linguistics. Berlin Mouton de Gruyter, 713-752. ), and Abrelatas and sc becrow nouns Exocentric verb-noun compounds as similes of basic commandments of Cognitive grammar ( (International Journal of English Studies (2004) III, 25-61). grunge Volpe is a Ph. D candidate at SUNY at Stony die hard expecting to defend his dissertation on Nipponese morphology in ahead of time spring 2005. He is currently a tour lecturer in the Department of liberal arts at Mie National University in Tsu, Japan.He has published inde pendently in Lingua and Snippets and has coauthored with Paolo Acquaviva, Mark Aronoff and Robert Beard. BASIC TERMINOLOGY ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY 1. THE NOTION OF THE lingual SIGN In this antecedent chapter I result discuss the nonions morpheme and sign in recounting to word-formation. The starting- depute pass on be Ferdinand de Saussures nonion sign (signe) (Saussure 1973), which since the early 20th nose candy has influenced e normously how linguists stir analysed wrangling and parts of nomenclature as grammatical social units. at that place cease be no tidy conclusion, partly because Saussure himself was hidden on crucial points, and partly because among modern linguistic theorists in that respect is teensy-weensy arrangement about even the most fundamental aspects of how word-formation should be analysed and what lineinationinology should be used in describing it. barely I swear that this chapter will alert readers to some of the main risks of misun derstanding that they are sure to hit later. 1 A handbook of English syntax in the twenty- prototypic century would non be likely to set out with a word of honor of Saussure. Why hencely does it make experience for a handbook on word-formation to do so?There are twain argues. The starting line is that syntax is centrally concerned non with individual signs in Saussures sense alone with combinations of signs. That makes it sound as if word-formation, by contrast, is concerned non with combinations of signs but all with individual signs. As to whether that implication is amiable or not, readers can in repayable course form their own opinions. For the present, it is everywhereflowing to say that, in the opinion of most but not all linguists, the way in which significationful elements are combine in syntax is different from how they are combined in building complex wrangle.The stand by effort has to do with Saussures trait between language as societal convention (langue) and language as ( utterance ( word). apiece language as langue kick the buckets to a community of speakers and, because it is a social convention, individuals apply no encounter everyplace it. On the other hand, language as countersignature is something that individual speakers put up control over it rests of the use that individuals freely make of their langue in the sentences and phrases that they utter.Hence, because syntax is concerned with the structure of sentences and phrases, Saussure seems to realize considered the study of syntax as live oning to the study of pa piece, not langue (the exception being those sentences or phrases that are idioms or cliches and which therefore depart to langue because they are conventional quite an a than freely constructed). So, because his focus was on langue quite a than parole, Saussure had little to say about syntax. 1 I will use Saussure in this chapter as shorthand for Saussures view as presented in the Cours de l inguistique generale.The Cours is a posthumous compilation based on notes of various series of lectures that Saussure delivered over a number of years. Apparent inconsistencies in the Cours may be due to developments in Saussures thinking over time or faulty note-taking on the part of the compilers or both. Nevertheless, it is the Cours as a unit of measurement that has influenced subsequent linguists, and on that priming it is fair to discuss it as if it were created by one author as a individual coherent work. 5 Stekauer P. and R. Lieber (eds. ), Handbook of Word-Formation, 523. 2005 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands. 6 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY Saussure introduced his notion sign with a notable archetype a diagram consisting of an ellipse, the top(prenominal) fractional subscribeing a picture of a tree and the lower half containing the Latin word mandril tree (Saussure Cours, part 1, chapter 1 99 r 67). 2 The upper half of the diagram is meant to bet a concept, or wha t the sign signifies (its signifie), speckle the lower half represents the unit of expression in Latin that signifies it (the signifiant).As Saussure acknowledges, the bound sign in its normal employment seems closer to the signifiant than the signifie, and at first one is t given to ask what the point is in distinguishing the signifiant from the sign as a t whole. Saussures resoluteness lies largely in his view of how signs are related to each other. Signs (he says) do not function in isolation but rather have a mensurate (valeur) as part of a system (part 2, chapter 4 155-69 110-20). Concepts (signifies) do not exist in the world indepently of language but exclusive as components of the signs to which they belong.By this Saussure does not mean that (for example) trees have no real existence apart from language, but rather that the term for the concept tree will differ in valeur from one language to some other depending on whether or not that r language has, for example, c ontrasting harm for the concept bush (a small tree) or the concept timber (wood from trees for use in building or furniture-making). 3 Each signifie has a wider or narrower scope, concord to how a couple of(prenominal) or how many are the related signs that its sign contrasts with.And with signifiants, too, what matters most is not the sounds or letter that compose them but their role in distinguishing one sign from another. Thus the Attic Greek verb forms ephen I was saying and esten I stood both have the correspondent structure (a prefix e-, a root, and a affix -n), but their valeur deep down their respective verbal paradigms is different ephen is an r im holy strain form tour esten is aorist. So far, so good, perhaps.The Latin word arbor and the English word tree are r simple words, not analysable into littler substanceful parts, and each is in Saussures name a sign. But consider the word unhelpfulness, which seems decidedly to consist of four elements, un-, help, -f ul and -ness, each of which contributes in a l guileless way to the meaning of the whole. Consider also the words Londoner, Muscovite, Parisian, Roman, and Viennese, all meaning inhabitant of , and all consisting of a stem followed by a affix. What things count as signs here the whole words, or the elements composing them, or both?It is at this point that Saussures expounding becomes frustratingly unclear, as I will represent presently. permit us call these elements morphemes. This is legitimate with the function of Baudouin de Courtenay, the inventor of the term, who speaks of the unification of the concepts of root, affix, prefix, ending, and the like under the cat valium term, morpheme (Baudouin de Courtenay 1972 151) and defines it as that part of a word which is endowed with psychological autonomy and is for the very same reason not 2Because readers are likely to have access to Saussures Cours in various different editions and translations, I will give first a indite to the relevant part and chapter, past a page summons to the 1973 edition by Tullio de Mauro, and finally a page bootence to the 1983 translation by Roy Harris. I quote passages from the Cours in the translation by Harris. I use Saussures real practiced impairment langue, parole, signifiant and signifie, for which no logical English equivalents have become t established. 3 This illustration is mine, not Saussures, but is in the spirit ofSaussures discussion of how two English words sheep and mutton correspond to one cut word mouton. BASIC TERMINOLOGY 7 further separable (1972 153). It is also consonant with effective interpretations of the kind offered in introductory linguistics courses, where morphemes are characterised as by the piece meaningful units which are minimal in the sense that they are not partible into littler meaningful units. 4 The straits right posed now becomes Do morphemes count as signs, or do moreover words count, or both?Much of the divergence in how the term morpheme is used can be seen as due to implicit or uttered attempts to treat morphemes as signs, despite the difficulties that speedily arise when one does so. These are difficulties that Saussure never confronts, because the term morpheme never appears in the Cours. In Saussures defence, one can fairly plead that he could not be expected to crown every aspect of his notion of the sign in introductory lectures. to that degree the interview that I have except posed about morphemes is one that naturally arises nearly as soon as the notion of the sign is introduced.A case can be made for attributing to Saussure two diametrically opposed stains relating to the role of signs in word-formation. I will call these the morpheme-as-sign position and the word-as-sign position. I will first present usher from the Cours for morphemes as signs, then present evidence for words as signs. 1. 1 indicate for the morpheme-as-sign position in Saussures Cours The strangeity be tween langue and parole is far from the that important binary attribute introduced by Saussure in his Cours.Another is the distinction between syntagmtic relationships (involving elements in linear succession) and associative relationships (involving elements that contrast on a dimension of choice). 5 Elements that can be related syntagmatically include signs, and in event the signifiants of signs, which are presented one later on another so as to form a arrange (part 1, chapter 1, fragment 3 103 70). bonds of items that form syntagmatically related combinations are called syntagmas (syntagmes) (part 2, chapter 5 170-5 121-5). Some syntagmas have meanings that are conventionalize or idiomatic.This conventionalisation renders them part of langue. An example is the phrase prendre la mouche (literally to take the zap), which means to take offence (part 2, chapter 5, theatrical role 2 172 123). However, the great majority of phrases and sentences have meanings that are transp arent, not idiomatic. As much(prenominal), they belong to parole, not to langue. As examples of syntagmas that belong to parole, Saussure cites contre tous against all, la vie humaine human life, Dieu est bon God is good, and sil fait beau temps, nous sortirons if its fine, well go out (part 2, chapter 5, plane air division 1 170 121).These phrases and sentences do not name signs as wholes rather, t 4 5 This resembles Bloomfields classic definition a linguistic form which bears no conspicuousone phoneticsemantic resemblance to any other form (1933 161). One implication of the specification partial tone is that two morphemes may display count phonetic individuality (so as to be homonyms) or total semantic identity (so as to be synonyms). In the technical terminology of linguistics, the term paradigmatic, promoted by Louis Hjelmslev (1961), has come to replace associative as the counterpart of syntagmatic.But I will stick to Saussures term in this chapter. 8 ANDREW CARSTAIR S-MCCARTHY they are made up of smaller signs, namely the words or idiomatic expressions that they contain. On this basis, the headway Do morphemes count as signs? can be refined as Can morphemes as such compose syntagmas that belong to parole rather than to langue? At first sight, the dissolve is yes. In the very same passage where Saussure gives the examples just quoted, he cites the word re-lire to read again.Saussure uses the spell to draw concern to the divisibility of this word into two elements, re- again and lire to read. The word relire indeed has a meaning that is as transparent as that of unhelpfulness. hither, at to the lowest degree, it seems clear that Saussure intends us to analyse the morpheme re- as a sign, forming part of a syntagma that belongs to parole rather than to langue. Further evidence for this morpheme-as-sign position seems to be supplied by Saussures discussion of suffixes such as -ment and -eux, and of aught signs.The t words enseignement ins truction, enseigner to get a line and enseignons we teach t r clear share what Saussure calls a green element. Similarly, the suffixes -ment and -eux are common elements in the set of words enseignement, armement armament and changement change (noun), and in the set desir-eux desirous t (from desir desire), chaleur-eux warm (from chaleur warmth), and peur-eux r r fearful (from peur fear) (part 2, chapter 5, subdivision 3 173-5 123-5). 6 These r common elements are morphemes, in terms of our rough-and-ready definition.Are they also signs, in Saussures sense? Saussure hints at the issue yes when he discusses a set of instances where overt suffixes contrast with zero. In Czech, the noun zena woman gilds a widespread pattern in which the possessive case plural form zen is tell from the other case-number forms, such as the accusatory singular zenu and the tokenish plural zeny, s necessitate by the absence of a suffix. Here the genitive plural has as its pleader zero or the sign zero (part 1, chapter 3, function 3 123-4 86).Surely then (one is inclined to think) the accusative singular suffix -u and the nominative plural suffix -y, both being morphemes in our sense, must have at least(prenominal) as much adept as zero has to count as signs. It is tempting to conclude that, in complex words, Saussure bring ins individual morphemes as signs provided that the complex word is mendly formed and semantically transparent. A reader of the Cours who looks for explicit check mark of this tempting conclusion will be frustrated, however.Many complex words other than re-lire and forms of zena are discussed, but unendingly it is in contexts that punctuate the associative relationships of the word as a whole, rather than the syntagmatic relationship between the morphemes that compose it. These discussions point away from morphemes as signs and towards words as signs, therefore. 1. 2 express for the word-as-sign position in Saussures Cours Closely parallel in stru cture to relire is the verb de-faire to undo, also discussed by Saussure (part 2, chapter 6, section 2 177-8 127-8). Again he uses a hyphen to draw solicitude to its internal structure.The meaning of defaire, at least in many 6 The inconsistency in the use of hyphens here is Saussures. BASIC TERMINOLOGY 9 contexts, seems just as transparent as that of relire, on the basis of the meanings of faire to do and de- implying reversal. Indeed, Saussure draws our attention to this transparency by citing the parallel formations decoller to unstick, deplacer to r r remove (literally to un-place) and decoudre to unsew. However, comparing the discussion of relire, we find an important deviation in emphasis here. With relire, the emphasis was on syntagmatic relationships.With defaire, however, the emphasis is on the associative relationships that it enters into not just with decoller, deplacer and decoudre but also with faire itself, refaire to make, and contrefaire to caricature. Now, it is clear that contrefaire is something of an outsider in this list, because its meaning cannot be predicted from that of its elements faire and contre against. One might therefore have expected Saussure to say something like this Because of its unpredictable meaning, the syntagma contrefaire is conventionalised and belongs as a one(a) sign to langue, so that contre and faire do not count as signs in this context.However, the meanings of the other complex words I have cited are predictable, so they are examples of syntagmas that belong to parole, and in them the morphemes re- and de-, as well as the verb stems that accompany them, are signs. But what Saussure certainly says is almost the opposite of that. The word defaire is decomposable into smaller units, he says, scarce to the extent that is surrounded by those other forms (decoller, refaire and so on) on the axis of association. Moreover, a word such as desireux is a product, a combination of interdependent elements, their repu te i. . valeur deriving solely from their mutual contributions within a larger unit (part 2, chapter 6, section 1 176 126). Recall that valeur is a keeping of signs, dependent on their place within the sign system as a r whole. Saussures words here imply, therefore, that in desireux, the smaller unit or element -eux, though clearly identifiable, is not a sign. Saussure hints that even the root desir, in the context of this word, does not count as a sign either, although it clearly does so when it appears as a word on its own. We are thus unexpended with a contradiction.The word relire is cited in a context that invites us to treat it as a unit of parole, not langue, make up of signs, just like the sentence If its fine, well go out. On the other hand, the discussion surrounding defaire insists on its situation as a unit of langue, a sign as a whole, composed of elements or smaller units that are not signs. On the basis of my presentation so far, the evidence for the two positions (morpheme-as-sign and word-as-sign) may seem fairly evenly balanced. But there are solid reasons to think that the word-as-sign position more closely reflects Saussures true view.Consider the French number word dix-neuf nineteen (literally f ten-nine). In such a transparent compound as this, the two morphemes dix and neuf, being words (and hence signs) on their own, must surely still count as signs f (one may think). But no, says Saussure dix-neuf does not contain parts that are signs f any more than vingt twenty does (part 2, chapter 6, section 3 181 130). The t difference between dix-neuf and vingt, as he presents it, involves a new distinction f t between signs that are motivated and signs that are unprovoked.The sign vingt is unmotivated in that it is purely arbitrary the sounds (or letters) that make it up give f no clue to its meaning. The sign dix-neuf however, contains subunits which give clues to its meaning that could hardly be unanimouser. Even so, correspond to Saus sure, 10 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY dix-neuf is still a single sign on the same 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 French r f number words that imposes on it the attitude of a unitary sign, despite its semantic transparency. Saussure might also have added that this transparency, real though it is, depends on a convention that belongs to French langue, not parole the convention that concatenation of dix and neuf means ten plus nine, not ten times f nine or ten to the ninth power, for example. His neglect of this point reflects his general neglect of syntactic and syntagmatic convention. 7 Similarly, the English plural form ships is motivated because it revokes a whole series like flags, birds, books, etc. , while men and sheep are unmotivated because they recall no parallel cases.The plural suffix -(e)s is, in the English-speaking world, among the first halfdozen morphemes that every beginning stu dent of linguistics is introduced to. Yet for Saussure it does not count as sign it is merely a reason for classifying the words that it appears in (ships, flags etc. ) as relatively motivated signs rather than purely d arbitrary ones. There is thus a striking discrepancy between the word-centred approach to complex words, predominant in the work of the pioneer structuralist Saussure, and the morpheme-centred approach that (as we shall see) predominated among his structuralist successors.In section 2 I will chalk out the attractions and pitfalls of morpheme-centred approaches. 2. MORPHEME AND WORD Saussure selectd some of the difficulties inherent in victimisation word as a technical term (part 2, chapter 2, section 3). Nevertheless, when illustrating his notion sign, he chose linguistic units that in ordinary usage would be classified as r r words, such as Latin arbor tree and French juger to infer (part 1, chapter 1, section 1 part 2, chapter 4, section 2).This may be largely because the languages from which he drew his examples were nearly all well-studied European languages with a long written history and a customs duty of grammatical and lexical analysis in f terms of which the identification of words (in some sense) was uncontroversial. However, ensuant the theoretical developments in linguistics in the early twentieth century was an detonation in fieldwork on non-Indo-European languages, particularly in the Americas and Africa. In these languages, lacking a European-style tradition of grammatical description, identifying words as linguistic units often seemed problematic.In fact, there was a strong current of opinion match to which the word deserves no special status in linguistic description, and in particular no special status warranting a distinction between the internal structure of words (morphology) and the internal structure of phrases and sentences (syntax). As Malinowski put it, isolated words are in fact only linguistic figments, the pr oducts of an advanced linguistic analysis (Malinowski 1935 11, cited by Robins 1990 154). So what units are portion as tools for a preliminary linguistic analysis?It seemed natural to make those units that are clearly indivisible grammatically and t 7 I owe this point to Harris (1987 132). BASIC TERMINOLOGY 11 lexically, or, in other words, units of the kind that we provisionally denominate morphemes in section 1. Thus, despite Saussures leaning towards the word-assign position, the experience of fieldwork on languages unfamiliar to most European and American scholars imposed a preference for a version of the morpheme-as-sign position. Where, then, does the morpheme-as-sign position leads us?Let us recall first the Saussurean norm of what constitutes a signifiant a sequentially lucid suck up of sounds, such as Latin arbor (spelled arbor) or French y e (spelled juger), such that every unit of parole is analysable good as a string of signifiants (part 1, chapter 1, section 3). W hat we will observe is a enticement towards signs with signifiants that deviate progressively further from this norm. The analyses that I will discuss are based on 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). None of these explicitly espouses the morpheme-as-sign position, because none of them cites Saussure. However, the issues that they discuss can all be seen as prima facie difficulties for that position. The fact that all these references are clustered more than half a century ago reflects the reliever of f morphology by syntax at the centre of grammatical theory-construction. Nevertheless, I will comment in section 3 on uses of the term morpheme since about 1960. 2. Case study English noun plural forms (part 1) f For Saussure, as we have seen, the -s suffix of flags and ships is not a sign but an element that renders those words relatively motivated, by contrast with men and sheep. Let us say instead that this -s suffix is indeed a sign, with the signifie plural. What is its signifiant? So far as English spelling is concerned, the answer is simple. When we turn to phonology, however, we encounter our first stumbling-block. In a conventional phonemic musical arrangement for these two words, the suffix will appear in two different shapes, /z/ and /s/, (/fl? , ps/), and there is heretofore a third shape, either / z/ or / z/, according to dialect, found in words such as roses, horses, churches and judges. 8 Must we then recognise common chord different signs with the same signifie? such an analysis would place these trey signs on a par with sets of synonyms such as courgettes and zucchini, or nearly and almost. That is hardly satisfactory, because it neglects the role of phonology in determining the antonymous scattering of the three shapes / z/ appears later strident lei sounds, while elsewhere /z/ appears after voiced sounds and /s /after backbreaking ones.It was in relation to patterns such as this that the term allomorph was first introduced in morphology. The intended parallel with the notions phoneme and allophone is evident. bonny as sounds that are phonetically similar and in 8 In my dialect, the third shape is / z/, so that taxes sounds the same as taxis, but roses sounds different from genus Rosas. For many speakers of other dialects, the homophony pattern is the other way round. The examples that I will discuss fit my own dialect, but similar examples can substantially be constructed to t make the same point for speakers with the other homophony pattern. 2 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY complementary distribution count as allophones of one phoneme, so severally meaningful units that are not divisible into smaller meaningful units, provided that they are identical and in complementary distribution, count as allomorphs of one morpheme. And just as it is the allophones of a phoneme that get pronounced, rather than the phoneme itself, a morpheme is withal not pronounced directly, but represent in the speech chain by whichever of its allomorphs is appropriate for the context.This applies even to morphemes that have the same shape in all contexts, because there is no reason in principle why a morpheme should not have only one allomorph, just as a phoneme may have only one allophone. Notice, however, that that phrase individually meaningful units that are not divisible into smaller meaningful units is lifted from my provisional definition of morpheme in section 1. It seems, then, that our exploration of the morpheme-assign position has led us already to a dilemma.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 cede that the units that deserve sign status, as an alternate(a) to words, are not after 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 supererogatory from the point of view of the Saussurean t sign, constituting neither a signifiant nor a signifie.On the other hand, if we esteem to continue to say that it is morphemes that are signs, rather than allomorphs, we must depart from the Saussurean doctrine that a signifiant is a linearly ordered string t within the speech chain (/ z/, for example), and say instead that it is, or may be, a set d of linearly ordered strings in complementary distribution (/ z/, /z/ and /s/, in this instance). The fact that the distribution of these allomorphs is phonologically conditioned may suggest an shunning from this dilemma.If the choice between the three allomorphs is determined purely by constraints of English phonology, then perhaps we can say that, in phonological terms at least (although not phonetic), we really are relat ions with only one string within the speech chain, not three. If so, the problem of five-fold signifiants disappears, and the plural -s suffix conforms to the norm for a Saussurean sign. The stumbling-block is not quite so easily surmounted, however. English phonological constraints do not planning a conclusive verdict on which allomorph is appropriate in all contexts.There are many contexts where more than one of the three allomorphs is phonologically admissible, and some contexts where all three are. Consider the noun pen /pen/. Its plural form is /penz/, complying with the generalisation that the voiced form of the suffix appears after voiced sounds (other than lei stridents). But this is not because the alternative suffix shapes yield bad phonotactic combinations. Both /pens/ and / pen z/ are phonologically wellformed, and indeed both exist as words (pence and pennies). So something more than pure ( phonotactics is at work in the choice between the three allomorphs.Only in te rms of a phonological theory more sophisticated than any available in Saussures time (for 9 This is the view defended by Me uk (1993-2000). BASIC TERMINOLOGY 13 example, contemporaneous Optimality Theory) can we motivate a single phonological underlier for all three. Around the middle(a) of the twentieth century, problems such as the one we have just encountered were typically handled by positing a level of analysis in some degree distinct from both phonology and morphology, called morphophonology (sometimes abbreviated to morphonology) or morphophonemics.The terms morphophonology and morphophonological are sometimes used to mean simply (pertaining to) the interface between morphology and phonology. However, morphophonemics has a more specific sense, implying a unit called a morphophoneme. In this instance, one might posit a morphophoneme /Z/ (say), realised phonologically as / z/, /z/ or /s/, according to the context. 10 This allows us to posit a single signifiant underlying / z/ , /z/ and /s/, but at the embody (again) of t recognising a signifiant which departs from Saussures norm in that it is not t pronounceable directly.The morphophoneme /Z/, as just described, is realised by allomorphs that are distributed on a phonological basis. But complementary distribution may be based on grammar rather than phonology. English nouns such as wife, loaf and bath supply f f f an illustration of this. In the singular, they end in a voiceless strident /waif/, /louf/, / /ba /. In the plural, however, their stems end in a voiced fricative (/waiv/, /louv/, /ba /). (This difference between the singular 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 voiced sounds /z/. Do the singular and plural stems therefore belong to distinct morphemes? To say so would be pursuant(predicate) with Baudouin de Courtenays usage. However , more recent linguists, influenced by the identity in meaning and the nearcomplete identity in sound in pairs such as has wife and wive-, have always treated them as allomorphs of one morpheme.Yet there is nothing phonological about the plural suffix that enforces the selection of the voiced-fricative allomorph. The noun wife itself can carry the possessive marker -s to yield a form wifes /waifs/ with a voiceless fricative in a phonologically wellformed cluster. Moreover, not all nouns whose stems end in voiceless fricatives introduce this voicing in the plural for example, it does not occur in the plural forms fifes, oafs or breaths.So the voicing is restricted both lexically (it occurs in some nouns only) and grammatically (it occurs only when the plural suffix /Z/ follows). Some morphologists have handled this by positing morphophonemes such as /F/ and / /, units that are realised as a voiced phoneme in the plural and a voiceless one in the singular (Harris 1942). These nouns 1 0 The convention of using capital letters to represent morphophonemes was quite widespread in the mid twentieth century (see e. g. Harris 1942). But 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 unavailable, 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 often verbalize to realise 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 notation into confusing t morphophonemes with archiphonemes. 14 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY an then be represent morphophonologically (rather than phonologically) as /waiF/, /louF/ and /ba /. The morphophoneme can be seen as a cheat 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 necessary to recognise multiple allomorphs and hence multiple signifiants a possibility that Saussure does not allow for. But is the morphophoneme device capable of treatment all multipleallomorph patterns satisfactorily? The answer is no, as I will demonstrate in the next subsections. . 2 Case study the perfect participial forms of English verbs I use perfect participle to refer to the form in which the lexical verb appears when accompanied by the auxiliary have, as in I have waited, I have played, I have swum. The timed English perfect participle suffix -(e)d has three shapes, /t/, /d/ and d 11 / d/. These are distributed in a fashion closely parallel to the allomorphs of the noun plural suffix / d/ appears after coronal 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 always endorsement the correct choi ce of suffix. For d t example, /k? n d/, /k? nd/ and /k? nt/ are all phonologically contingent words and indeed actual words canid member of the subgroup of mammals to which wolves d and dogs belong, canned contained in a can and cant hypocrisy. These suffix d t shapes therefore illustrate the same stumbling-block and the same dilemma as the three shapes of the plural suffix.One way of use this, as with the plural suffix, is to posit a morphophoneme (say, /D/), realised as /t/, /d/ or / d/, according to the phonological context. However, the perfect participle exhibits complications, one of which is not paralleled in noun plurals. Some 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 built), scrunch up ( solidification), feel (felt), keep d t d t l t (kept), spell (spelt), lose (lost), teach (taught), and pervert (bought). Corresponding 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/ according to the regular(a) pattern (1) Orthographic-t verbs Base complete participle build built bend bent feel felt Regular verbs Base gild tend peel Perfect participle gilded tended eeled 11 In many dialects other than mine, the third allomorph is not / d/ but / d/. This does not affect my d d argument, however. BASIC TERMINOLOGY 15 seeped chuckd felled oozed bleached lied keep leave spell lose teach buy kept left spelt lost taught bought seep heave fell ooze bleach lie As is clear, a further feature film of orthographic-t verbs is that they nearly t always display a stem form that differs from the base or present-tense stem. What immediately concerns us is the suffix, however.Is it or i s it not a distinct morpheme from the regular /t/ (spelt -ed) which is in complementary distribution with / d/ and d /d/? If we answer 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 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 allomorph of the same morpheme that regular /t/, /d/ and / d/ belon