ELEMENTS OF ENGLISH LEXICOLOGY

nadina visan
LECTURE 3: VOCABULARY ENRICHMENT (Compounding, derivation, minor methods
of word-formation)
0. The distinction simple/complex lexemes
Compare: walk (simple lexeme) vs. blackboard (complex lexeme)
blackboard is synchronically analysable, but no longer motivated (transparent)
also compare walk to to put up with an idiomatic phrase, made up of
formatives
Complex and phrasal lexems are created by the following processes:
COMBINATION
a) of formatives

b) of morphemes

PHRASEOLOGY
-phrasal lexemesidioms

WORD FORMATION
-complex lexemesb1)affixation
b1.1 prefixation

b2)compounding

b1.2 suffixation

Simple lexemes constitute the primary vocabulary they are said to be arbitrary are to be
learned in isolation
Complex lexemes secondary vocabulary motivated internally structured and learned
through association
This lecture deals with the formation of complex lexemes. The next topics of discussion are:
1. compounding 2. affixation 3. minor methods of word-formation
1. COMPOUNDING
1.1.Classification:
Compounds are a) primary the second stem is not derived from a verb e.g. blackbird
b) synthetic the second stem is deverbal e.g. truckdriver, strange-sounding
1.2. Analysis:
analysis of truckdriver: [ [stem1(N)] [stem2(V)] affix(er)]
all morphemes (stems, affixes) employed have lexical entries containing information about
their category and subcategorizaton (i.e. what sort of lexical item, if any, they must attach to).
e.g. un-, -ness must attach to adjectives
-ize must attach to adjectives or nouns

=> one important difference between affixes and stems is that stems do not have
subcategorization distinctions! (i.e. there are no restrictions with respect to their
combinatorial capacity, they are not required to be combined with only certain categories)
Q: Does that mean that we can combine them at random?
If this were the case, then all types of compounds should be equally productive, which is NOT
the case. Consider the possible combinations in the following table (if the categories to be
combined are N,A,P,V, then we should obtain 16 possibile combinations; important
requirement: the grammatical class of the compound is the same as that of the last element in
its structure)
Compound

1. Noun
2. Verb
3. Adj
4. Prep

+Noun
N+N

+Verb
N+V

+Adjective
N+Adj

+Preposition
N+P

eye-lid

baby-sit

color-blind

No case

V+N

V+V

V+Adj

V+P

cut-throat

dive-bomb

No case

stand+by

Adj +N

Adj+V

Adj+Adj

Adj+P

black-bird

dry-clean

icy-cold

No case

P+N

P+V

P+Adj

P+P

after-birth

over-kill

off-white

in+to

A few observations to be derived from this table:

Some combinations are more productive than others (others, on the other hand, are
not: such as P+P or V+N. V+N used to be very productive at a certain point, just as it
was in Romanian, for that matter (compare kiss-ass, pick-pocket to linge-blide,
,trie-bru, sfarm-piatr, etc) and ceased to be productive subsequently.

Some combinations are barred (see, for instance V+Adj, Adj+P, N+P).

Q: Why are some combinations so sporadically represented or downright impossible?

A possible answer might lie in the combinatorial ability of some of the categories in the table.
While Ps and Vs are more clearly restricted to certain combinations, Ns and As are less
restricted in their combinatorial capacity. It therefore might mean that Ns and As are more
freely prone to combine with other elements or with themselves.
Another manner of putting this idea into words is to say that Vs and Ps are more strictly
subcategorized for certain elements, while most Ns and As are less so. (compare, for instance
a transitive V such as drink to a N such as flower. While the V presupposes a direct object
(drink something), the N does not presuppose any kind of element to be necessarily combined
with it. It makes sense that the N would more freely combine, while the V (to take) will
probably have to be restricted to a combination with drinkable objects). This might offer a
possible, albeit far from complete or perfect, explanation to the situation in the table above.
Q2: How do we then explain the productivity of a class such as the one represented by
compounds like sweet-smelling, free-sounding, nice-looking, etc?
Answer: the class is productive since it combines As and As (the second stem is in fact an
adjective derived from a verb). The same goes for the class of compounds containing clearcut, fine-grained, blue-eyed, etc. They are not A+V but A+deverbalA. Compare this class to

genuine A+V examples (e.g. dry-clean, sweet-talk, white-wash where the examples are
rare).
Conclusion to the productivity of the mechanism of compounding: we expect that the most
productive classes should be N+A, N+N, A+N, A+A, due to the loose combinatorial
restrictions related to these specific lexical categories. Check this prediction by consulting the
table above and some 20 pages in a dictionary.
1.3. Properties of compounds:
- lack of juncture (try to pronounce blackbird vs black bird)
- fused items (is daredevil the result of dare the devil?)
- modification of the compound occurs at higher level (consider air-bag now compare: big
air-bag vs. *hot air-bag hot cannot modify air, it can only modify the whole compound)
- inflectibility is barred within the compound (compare bottle-necks to *bottles-neck) This
characteristic explains why most compounds whose first stem is a noun bar the plural form for
this first stem: dog food, but not *dogs food (only pluralia tantum nouns are exempt from
this rule: savings-box (*saving-box - this latter example is ungrammatical because the first
stem is a pluralia tantum noun)
1.4. A special case of compounding: reduplicatives
Definition = reduplicatives are compounds created by means of the repetition of a word or a
part of that word
Classification:
a) duplicatives (repetitive compound words) the first stem is copied exactly by the second
stem: e.g. boo-boo, bye-bye, chop-chop!, night-night, etc.
b)alliterative reduplicatives (ablaut-motivated [ see historical linguistics, history of English,
the ablaut change, a vowel change historically motivated: e.g. long-length, Bauer, 1983]) e.g.
tip-top, tittle-tattle, riff-raff, knick-knack, etc.
c) rhyme-motivated reduplicatives e.g. argy-bargy (verbal dispute), easy-peasy, fuddy-duddy,
heebie-jeebies, roly-poly, nitwit, etc.
compare to Romanian reduplicatives (e.g. c hr, c mr; treanca-fleanca; scra-scra pe
hrtie, pa-pa, hra-hra, etc.)
2. AFFIXATION
There are two types of affixation:
a) class-maintaining (the newly formed word maintains the same category as its root:
novel (N) + ist = novelist (N))
b) class-changing
b1) by means of affixes (person(N)+ able= personable (A), pity(N)+ous = piteous (A),
vile (A) + ify = vilify (V), etc)
b2) by zero-affixation = CONVERSION (in what follows, we shall discuss this
process in particular)
Definition for Conversion:
"Conversion is the derivational process whereby an item changes its word-class without the
addition of an affix" (Quirk, Randolph and Greenbaum, 1987: 441)
e.g. N nail > V (to) nail
V (to) cheat > N (a) cheat
The resulting lexemes are called converts.

requirements: a) homophony
b) kinship (etymological common root)
Productivity
Conversion is particularly common in English because the basic form of nouns and verbs is
identical in many cases (Aitchison, 1989: 160). It is usually impossible in languages with
grammatical genders, declensions or conjugations (Cannon, 1985: 430). [exercise: try to
convert a noun in Romanian, say bebelus; see also problems of translation related to this
situation (resorting to substitution or paraphrase for the translation of a convert such as, for
instance, the verb to baby someone into Romanian).]
Why is conversion so productive in English? Because of the fact that, unlike Romanian,
English has the tendency to become more of an analytic (as opposed to synthetic) language.
(see also the translation of Anthony Burgess text containing nadsat words (of Russian origin)
such as moloko into Romanian. Translate I liked the moloko)
Another reason for the productivity of this phenomenon: "Conversion is a totally free process
and any lexeme can undergo conversion into any of the open form classes as the need arises"
(Bauer, 1983: 226).
!There are very few restrictions to the phenomenon: derived nouns rarely undergo conversion
(particularly not to verbs) (Bauer, 1983: 226)
This restriction makes sense if we consider the rules of economy that any language observes:
For example, the noun 'denial' will never shift into a verb because this word already derives
from the verb 'deny'.
Denial => *to denial (the formation is redundant, since there is already a verb to deny)
Consider however:

sign>to sign,
sign>signal,
signal>to signal
In this case there is no blocking because these words have slight semantic differences (Bauer,
1983: 226-227).
How to establish the original item vs the derived item? Marchand (1972: 242-252)
It focuses on several aspects:
a. the semantic dependence (the word that reports to the meaning of the other is the
derivative)
b. the range of usage (the item with the smaller range of use is the converted word),
c. the semantic range (the one with less semantic fields is the shifted item)
d. and the phonetic shape (some suffixes express the word-class the item belongs to and,
if it does not fit, this is the derivative).
Another aspect, related to the etymology of a lexeme and its convert, should be taken into
consideration. We can check an etymological dictionary and establish which is the original
item and which is the derived one. This makes the object of a branch of historical linguistics.
Major kinds of conversion:
a) N > V e.g. to badger, bottle, bridge, commission
b) V > N e.g. a call, command, dumb, guess, spy, a must
c) A > V e.g. to better, to dirty, to empty, to faint
d) A > N (rarer though) e.g. a daily, a regular, a roast

There are even cases where less expected lexical categories can be converted: Particle> V (to
up the prices), Conj > V or N (but me no buts), P > V (to down a beer), P > N (he has a down
on me); even affixes can be converted: Prefix > N (an extra).
Borderline cases: when conversion turns into a syntactic process, crossing the boundary of
morphology. Compare: poor (Adj) the poor (collective N); He sneezed (achievement) He
was sneezing (activity); The dog was sick (state) The dog was sick on the bathroom carpet.
(event), etc.
Q: what about exocentric phrases? Can they be also classified as converts? Consider: forgetme-nots, a has-been, a dont-know, under-the-weather.
Dubious cases of conversion (partial conversion):
a) when theres no affixation, but theres shift of stress: abstract (A) vs to abstract (V);
frequent (A) vs to frequent (V)
b) voiced/voiceless pairs: believe/belief, sheathe/sheath, advise/advice
Exercise: Identify recategorized speech parts. Comment on the lexical
process:
Peel me a grape, crush me some ice,
Skin me a peach, save the fuzz for my pillow,
Spark me a smoke, talk to me nice,
Youve got to wine me, and dine me,
Dont try to fool me, bejewel me,
Either amuse me, or lose me,
Im getting hungry, peel me a grape.
Pop me a cork, french me a fry,
Crack me a nut, bring a box full of bon-bons,
Chill me some wine, keep standing by,
Just entertain me, champagne me.
Show me you love me, kidglove me,
Best way to cheer me, kashmeer me.
Im getting hungry, peel me a grape.
refrain Heres how to be an agreeable chap,
Love me and leave me in luxurys lap,
Hop when I holler, skip when I snap,
When I say Do it!, jump to it.
Send out for scotch, boil me a crab,
Cut me a rose, make my tea with the petals.
Just hang around, pick up the tab,
Never outthink me, just mink me,
Polar-bear rug me, dont bug me,
New thunderbird me, you heard me,
Im getting hungry, peel me a grape.

3. MINOR METHODS OF WORD-FORMATION

3.1. Shortenings
Back-formation = the making of a new word from an older word which is mistakenly
assumed to be its derivative (also known under the name of backderivation) e.g.
peddle, televise, enthuse, edit
the rule of word-formation is reversed: edit (V) < editor (N) (suffix or is dropped, the noun
editor is wrongly perceived as a derivation of some verb)
Try to figure out the original item for the following backderivatons: lase, lech, paramedic,
surreal, self-destruct.

Clipping = the process whereby a lexeme (simplex or complex) is shortened, while

still retaining the same meaning and still being a member of the same form class
! Frequently, clipping results in a change of stylistic level. (from formal to informal: compare:
brother vs bro)
!! this process is also classified as an unpredictable formation it so dubbed because its
unpredictability concerns the extent to which the base lexeme is shortened (i.e. how much to
cut?)
Patterns of clipping:
- beginning of lexeme is retained (main pattern): bi < bisexual, deli < delicatessen, pro <
professional, mob < mobile crowd, loony < lunatic, etc.
- final part of lexeme is retained: droid < android, fro < Afro, rhhoid < hemorrhoid, etc
- middle of lexeme is retained: jams < pajamas, shrink < head-shrinker, Trish < Patricia
Clipped forms are also used to form compounds: org man < organization man, showbiz, sci-fi,
sit-com, pro-am, etc.
Varieties of English: Australian English makes use of clipping as a distinctive feature: Aussie,
mozzie, journo, etc.
3.2. Abbreviations
acronyms word coined by taking the initial letters of the words in a title or phrase and using
them as a new word; the sequence of initials is pronounced as a phonological word (e.g. AIDS
= [ejdz])
e.g. snafu situation normal all eff-ed up, yuppie young urban professional, jap Jewish
Amercian princess, etc.
initialisms (or alphabetisms) a word coined by abbreviation; unlike in the case of acronyms,
with alphabetisms each letter is pronounced individually (e.g. BO body odour, BBC, DIY
do it yourself)
factors contributing to an abbreviation becoming either an acronym or an initialism:
a) phonetic plausibility
b) length of the abbreviation in question
Q: are there any aspects, apart from pronounciation, that differentiate acronyms from
initialisms?
Answer: acronyms are more opaque, tend to be perceived as bona fide proper nouns (Proper
Noun = John Smith; proper nouns function more like noun phrases than as simple nouns.)
Initialisms, on the other hand, are less opaque (can be more easily traced to their origin) and
tend to inherit the characteristics of the original phrase they abbreviate:

Compare NATO (an acronym derived from The North Atlantic Treaty Organization) which
is used without a definite article, as it should - to The CIA (the Central Intelligence Agency),
the FBI (the Federal Bureau of Investigation), the KKK (the Ku Klux Klan), the US, the
USSR, etc.
While acronyms might not retain the definite article of the original item, initialisms normally
do so, which means they are perceived as more closely linked to their origin.
There are, however, exceptions to the rule:
Consider: UCLA (<the University of California, Los Angeles), MIT (the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology), CNN, etc.
Why is it the case that with these initialisms have dropped the definite article? A possible
explanation (Harley, 2004) is that they have been re-analysed as bare location nominals (due
to their frequency, maybe): compare these initialisms to school, church, camp (all of them
are bare location nominals we say go to school not go to *the school, in church, but not
in *the church etc)
Other examples of bare location nominals:
- social/geographic institutions (at school, in camp, on shore, in church, to hospital)
- media (on film, in shot)
- temporal interruption events (at lunch, on break)
- untethered metaphors (on target)
3.3. Blends a new lexeme formed from parts of two (or possibly more) other words in such a
way that there is no transparent analysis into morphemes
e.g. ballute < ballon + parachute; chunnel = channel + tunnel, dawk = dove + hawk,
breathalyser = breath + analyser
also an unpredictable formation the coiner is apparently free to take as much or as little from
either base as is felt to be necessary or desirable: exercise: create a blend from mouse +
icicle; discuss the components of petishism and autocide.
Blends can be a) restricted (where the two words used as bases are both present entirely in
their blend) (e.g. octopush, wargasm, guesstimate, slanguage, sexcapade) or b) non-restricted
(only one of the bases is preserved intact) (e.g. cremains, boatel, nixonomics, carbecue)
Another possible classification is between neological blends (the bases are both neological)
(e.g. stagflation, pornotopia, chocoholic, etc) and non-neological ones (workaholic, flubber,
scrumpalicious, etc).
3.4. Word manufacture and avoidance of word-formation
word-manufacture a process by means of which a word is created ex nihilo, with no
morphological, phoetic or ortographic motivation whatsoever: e.g. kodak, teflon
avoidance of word formation a process by means of which coining a word is avoided by
using paraphrase
e.g. arestee, womens liberation
How can we tell that womens liberation is perceived as an autonomous creation?
Compare: womens liberation to childrens shoes
*the liberation is womens vs. the shoes are the childrens
*womens summer liberation vs. childrens summer shoes

*all womens liberation vs. all childrens shoes

womens lib vs * childrens sh
the phrase womens liberation is seen as unit, the components are fused into one
semantically coherent unit.
3.5. Folk etymology provide examples of your own both in English and in Romanian
(hypercorrection)
3.6. Mixed formations
- Sometimes, an acronym and an initialism come together in a strange hybrid, as in the case of
the JPEG, often pronounced jay peg, or the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art
(SFMOMA), which is usually pronounced es ef moma. There is some dispute about what to
call these hybrids, since they blend characteristics of both the acronym and the initialism.
Q: can you think of other kinds of mixed formations?