Morphology Chapter 3.6, Minor Processes

Give an example of a productive process of lexeme formation

A productive process is one that is still employed by a language to form novel lexemes. EX: bovine > bovinity/bovineness

Why does usefulness of an affix contribute to its productivity?

A useful affix is one that can be generally applied to a wide number of basis. But affixes fall out of fashion as well! For example, the affix -ess used to be used to denote a female who does X.. so stewardess, murderess, authoress. But this went out of fashion with the current times!! So -ess is certainly unproductive in our current climate of feminism!

What are acronyms?

Acronyms are when the first letters in a set of words are used to create a new word. AIDS scuba DUMP - Durham Market Place

Why is frequency of base type important for the productivity of an affix?

Affixes are more productive if they can attach to a lot of bases. For example, the suffix "-esque" is very limited in its use (statuesque, kafkaesque, etc) so it can't really generate that many new words. It is therefore not very productive. -ness,. on the other hand, or -like, is very productive. Happiness, Bush-like, statue-like

Give an example of an unproductive process of lexeme formation

An unproductive process is one that is no longer in use in a language to form novel lexemes warm > warmth true > truth

What is backformation?

Backformation is a really cool process of word creation where people interpret monomorphemic bases as having multiple morphemes. Subsequently, they may perceive a root where none exists. So burglar, for example, was historically monomorphemic. But people might see "ar" as an affix like "er" in writer. Then that person might use the word 'to burgle' as a synonym for to steal. It's really interesting actually how some words can be created in a backwards sense, and it seems to involve some degree of overanalysis! Alternative, incentivize is a verb but "incent" is not.. however some speakers might choose incent if they make a backformation out of incentive.

What is blending?

Blending is when parts of words that are not themselves morphemes combine to form other words. Brunch - lunch + breakfast, but unch and br are certainly not roots!!

Give an example of a blend created by taking a non-morphemic chunk of one word and a whole base or affix in another.

Celeblog - cele (from celebrity) and whole free morpheme blog

What are syntactic restrictions on affixation and how do they limit productivity?

Certain affixes have syntactic requirements on the base. For example, -able does not generally attach to intransitive verbs to form nouns. They do however attach to transitive verbs and especially verbs that can be passivized (to love; I was loved). Loveable but not *snoreable

What is clipping?

Clipping is the creation of a shorter word from a longer word. Lab - laboratory psych - psychology class physics - physics class soc - sociology fridge - refrigerator blog - web log

What is coinage?

Coinage is the creation of entirely new words. Take for example Google, which now is a verb: to google. Coinages often spread through popular product names and later can be used divorced from the original product.. so a kleenex can refer to a paper tissue despite not being of Kleenex brand. Coinages are pretty rare because new created words are semantically opaque (i.e. WTH do they mean!!)

What are etymological restrictions on affixation and how do they limit productivity?

Etymological restrictions are restrictions on which bases affixes can attach to. Some affixes in English, such as 'en' can only attach to native words. Alternatively, other affixes like 'ic' only attach to foreign borrowings such as from Latin. Wooden, waxen but not parasiten. Parasitic, dramatic, but not woodic/waxic

What is an initialism?

Like Acronyms, but the letters are pronounced. I.e. they are not pronounced like words.. FBI, CIA

Is process productivity (i.e. the ability to create new morphemes) an all-or-nothing affair?

No, process productivity is gradient. Some affixes more productive than others.

What are pragmatic restrictions on affixation and how do they limit productivity?

Pragmatic restrictions might limit certain affixes that would only apply under certain pragmatic circumstances. For example, there is a morpheme in Dyirbal that means "covered with". This is generally only used for when you are covered with bad/dirty things! So it would not be productive for something like "covered with honey".. only something like "covered with feces"!

Why are lexicalized words considered non compositional?

The sum of its parts cannot give you the precise meaning of a lexicalized word. For example, oddity means a thing that is odd. This is non-compositional in that "ity", which usually just means "the state of X" does not tell us that this can refer to an odd person or thing. Transmission is a part of a car. You can't derive that from the combination of transmit and sion!

Why are affixation, compounding and conversion important to the English language?

They are the most common ways that new words are created.

What are the characteristics of transparency and why is it important in the creation of new lexemes?

Words formed with transparent processes are easily segmented, usually with a one-to-one correspondence between form and meaning. Preferably, phonological and stress patterns won't change too much. Odd > oddness (GOOD), the state of being odd odd > oddity (BAD, less transparent), an odd object or thing