2. Types and ways of forming words Synchronic and diachronic approaches to the study of wf

LECTURE 9. WORD FORMATION IN MODERN ENGLISH
Plan of the lecture:
1. WF as a language subsystem and its role in the vocabulary enrichment
2. Types and ways of forming words
3. Synchronic and diachronic approaches to the study of WF
4. Productivity of WF means in English
5. Frequency of WF means in specific contexts

W o r d - f o r m a t i o n is that branch of Lexicology which studies the derivative structure of existing words and the patterns on which a language, ‘in this case the English language, builds new words. It is self-evident that wordformation proper can deal only with words which are analysable both structurally and semantically, i.e. with all types of Complexes.1 The study of the simple word as such has no place in it. Simple words however are very closely connected with word-formation because they serve as the foundation, the basic source of the parent units motivating all types of derived and compound words. Therefore, words like writer, displease, atom-free, etc. make the subject matter of study in word-formation, but words like to write, to please, atom, free are not irrelevant to it.

Like any other linguistic phenomenon word-formation may be studied from two angles — synchronically and diachronically. It is necessary to distinguish between these two approaches, for synchronically the linguist investigates the existing system of the types of word-formation while diachronically he is concerned with the history of word-building.
To illustrate the difference of approach we shall consider affixation. Diachronically it is the chronological order of formation of one word from some other word that is relevant. On the synchronic plane a derived word is regarded as having a more complex structure than its correlated word regardless of the fact whether it was derived from a simpler base or a more complex base. There are cases in the history of the English language when a word structurally more complex served as the original element from which a simpler word was derived. Those are cases of the process called back-formation (or back-derivation) 1, cf. beggar — to beg; editor — to edit; chauffeur — to chauff and some others. The fact that historically the verbs to beg, to edit, etc. were derived from the corresponding agent nouns is of no synchronous relevance.
While analysing and describing word-formation synchronically it is not enough to extract the relevant structural elements from a word, describe its structure in terms of derivational bases, derivational affixes and the type of derivative patterns, it is absolutely necessary to determine the position of these patterns and their constituents within the structural semantic system of the language as a whole. Productivity of a derivative type therefore cannot be overlooked in this description.
The available linguistic literature on the subject cites various types and ways of forming words. Earlier books, articles and monographs on word-formation and vocabulary growth in general both in the Russian language and in foreign languages, in the English language in particular, used to mention morphological,
syntactic and lexico-semantic types of word-formation. At present the classifications of the types of word-formation do not, as a rule, include lexico-semantic word-building. Of interest is the classification of wordformation means based on the number of motivating bases which many scholars follow. A distinction is made between two large classes of wordbuilding means:
To Class I belong the means of building words having one motivating base. To give an English example, the noun catcher is composed of the base catch- and the suffix -er, through the combination of which it is morphologically and semantically motivated.
Class II includes the means of building words containing more than “ one motivating base. Needless to say, they are all based on compounding (cf. the English compounds country-club, door-handle, bottle-opener, etc., all having two bases through which they are motivated).
Most linguists in special chapters and manuals devoted to English word-formation consider as the chief processes of English word-formation affixation, conversion and compounding.
Apart from these a number of minor ways of forming words such as back-formation, sound interchange, distinctive stress, sound imitation, blending, clipping and acronymy are traditionally referred to Word- Formation.
Two types of wordformation may be distinguished: word-derivation and word-composition. Words formed by word-derivation have only one stem and one or more derivational affixes, e.g., kindness from kind. Some derived words have no affixes because derivation is achieved through conversion, e.g. to paper from paper). Words formed by word composition have two or more stems, e.g. bookcase, note-book). Besides, there are words created by derivation and composition. Such words are called derivational compounds, e.g., long-legged.
So the subject of study of wordformation is the study of the patterns on which the English language builds words.
The English and Uzbek languages differ in the types of word formation. Their ways of word formation are also different. Affixation, composition, shortening are very productive ways of word formation in both languages. In Uzbek conversion, blending, sound interchange (stress interchange), backformation are less common type of word formation. As for as the English language concerned these types of word formation are very common. We can find a few words which formed by these types of word formation in the Uzbek language. The Comparative value of the word formation of English and Uzbek languages demands further investigations.
We can distinguish synchronic and diachronic approaches to the study of word formation. With regard to word formation the synchronic linguist would study the present day system of formatting words types while the scholar of the diachronic school would write the history of wordformation.
Marchand points of out that mere semantic correlation is not enough to establish a phonological (phonemic), morpho-phonemic opposition. For the speaker «dine» and «dinner», «maintain» and «maintenance» and many others are semantically connected but a derivative connection has not developed out of such pairs, so their opposition is not relevant to wordformation.
Thus, synchronically we study those of wordformation which characterize the present-day English linguistic system, while diachronically we investigate the history of wordformation. The synchronic type of wordformation does not always coincide with the historical system of wordformation. For example, the words childhood, kingdom were compound words: hood OE had (state, rank), dom OE dom condemn. But synchronically they are considered as derived words because «-dom,» «-hood» became affixes. The words «return» and «turn» historically had semantic relations and «return» was considered as a word derived from «turn». But synchronicslly these words have no semantic relations and we can't say that «return» is derived from «turn».
Synchronically the most important and the most productive ways of wordformation are considered to be affixation, conversion and word-composition. Besides them there are other types of wordformation such as: shortening, soundinterchange, blending, back-formation. In the course of the historical development of a language the productivity of this or that way of wordformation changes. For example, sound interchange (blood — bleed, strike — stroke) was a
productive way of wordformation in Old English and it is an important subject matter for a diachronic study of the English language. Sound interchange has lost its productivity in Modern English and no new words can be formed by means of sound interchange. Affixation on the contrary was productive in Old English and is still one of the most productive ways of word formation in Modern English.
Some of the ways of forming words in present- day English can be resorted to for the creation of new words whenever the occasion demands — these are called p r о d u с t i v e ways of forming w o r d s , other ways of forming words cannot now produce new words, and these are commonly termed n o n - p r o d u c t i v e or u n p r o d u c t i v e. For instance, affixation has been a productive way of forming words ever since the Old English period; on the other hand, sound interchange must have been at one time a word-building means but in Modern English, as has been mentioned above, its function is actually only to distinguish between different classes and forms of words.
It follows that productivity of word-building ways, individual derivational patterns and derivational affixes is understood as their ability of making new words which all who speak English find no difficulty in understanding, in particular their ability to create what are called о с c a s i o n a l w o r d s or nonce-wоrds. The term suggests that a speaker coins such words when he needs them; if on another occasion the same word is needed again, he coins it afresh. Nonce-words are built from familiar language material after familiar patterns.3 Needless to say dictionaries do not as a rule record occasional words. The following words may serve as illustration: (his) collarless (appearance), a lungful (of smoke), a Dickensish (office), to unlearn (the rules), etc.
The delimitation between productive and non-productive ways and means of word-formation as stated above is not, however, accepted by all linguists without reserve. Some linguists consider it necessary to define the term productivity of a word-building means more accurately. They hold the view that productive ways and means of word-formation are only those that can be used for the formation of an unlimited number of new words in the modern language, i.e. such means that “know no bounds" and easily form occasional words. This divergence of opinion is responsible for the difference in the lists of derivational affixes considered productive in various books on English Lexicology.
All derivational patterns experience both structural and semantic constraints. The fewer are the constraints the higher is the degree of productivity, the greater is the number of new words built on it. The two general constraints imposed on all derivational patterns are — the part of speech in which the pattern functions and the meaning attached to it which conveys the regular semantic correlation between the two classes of words. It follows that each part of speech is characterised by a set of productive derivational patterns peculiar to it. Three degrees of productivity are distinguished for derivational patterns and individual derivational affixes:
l ) h i g h l y - p r o d u c t i v e ,
2) p r o d u c t i v e or s e m i - p r o d u c t i v e, and
3) n o n - p r o d u c t i v e .
Productivity of derivational patterns and affixes should not be identified with frequency of occurrence in speech, although there may be some interrelation between them. Frequency of occurrence is characterised by the fact that a great number of words containing a given derivational affix are often used in speech, in particular in various texts. Productivity is characterised by the ability of a given suffix to make new words.
In linguistic literature there is another interpretation of derivational productivity based on a quantitative approach. A derivational pattern or a derivational affix are qualified as productive provided there are in the word-stock dozens and hundreds of derived words built on the pattern or with the help of the suffix in question. Thus interpreted, derivational productivity is distinguished from word-formation activity by which is meant the ability of an affix to produce new words, in particular occasional words or nonce-words. To give a few illustrations. The agent suffix -er is to be qualified both as a productive and as an active suffix: on the one hand, the English word-stock possesses hundreds of nouns containing this suffix (e.g. driver, reaper, teacher, speaker, etc.), on the other hand, the suffix -er in the pattern v+-er -> N is freely used to coin an unlimited number of nonce-words denoting active agents (e.g., interrupter, respecter, laugher, breakfaster, etc.).
The adjective suffix -ful is described as a productive but not as an active one, for there are hundreds of adjectives with this suffix (e.g. beautiful, hopeful, useful, etc.), but no new words seem to be built with its help.
For obvious reasons, the noun-suffix –th (to heal-health) in terms of this approach is to be regarded both as a non-productive and a non-active one.
A n e w c r i t e r i o n of s e m a n t i c d e r i v a t i o n for conversion pairs has been suggested. It is based on t h e frequency of o c c u r r e n c e in various utterances of either of the two member words related through conversion. According to this frequency criterion a lower frequency value testifies to the derived character of the word in question. The information about the frequency value of words although on a limited scale can be found in the available dictionaries of wordfrequency with semantic counts.
To give an illustration, according to M. West’s A General Service List of English Words, the frequency value of four verb — noun conversion pairs in correlative meanings taken at random is estimated as follows:
to answer (V = 63%) — answer (N =35%), to help (V = 61%) — help (N = 1%), to sample (V= 10%) — sample (N=90%), to joke (V=8%) — joke (N=82%).
By the frequency criterion of semantic derivation in the first two pairs we have substantives, in the other two pairs the verbs (to sample and to joke) are converted from nouns (denominal verbs).
Answer the following questions:
1. What is word formation as a language subsystem?
2. What ways of forming words do we observe in Modern English?
3. What is the importance of the synchronic and diachronic approaches to the study of word formation?
4. What is productivity of WF means in English?
5. What is frequency of WF means?