методология / haritonchik / харитончик книга по словообразованию

derivation, compounding, and conversion. Instead of Jackendoff‟s semantic functions (BE, GO, CAUSE, etc.), Wierzbicka‟s simple concepts, or Szymanek‟s cognitive categories, I will propose a broadly cross-categorial featural system for decomposing meanings of morphemes.

The other part of the semantic representation, the body, will be encyclopedic, holistic, nondecompositional, not composed of primitives, and perhaps only partially formalizable. It will comprise those bits of perceptual and cultural knowledge that form the bulk of the lexical representation. The body will include many of the aspects of meaning that Pustejovsky encodes in his Qualia Structure – information concerning material composition, part structure, orientation, shape, color, dimensionality, origin, purpose, function, and so on .

My theory is consciously based on an anatomical metaphor. The skeleton forms the foundation of what we know about morphemes and words. It is what allows us to extend the lexicon through various word-formation processes. The body fleshes out this foundation. It may be fatter or thinner from item to item, and indeed from the lexical representation of a word in one person‟s mental lexicon to the representation of that “same” word in another individual‟s mental lexicon. But the body must be there in a living lexical item. Bodies can change with the life of a lexical item – gain or lose weight, as it were. Skeletons, however, are less amenable to change.

My main claim is that the semantics of word formation involves the creation of a single referential unit out of two distinct semantic skeletons that have been placed in a relationship of either juxtaposition or subordination to one another. The primary mechanism for creating a single referential unit will be the co-indexation of semantic arguments. Compound formation will involve juxtaposition of skeletons with concomitant co-indexing. Derivational affixation will involve the addition of skeletal material to a base whose own skeleton is subordinated; in other words, the semantic representation of a derivational affix will be a bit of semantic skeleton which subordinates a lexical base. The skeletons of which compounds are formed will typically have accompanying bodies, but derivational affixes will

180

often have little or nothing in the way of semantic bodies. Both derived words and compounds may, however, over time develop substantial and distinctive bodies as a function of their lexicalization. Lexicalization, we shall see, proceeds on an item- by-item basis, thus allowing a wide range of meanings to exist in items formed by the same process of derivation or compounding.

Semantic variation among items formed by the same process of derivation or compounding will not merely be a function of the lexicalization process, however. In fact, a concomitant of the claim that the semantics of derivation should reflect the semantics of the simplex lexicon is that the sorts of polysemy we find in the simplex lexicon should also be found in derived words. I will show in what follows that both of the main types of polysemy that are manifested in the simplex lexicon – what Pustejovsky and Boguraev call “logical polysemy” and

“sense extensions” – are to be found in derivational affixes as well. Logical polysemy will be seen to arise from the composition of skeletons, and specifically from the effects of underdetermination in skeletal meanings. It is here that the choice of primitives in our system will receive its justification: only a featural system such as the one to be proposed in this book will give rise to the right level of underdetermination of meaning to account for affixal polysemy. We will see that sense extensions sometimes arise in affixation, as well, although not as frequently as logical polysemy.

A word about the scope and limits of this book. I cannot hope to cover everything that needs to be said about the semantics of all sorts of word formation in all sorts of languages without promising to write a book I would never finish or could never hope to get published. I have chosen to narrow the scope of this work to three types of word formation that are well represented and fairly well understood – derivation, compounding, and conversion – and to limit my discussion in most cases to these processes in English.

This is not to say that inflection is unimportant, or to deny that there is an enormous amount that we could learn from scrutinizing word formation in languages other than English. In this work, I propose to confine myself to bona

181

fide processes of lexeme formation in the hopes that the foundation of lexical semantics developed here will eventually allow us to proceed to a fruitful discussion of inflection. Other theorists such as Anderson, Aronoff, and Stump have tended to take the opposite route, building their theories primarily on the basis of a study of inflectional phenomena and giving shorter shrift to derivation, compounding, and conversion.

Similarly, these theorists have tended to look at inflection in a wide variety of the world‟s languages, a methodological choice that has certainly borne fruit in the study of inflection. But specifically because of my concentration on processes of lexeme formation in this work, I will tend to focus attention on a single language – English. My justification is the following: the sort of semantic work that I hope to do requires a detailed and intimate look at the meanings of lots of words formed with the same affix, or by the same type of compounding or conversion. Indeed, as will become apparent in the chapters that follow, I cannot even hope to provide an exhaustive description of the semantics of all of English word formation. Rather, I must narrow discussion to a series of case studies of particular realms of word formation: formation of personal/instrumental nouns; root and synthetic compounding; formation of verbs by affixation and conversion; negative affixation; and a few select others. These case studies are carefully chosen to reveal answers to the four central questions with which I began this introduction. So I beg the reader's indulgence on what might initially seem to be a rather narrow range of analysis. I cannot hope to do such detailed work with languages of which I am not a native speaker. I would hope that native speakers of other languages will eventually help to corroborate or criticize any of the theoretical apparatus that I build here.

COMPREHENSION CHECK

1.What are the central questions concerning the meaning of word-formation processes.

2.Is the form-meaning correspondence in morphology one-to-one? Give

182

different points of view.

3.What requirements should a theory of derivational semantics meet?

4.What decompositional semantics theories are discussed by the author?

5.What are the two parts that compose lexical semantic representation of derived words?

183

LIST OF THE BOOKS CITED

Aronoff M. When Nouns Surface as Verbs // Language. 1979. Vol. 55. № 4. P.768–

809.

Beard R. The Agenda of Morphology // Lexeme–Morpheme Base Morphology. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. P.1–17.

Heatherington M.E. The Forms of Language // How Language Works. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishers Inc, 1980. P.50–64.

Isitt D. Crazic, Menty and Idiotal. An Inquiry into the Use of Suffixes -al, -ic, -ly and -y in Modern English. Göteborg, 1983. P.18–28.

Jackson H. Analyzing English. An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. Oxford; N.Y.; Toronto; Paris; Frankfurt: Pergamon Press Ltd, 1980. P.109–119.

Kastovsky D. Lexical Fields and Word-Formation // Logos Semantikos: Studia Linguistica in honorem Eugenio Coseriu. Berlin; N.Y.; Madrid, 1981. Vol.3. Semantik. P.429–435.

Lieber R. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press, 2004. P.1–12.

Marchand H. A Set of Criteria for the Establishing of Derivational Relationship Between Words Unmarked by Derivational Morphemes // Studies in Syntax and Word-Formation. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1974. P.242–252; 322–330.

Selkirk E.O. A General Theory of Word Structure // The Syntax of Words. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982. P.1–18.

Uhlenbeck E.M. Productivity and Creativity // Logos Semantikos: Studia Linguistica in honorem Eugenio Coseriu. Berlin; N.Y.; Madrid, 1981. Vol.3. Semantik. P.165– 167.

184

Учебное издание

Составители: Харитончик Зинаида Андреевна

Ключникова Инна Владимировна

СЛОВООБРАЗОВАНИЕ В АНГЛИЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ

Хрестоматия по лексикологии английского языка

Учреждение образования "Минский государственный лингвистический университет". Лицензия ЛИ № 02330/0133306 от 09.06.04. 220034, Минск, Захарова,

21.

Полиграфический участок учреждения образования "Минский государственный лингвистический университет". Лицензия ЛП № 02330/0133138 от 08.06.04. 220034, Минск, Захарова, 21.

185