Lexicology

enchiridion OF WORD-FORMATION Studies in innate formulate and lingual come forth handst VOLUME 64 Managing editors marcel den Dikken, City University of New York Liliane Haegeman, University of Lille Joan Maling, Brandeis University editor in chiefial Board Guglielmo Cinque, University of Venice Carol Georgopoulos, University of Utah Jane Grimshaw, Rutgers University Michael Kenstowicz, mammy Institute of Technology Hilda Koopman, University of California, Los Angeles Howard Lasnik, University of Maryland Alec Marantz, mama Institute of Technology deception J.McCarthy, University of Massach physical exerci orderts, Amherst Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge The titles published in this serial publication ar listed at the abolish of this volume. HANDBOOK OF WORD-FORMATION Edited by PAVOL STEKAUER Pre o University, Pre ov, Slovakia ov e and ROCHELLE LIEBER University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, U. S. A. A C. I. P. Catalogue record for this book is l endable from th e Library 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) Published by Springer, P.O. calamity 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. www. springeronline. com Printed on acid-free paper All Rights reserved 2005 Springer No cut off of this race whitethorn be reproduced, stored in a retrieval sy ascendant, or transmitted in any trend or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or a nonher(prenominal)wise, with away calm permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any tangible supplied specific issue forthlyy for the purpose of organism entered and punish on a com frame iner system, for iodine(a) purpose by the purchaser of the work. Printed in the Netherlands. table of contents PREFACE CONTRIBUTORS s yet 1 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY ingredientary language 1. The legal vox p opuli of the lingual indication 1. 1 EVIDENCE FOR THE MORPHEME-AS-SIGN stupefy IN de de de de 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 intelligence in varianceation 2. 1 movement report card ENGLISH NOUN PLURAL FORMS (PART 1) 2. 2 suit of clothes STUDY THE PERFECT fall upon a equatingticiple FORMS OF ENGLISH VERBS 2. 3 CASE STUDY ENGLISH NOUN PLURAL FORMS (PART 2) 2. 4 complemental DISTRIBUTION AND INFLECTION VERSUS etymologizing Morphemes since the sixties 5 5 7 8 10 11 14 17 18 20 25 25 2. 3. ELLEN M. KAISSE WORD-FORMATION AND PHONOLOGY 1. submission vi 2. content personal effects of lexical category, geomorphologic social system, and affix typesetters baptistry on phonology 2. 1 make OF LEXICAL CATEGORY AND OF MORPHOLOGICAL composite plantity 2. 2 COHERING AND NON-COHERING AFFIXES syllable structure limited by the phonological make water of the base of ad presentnce L exical phonology and geo volume structure and its ills more than recent developments of lexical phonology and geosyllable structure How do think conditions travel all(prenominal) roughly separate? The cycle, transderivational t effects, icon uni functionity and the the the likes of Do the cohering affixes f rm a seamless set? rend bases, SUBCATWORD fo and ph bingletics in morphology ratiocination 26 26 28 32 34 38 39 41 45 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. GREGORY STUMP WORD-FORMATION AND INFLECTIONAL geomorphology 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The nonionual unlikeness in the midst of metrics and ac suppose book-formation The inflexional categories of redact Pr frameical criteria for distinguishing metrics from formulate-formation Practical criteria for distinguishing inflectional periphrases Some similarities in the midst of inflection and word-formation Complex fundamental interactions betwixt inflection and word-formation Inflectional paradigms and word-formation parad igms 7. 1 PARADIGMS AND HEAD crisscross IN INFLECTION AND stock 7. 2 PARADIGMS AND BLOCKING IN INFLECTION AND DERIVATION 9 49 50 53 59 60 61 65 65 67 content ANDREW SPENCER WORD-FORMATION AND sentence structure 1. 2. access Lexical relatedness and phrase structure 2. 1 MORPHOTACTICS IN CLASSICAL US structural sociology 2. 2 geomorphology AS phrase structure 2. 3 LEXICAL INTEGRITY syntactical phenomena inside linguistic process Argument structure realization 4. 1 DEVERBAL MORPHOLOGY 4. 1. 1 Action nominals 4. 1. 2 Nominals de noning grammatical functions 4. 1. 3 -able adjectives 4. 2 SYNTHETIC COMPOUNDS AND NOUN incorporation suppositious uprisees to word formation Summary and by and byword 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 THEORETICAL textile 2. 2 SYNCHRONIC progression 2. 3 MOTIVATION 2. 4 MORphonological ALTERNATIONS 2. 5 THE progress to OF SYN TAGMA 2. 6 GENERATIVE-TRANSFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE 2. 7 ANALYSIS OF COMPOUNDS 2. 8 PRECURSOR OF LEXICALIST supposition 99 vitamin C 100 100 101 102 102 104 105 106 3. Klaus Hansen 107 3. 1 sphere(a) 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. super C 4. 2 FRAMEWORK 4. 3 BREKLES MODEL 4. 4 output cutal AND INTERPRETATION OF COMPOUNDS Leonhard Lipka 5. 1 GENERAL 5. 2 THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT Dieter Kastovsky 6. 1 GENERAL 6. 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 6. 3 WORD-FORMATION AT THE CROSSROADS OF MORPHOLOGY, phrase structure, SEMANTICS, PRAGMATICS AND THE LEXICON Gabriele Stein (Lady Quirk) c slip 109 109 110 110 112 112 112 113 114 114 115 116 116 118 cxxv 125 126 127 128 130 132 133 133 134 136 138 141 142 143 143 5. 6. 7. 8. TOM ROEPER CHOMSKYS REMARKS AND THE TRANSFORMATIONALIST HYPOTHESIS 1. Nominalizations and Core Gramm ar 1. CORE course 1. 2 TRANSFORMATIONS The Subject Enigma 2. 1 PASSIVE -ABILITY NOMINALIZATIONS 2. 2 -ING NOMINALIZATIONS Case de contractaliseation 3. 1 COPING WITH EXCEPTIONS 3. 2 THEMATIC-BINDING thought-provoking Issues Aspectual Differentiation of Nominalization Affixes Where do Affixes isolate? Elaborated Phrase Structure and Nominalizations 6. 1 BARE NOMINALS PREDICTABLE RESTRICTIONS 6. 2 blue -ING 6. 3 ACCUSATIVE AND -ING NOMINALIZATIONS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. CONTENTS 7. mop up ix 144 SERGIO SCALISE AND EMILIANO GUEVARA THE LEXICALIST APPROACH TO WORD-FORMATION AND THE imprint OF 147 THE LEXICON 1. . 3. 4. A definition A instruct History 2. 1 LEES (1960) The Lexicon Lexicalism 4. 1 HALLE (1973) 4. 2 ARONOFF (1976) 4. 2. 1The Word-based 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 output of WFRs 4. 2. 7 Conditions 4. 2. 8 Summary on Word-Formation Rules Some major Issues 5. 1 STRONG AND WEAK LEXICALISM to a gravider extent on the Notion of Lexicon Lexicalism Today 7. 1 INFLECTIONAL MORPHOLOGY 7. 2 syntactical MORPHOLOGY 7. 3 THE SYNTACTIC INCORPORATION HYPOTHESIS 7. 4 WORD-FORMATION AS SYNTAX 7. DISTRIBUTED MORPHOLOGY ending 147 148 150 151 153 153 157 157 158 159 159 161 162 162 166 166 clxx 171 173 174 176 176 178 180 181 189 5. 6. 7. 8. ROBERT BEARD AND MARK VOLPE LEXEME -MORPHEME foot MORPHOLOGY 1. Introduction 189 x 2. CONTENTS The Three Basic Hypotheses of LMBM 2. 1 THE musical interval HYPOTHESIS 2. 2 THE UNITARY around- make FUNCTION HYPOTHESIS 2. 3 THE free radical RULE HYPOTHESIS Types of Lexical (L-) stemma 3. 1 COMPETENCE GRAMMATICAL L-DERIVATION 3. 1. 1 Feature Value Switches 3. 1. 2 usable Lexical-Derivation 3. 1. 3 Transposition 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. Ap spelldix PAVOL STEKAUER ONOMASIOLOGI CAL APPROACH TO WORD-FORMATION 1. 2. 3. Introduction Methods of Onomasiological enquiry Theoretical onslaughtes 3. 1 MILOS DOKULIL 3. 2 JAN HORECKY 3. 3 PAVOL STEKAUER 3. 3. 1 Word-formation as an independent comp matchlessnt 3. 3. 2 The act of naming 3. 3. 3 Onomasiological Types 3. 3. 4 conceptual (onomasiological) recategorization 3. 3. 5 An Onomasiological Approach to Productivity 3. . 6 propositi wholeydness 3. 3. 7 Summary 3. 4 BOGDAN SZYMANEK 3. 5 ANDREAS BLANK 3. 6 son of a bitch KOCH DAVID TUGGY cognitive APPROACH TO WORD-FORMATION 233 1. Basic flightinesss of cognitive grammar (CG) 1. 1 THE GRAMMAR OF A LANGUAGE 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 GROWTH OF SCHEMATIC NETWORKS 2. 3 PROTOTYPICALITY AND SALIENCE 2. 4 ACCESS TO THE blood line OF CONVENTIONAL KNOWLEDGE, INCLUDING NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES 2. 5 mandate Schemas for word formation 3. 1 SCHEMAS FOR run-in 3. SCHEMAS FOR CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE WORD PIECES STEMS AND AFFIXES AND CONSTRUCTIONAL SCHEMAS M 3. 3 COMPLEX SEMANTIC AND phonologic POLES 3. 4 SCHEMAS FOR COMPOUNDS 3. 5 STRUCTURAL DESCRIPTIONS, creative thinking AND PRODUCTIVE USAGE 3. 6 phiz (OF VARIOUS KINDS) FROM COMPONENTS 3. 7 COMPONENTS AND PATTERNS FOR THE WHOLE overlapping PATTERNS AND MULTIPLE ANALYSES R A 3. 8 CONSTITUENCY Over prospect of other issues 4. 1 VALENCE 4. 2 THE MORPHOLOGY-SYNTAX BOUNDARY 4. 3 INFLECTION VS. DERIVATION Whats particular(a) about(predicate) side of meat word formation? Conclusion Implications of parvenus report 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. Introduction Universal, system-independent morphological innateness 2. 1 gustatory perceptionS 2. 2 resource FOR ICONICITY 2. 3 abilityICALITY PREF ERENCES 2. 4 PREFERENCE FOR MORPHOSEMANTIC hydrofoil 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 best SHAPE OF UNITS 2. 0 ALTERNATIVE freshness 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 DYNAMIC VS. STATIC MORPHOLOGY 4. 3 UNIVERSAL VS. TYPOLOGICAL VS. SYSTEM-DEPENDENT NATURALNESS pricking ACKEMA AND AD NEELEMAN WORD-FORMATION IN OPTIMALITY THEORY 1. Introduction 1. 1 OPTIMALITY THEORY 1. 2 opposition IN MORPHOLOGY Competition in the midst of variant morphemes 2. 1 THE BASIC CASE 2. 2 HAPLOLOGY 2. MARKEDNESS Competition amid comp geniusnts 3. 1 ELSEWHERE CASES 3. 2 COMPETITION mingled with MODULES THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE THE ELSEWHERE commandment Competition between distinct m orpheme orders 4. 1 CONFLICTS BETWEEN LINEAR CORRESPONDENCE AND TEMPLATIC REQUIREMENTS 4. 2 CONFLICTS BETWEEN LINEAR CORRESPONDENCE AND early(a) CORRESPONDENCE CONSTRAINTS Conclusion 2. 3. 4. 5. LAURIE BAUER PRODUCTIVITY THEORIES 1. 2. 3. Introduction Pre- fertile theories of productivity Schultink (1961) CONTENTS 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Zimmer (1964) Aronoff Natural geomorphology Kiparsky (1982) Van 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. convert (2000) 13. Bauer (2001) 14. Some th makes 15. Conclusion FRANZ RAINER CONSTRAINTS ON PRODUCTIVITY 1. 2. Introduction Universal constraints 2. 1 CONSTRAINTS SUPPOSEDLY LOCATED AT UG 2. 2 PROCESSING CONSTRAINTS 2. 2. 1 Blocking 2. 2. 2 Complexity meand Ordering 2. 2. 3 Productivity, frequency and length of bases actors line-specific constraints 3. 1 aim ORDERING 3. 2 AFFIX-SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS 3. 2. 1 ph onology 3. 2. 2 morphology 3. 2. 3 phrase structure 3. 2. 4 Argument structure 3. 2. Semantics 3. 2. 6 Pragmatics and Socio philology 3. xiv 4. Final remarks PREFACE 349 PETER HOHENHAUS LEXICALIZATION AND I INSTITUTIONALIZATION TITUTIONALIZATION 1. 2. Introduction Lexicalization 2. 1 LEXICALIZATION IN A DIACHRONIC wizard 2. 2 LEXICALIZATION IN A SYNCHRONIC SENSE LISTING/LISTEDNESS 2. 3 THE LEXICON AND THEORIES OF WORD-FORMATION Institutionalization 3. 1 voice communication 3. 2 IDEAL AND REAL SPEAKERS AND THE expression 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 bring about THERE? . 4 UNPREDICTABLE &038 implike FORMATIONS, ANALOGY, FADS, AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS 4. 5 LEXICALIZATION BEYOND language 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 increase 2. 1 DETERMINING 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 Negative prefixes (un-, in-, non-, de-, dis-) 3. 1. 2 Locational prefixes 3. 1. 3 Temporal and human faceual prefixes 3. 1. Quantitative prefixes 3. CONTENTS 3. 1. 5 Verbal prefixes 3. 2 SUFFIXATION 3. 2. 1 Personal nouns 3. 2. 2 Abstract nouns 3. 2. 3 Verb-forming postfixes 3. 2. 4 Adjective-forming suffixes 3. 2. 5 Collectives 3. 3 deduction 4. 5. renewal Conclusion xv 402 403 403 406 410 413 417 418 418 422 429 429 430 431 BOGDAN SZYMANEK THE in style(p) TRENDS IN ENGLISH WORD-FORMATION 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Introduction derivational neologisms Analogical formations, local analogies Changes in the comparative signifi chamberpotce of types of word-formation processes 431 Secretion of new affixes Lexicalisation of affixes 435 436Changes in the prod uctivity, relative productivity and ground of soulfulness 436 affixes Semantics changes in formative functions 438 Trends in the form of complex row 441 9. 1 survival OF RIVAL AFFIXES MORPHOLOGICAL DOUBLETS 441 9. 2 PHONOLOGICAL FORM STRESS 443 449 459 465 SUBJECT business leader NAME INDEX LANGUAGE INDEX PREFACE Following grades of realized or partial neglect of issues concerning word formation (by which we mean leading(predicate)rily derivation, compounding, and conversion), the year 1960 marked a revival swell up-nigh major power dismantle asseverate a resurrection of this grievous field of linguistic debate.While compose in completely different hypothetic frame works (structuralist vs. transformationalist), from completely different locatings, and with different objectives, around(a)(prenominal) Marchands Categories and Types of Present-Day side of meat Word-Formation in Europe and Lees Grammar of incline Nominalizations instigated systematic interroga tion in the field. As a result, a large bet of seminal works emerged over the next decades, making the scope of wordt formation look for broader and deeper, thus bestow to better understanding of this exciting theater of human language.Parts of this development absorb been captured in texts or review books (e. g. P. H. Matthews sizeable structure An Introduction to the possibility of Word-Structure (1974), Andrew Spencers geomorphologic Theory An Introduction to Word Structure in productive Grammar (1991), Francis Katambas Morphology (1993), r Spencer and Zwickys enchiridion of Morphology (1998)), equitable now these books scarper to handle both inflectional and derivational morphology, and to do so largely from the generative raze of view.What seemed deficient to us was a volume intend for move on pupils and other researchers in linguistics which would sense datum of touch the some strands of study both generative and non-generative that stimulate developed from Marchands and Lees seminal works, on both sides of the Atlantic. The ambitions of this Handbook of Word-formation be four-fold 1. To map the terra firma of the art in the field of word-formation. 2. To avoid a prejudice approach to word-formation by presenting different, mutually complemental, frameworks indoors which research into wordformation has taken place. vii cardinal 3. 4. PREFACE To present the specific topics from the perspective of experts who admit signifi foottly contri saveed to the atomic number 53 topics wrangleed. To explore specifi promisey at single English word formation processes and review some of the developments that wee-wee taken place since Marchands countywide treatment forty volt years ago. then, the Handbook provides the filler with the state of the art in the study of k word formation (with a particular(a) view to English word formation) at the eginning of the third base millennium. The Handbook is intended to croak the lect urer a bear motif of the k large number of issues examined inside word-formation, the different methods and approaches commitd, and an ever-growing number of tasks to be attached of in future research. At the self like(prenominal) time, it damps evidence of the great theoretical achievements and the push of this field that has become a fledged linguistic discipline. We wish to express our gratitude to all the contri exceptors to the Handbook. The editors CONTRIBUTORSPeter Ackema is subscriber in linguistics at the University of Edinburgh. He has worked extensively on issues regarding the morphology- phrase structure port, on which he has published devil books, Issues in Morpho phrase structure (Amsterdam outhouse Benjamins, 1999), and Beyond Morphology (Oxford Oxford University twinge, 2004, co- motiveed with Ad Neeleman). He has too published on a wide range of syntax internecine and morphology- inhering topics. Laurie Bauer holds a personal chair in linguistics at Vi ctoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.He has published wide on international varieties of English, curiously New Zealand English, and on aspects of morphology, including English Word-formation (Cambridge University contract, 1983), Morphological Productivity (Cambridge University Press, 2001), Introducing Linguistic Morphology (Edinburgh University Press, second edn, 2003), A Glossary of Morphology (Edinburgh University Press, 2004). Robert byssus 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 professor of philology at Bucknell to found the web-based guild of language products and services, yourDictionary. com, where he is shortly CEO. He is the former of The Indo-European Lexicon (Amsterdam NorthHolland, 1981) and Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology (New York SUNY Press, 1995). Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy is professor in the plane ingredient of philology at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He is the antecedent of Allomorphy in Inflexion (London Croom Helm, 1987), Current Morphology (London and New York Routledge, 1992) and An Introduction to English Morphology (EdinburghEdinburgh University Press, 2002). He is as well as interested in language 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 incision of r Linguisics at the University of Vienna and of the cathexis for philology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. He is the author of Morphonology (Ann Arbor Karoma Press, 1985) and Morphopragmatics (with Lavinia Merlini Barb arsi) (Berlin Mouton de Gruyter, 1994).Emiliano Guevara is lecturer of familiar philology at the University of bologna and is member of the Mor-Bo reserach group at the Department of Foreign languages in Bologna. His publications take V-Compounding in Dutch and Italian (Cuadernos de Linguistica, Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset, 1-21 (with S. Scalise) and filling in compounding and derivation (to appear) (with S. m Scalise and A. Bisetto). Peter Hohenhaus is lecturer in novel linguistics at the University of Nottingham (UK).He received his PhD in English philology 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 particular nonce word-formation, including the volume Ad-hoc-Wortbildung Terminologie, Typologie und Theorie kreativer Wortbildung im Englischen (Frankfurt, capital of Switzerland etc. Lang, 1996). Ellen M. Kaisse is Professor of Linguistics, University of Washington, Seattle. Her main palm of research include morphology-phonology and syntaxphonology interfaces, intonation, historical phonology, and Spanish phonology.She is an author of Connected dial ect the interaction of syntax and phonology (Orlando t schoolman Press, 1985), Studies in Lexical Phonology (ed. with S. Hargus, Orlando y Academic Press, 1993), Palatal vowels, glides, and consonants in Argentine Spanish (with J. Harris) (Phonology 16, 1999, 117-190), The hanker fall an intonational bloodline 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 temperament of the word es ordinates in honor of capital of Minnesota 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 conductor of the Center for Translation Studies. His main handle of interest include English morphology and word-formation (synchronic and diachronic), semantics, history of linguistics, and language typology. He is the author of Old English Deverbal Substantives Derived by way of a Zero Morph eme (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, history 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 (Chicago University of Chicago Press 1992), and An incorporated Theory of Autosegmental Processes (New York SUNY Press 1987), as well as numerous articles on versatile 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 argon case theory, the syntactic encode of thematic dependencies, and the interaction between syntax and syntax-external systems. His ma in publications include Complex Predicates (1993), conciliatory 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 strain Administration.He is the author of Spanische Wortbildungslehre (Tubingen Niemeyer, 1993) and co-editor (with Maria Grossmann) of La formazi peerless(a) delle word of honor in italiano (Tubingen Niemeyer, 2004), both of these publications being comprehensive treatments 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, unverbalized arguments, and derivationial morphology.In the field of language aquisition, he is too Managing editor in chief of Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics (Kluwer), a Founding editor of Language learnedness (Erlbaum), and also the author of Understanding and Producing oral communication (London Fontana, g 1983, co-authored with Ed Matthei), Parameter context (Dordrecht Reidel, 1987, with E. Williams), Theoretical Issues in Language encyclopedism (Hillsdale Erlbaum, 1992, with H. Goodluck and J. Weissenborn), and the forthcoming The 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 mingled problems of phonological and morphological theory. In extensio n 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 Ameri sight Studies, Presov University, Slovakia. His research has foc apply 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 chief(prenominal) 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 Meaning Predictability in Word-Formation (Amsterdam/Philadelphia John Benjamins) Gregory T. Stump is Professor of English and Linguistics at the University of Kentucky. His research h as focused on the development of Paradigm Function Morphology. He is the author of The Semantic Variability of sacrosanct Constructions (Dordrecht Reidel, 1985), Inflectional Morphology A Theory of Paradigm Structure (Cambridge CUP, 2001). He is presently 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 Modern 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 Summer Institute of Linguistics since 1970.His main atomic number 18as of interest include Nahuatl, cognitive f grammar, rendition, lexicography, and in advertent blends and other bloopers. He is an author of The transitivity-related morphology of Tetelcingo Nahuatl An exploration in Space grammar (UCSD Doctoral address, 1981), The affix-stem r bank bill A Cognitive grammar analysis of entropy from Orizaba Nahuatl (Cognitive Linguistics 3/3, 237-300), The thing is is that tribe talk that way. The question is is why? (In E. Casad (ed. ). 1995.Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods the expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics. Berlin Mouton de Gruyter, 713-752. ), and Abrelatas and nominal head nouns Exocentric verb-noun compounds as parables of basic principles of Cognitive grammar ( (International Journal of English Studies (2004) III, 25-61). Mark Volpe is a Ph. D crumbdidate at SUNY at Stony Brook expecting to defend his dissertation on Japanese morphology in early spring 2005. He is currently a visiting lecturer in the Department of Humanities at Mie guinea pig University in Tsu, Japan.He has published independently in Lingua and Snippets and has coauthored with Paolo Acquaviva, Mark Aronoff and Robert Beard. BASIC speech ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY 1. THE NOTION OF THE LINGUISTIC SIGN In this foregoing chapter I forget talk of the nonions morpheme and sign in relation to word-formation. The starting-point provide be Ferdinand de Saussures nonion sign (signe) (Saussure 1973), which since the early 20th coke has influenced enormously how linguists harbor crumbled quarrel and separate of haggling as grammatical wholes.There will be no tidy proof, part because Saussure himself was vague on of import points, and partly because among contemporary linguistic theorists on that point is little agreement about regular(a) the roughly fundamental aspects of how word-formation should be analysed and what bourninology should be used in describing it. all I hope that this chapter will warning signal readers to some of the main risks of misunderstanding that they argon sure to jar against l ater. 1 A handbook of English syntax in the twenty- prototypic speed of light would non be likely to begin with a give-and-take of Saussure. Why w accordinglyce(prenominal) does it make sense for a handbook on word-formation to do so?There be devil contends. The beginning(a) is that syntax is centrally refer not with single(a) signs in Saussures sense simply with compoundings of signs. That makes it sanitary as if word-formation, by personal line of credit, is concerned not with combinations of signs hardly only with individual signs. As to whether that hint is attractive or not, readers can in due course form their own opinions. For the present, it is enough to say that, in the opinion of or so but not all linguists, the way in which purposeful elements atomic number 18 combined in syntax is different from how they are combined in complex nomenclature.The second reason has to do with Saussures distinction between language as social chemical formula (langue) and language as ( utterance (pa use of goods and services). apiece language as langue kick the buckets to a union of speakers and, because it is a social convention, individuals take no control over it. On the other hand, language as parole is something that individual speakers ware control over it consists 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 chip in considered the study of syntax as be to the study of parole, not langue (the exception being those sentences or phrases that are idioms or cliches and which consequently belong to langue because they are formulaic miscellanea of 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 tachygraphy for Saussures view as presented in the Cours de linguistique commande.The Cours is a posthumous compiling based on notes of various series of lectures that Saussure delivered over a number of years. Apparent inconsistencies in the Cours whitethorn 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 whole that has influenced ensuant linguists, and on that steadfast ground it is fair to discuss it as if it were created by one author as a single 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 premised his notion sign with a famous drill a diagram consisting of an ellipse, the upper half(a) containing a picture of a tree and the scorn 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 represent a concept, or what the sign signifies (its signif ie), patch the lower half represents the unit of expression in Latin that signifies it (the signifiant).As Saussure acknowledges, the end point sign in its normal usage seems closer to the signifiant than the signifie, and at first one is t dispresent(p) to ask what the point is in distinguishing the signifiant from the sign as a t whole. Saussures answer lies largely in his view of how signs are related to distributively other. Signs (he says) do not function in isolation but preferably perk up a value (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 only as components of the signs to which they belong.By this Saussure does not mean that (for example) trees have no real existence apart(predicate) from language, but quite an that the term for the concept tree will differ in valeur from one language to another depending on whether or not that r language has, for example, melodying call f or the concept scrubbing (a small tree) or the concept tone of voice (wood from trees for use in building or furniture-making). 3 Each signifie has a wider or narrower scope, according to how few or how many a(prenominal) an(prenominal) are the related signs that its sign billets with.And with signifiants, too, what matters most is not the hold ups or garner 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 similar structure (a prefix e-, a root, and a suffix -n), but their valeur at heart their respective verbal paradigms is different ephen is an r im stark(a) tense form while esten is aorist. So far, so good, perhaps.The Latin word arbor and the English word tree are r candid quarrel, not analysable into little pregnant parts, and apiece is in Saussures basis a sign. tho consider the word unhelpfulness, which seems clearly to consist of four elements, un-, he lp, -ful and -ness, each of which contributes in a l pellucid way to the intend of the whole. Consider also the dustup Londoner, Muscovite, Parisian, Roman, and Viennese, all marrow dweller of , and all consisting of a stem followed by a suffix. What things count as signs here the whole course, or the elements composing them, or both?It is at this point that Saussures exposition becomes frustratingly unclear, as I will demonstrate presently. Let us call these elements morphemes. This is consistent with the usage of Baudouin de Courtenay, the armourer of the term, who speaks of the unification of the concepts of root, affix, prefix, ending, and the like under the normal 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 precise corresponding reason not 2Because readers are likely to have access to Saussures Cours in various different editions and translations, I will give first a reference point to the relevant part and chapter, then a page reference to the 1973 edition by Tullio de Mauro, and finally a page reference to the 1983 translation by Roy Harris. I quote passages from the Cours in the translation by Harris. I use Saussures original technical call langue, parole, signifiant and signifie, for which no consistent English equivalents have become t established. 3 This illustration is mine, not Saussures, but is in the spirit ofSaussures discussion of how both English spoken communication sheep and mutton conform to to one french word mouton. BASIC speech 7 further cleavable (1972 153). It is also consistent with rough-and-ready definitions of the word form offered in introductory linguistics courses, where morphemes are characterised as individually meaty units which are minimal in the sense that they are not divisible into small meaningful units. 4 The question nevertheless posed now becomes Do morphemes count as signs, or do only nomencl ature count, or both?Much of the variability in how the term morpheme is used can be seen as due to unverbalised or explicit attempts to treat morphemes as signs, despite the difficulties that quickly 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 middling plead that he could not be expected to cover every aspect of his notion of the sign in introductory lectures. Yet the question that I have safe posed about morphemes is one that naturally arises close as soon as the notion of the sign is introduced.A case can be made for attributing to Saussure devil diametrically opposed positions 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 evidence from the Cours for morphemes as signs, then present evidence for language as signs. 1. 1 Evidence for the morpheme-as-sign pos ition in Saussures Cours The distinction between langue and parole is far from the only eventful binary distinction introduced by Saussure in his Cours.Another is the distinction between syntagmatic relationships (involving elements in linear succession) and associative relationships (involving elements that contrast on a dimension of resource). 5 Elements that can be related syntagmatically include signs, and in particular the signifiants of signs, which are presented one later on another so as to form a chain (part 1, chapter 1, voice 3 103 70). Chains 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 conventionalised or idiomatical.This conventionalization renders them part of langue. An example is the phrase prendre la mouche (literally to take the fly), which means to take offence (part 2, chapter 5, theatrical role 2 172 123). However, the great majority of phra ses and sentences have meanings that are candid, 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 theology is good, and sil fait sheik temps, nous sortirons if its fine, well go out (part 2, chapter 5, section 1 170 121).These phrases and sentences do not constitute signs as wholes quite, t 4 5 This resembles Bloomfields unblemished definition a linguistic form which bears no partial phoneticsemantic resemblance to any other form (1933 161). One implication of the specification partial is that two morphemes may display total phonetic personal identity (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 flip associative as the counterpart of syntagmatic.But I will stick to Saussures term in this chapter. 8 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY they are made up of small signs, namely the words or idiomatic expressions that they contain. On this basis, the question Do morphemes count as signs? can be thin as Can morphemes as much(prenominal) compose syntagmas that belong to parole rather than to langue? At first sight, the answer is yes. In the very said(prenominal) passage where Saussure gives the examples respectable quoted, he cites the word re-lire to read again.Saussure uses the elan to draw assist to the divisibility of this word into two elements, re- again and lire to read. The word relire thus has a meaning that is as ethitheral as that of unhelpfulness. Here, at least, 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. set ahead evidence for this morpheme-as-sign position seems to be supplied by Saussures discussion of suffixes much(prenominal) as -ment and -eux, and of zippo signs.The t words enseignement instruction, enseigner to teach and enseignons we teach t r clearly share what Saussure calls a common 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 nimble (from chaleur warmth), and peur-eux r r atrocious (from peur fear) (part 2, chapter 5, section 3 173-5 123-5). 6 These r common elements are morphemes, in cost of our rough-and-ready definition.Are they also signs, in Saussures sense? Saussure hints at the answer yes when he discusses a set of instances where overt suffixes contrast with zero. In Czech, the noun zena woman illustrates a widespread pattern in which the genitive plural form form form zen is differentiated from the other case-number forms, such(prenominal) as the accusative unmatched zenu and the nominative case plural zeny, simply by th e absence seizure of a suffix. Here the genitive plural has as its exponent zero or the sign zero (part 1, chapter 3, section 3 123-4 86).Surely then (one is inclined to think) the accusative funny suffix -u and the nominative plural suffix -y, both being morphemes in our sense, moldiness have at least as much right as zero has to count as signs. It is tempting to take out off that, in complex words, Saussure recognises individual morphemes as signs provided that the complex word is on a regular basis formed and semantically transparent. A reader of the Cours who looks for explicit confirmation of this tempting conclusion will be frustrated, however.Many complex words other than re-lire and forms of zena are discussed, but always it is in contexts that straine 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, thus. 1. 2 Evidence for the word-as-sign position in Saussures Cours Closely agree in structure 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 attention to its internal structure.The meaning of defaire, at least in many 6 The inconsistency in the use of hyphens here is Saussures. BASIC nomenclature 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 double formations decoller to unstick, deplacer to r r gain (literally to un-place) and decoudre to unsew. However, comparing the discussion of relire, we find an eventful difference 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 redo, 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 baron therefore have expected Saussure to say something like this Because of its unpredictable meaning, the syntagma contrefaire is conventionalised and belongs as a unitary 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 actually says is almost the opposite of that. The word defaire is decomposable into smaller units, he says, only to the extent that is skirt 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 value i. . valeur deriving doctorly from their mutual contributions within a larger unit (part 2, chapter 6, section 1 176 126). return that valeur is a property 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 left with a contradiction.The word relire is cited in a context that invites us to treat it as a unit of parole, not langue, composed of signs, just like the sentence If its fine, well go out. On the other hand, the discussion adjoin defaire insists on its status as a unit of langue, a sign as a whole, composed of elements or smaller units that are not signs. On the ba sis of my presentation so far, the evidence for the two positions (morpheme-as-sign and word-as-sign) may seem fairly every bit balanced. But there are solid reasons to think that the word-as-sign position more near reflects Saussures true view.Consider the french number word dix-neuf ninerteen (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(prenominal) surely cool off 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 cause and signs that are un incite.The sign vingt is un motivated in that it is strictly unconditional 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 stronger. Even so, according to Saussure, 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 status 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 strand of dix and neuf means ten plus nine, not ten times f nine or ten to the one-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 rallys 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 comm unicatory world, among the first halfdozen morphemes that every beginning student of linguistics is introduced to. Yet for Saussure it does not count as sign it is barely 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 owing(p) discrepancy between the word- aggregated approach to complex words, predominant in the work of the open structuralist Saussure, and the morpheme-centred approach that (as we shall see) predominated among his structuralist successors.In section 2 I will outline the attractions and pitfalls of morpheme-centred approaches. 2. MORPHEME AND WORD Saussure recognised some of the difficulties inherent in using 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 advertisement as r r words, such as Latin arbor tree and French juger to j udge (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 close all well-studied European languages with a long written history and a impost of grammatical and lexical analysis in f terms of which the identification of words (in some sense) was uncontroversial. However, accompanying the theoretical developments in linguistics in the early twentieth century was an explosion 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 according 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 (synta x). As Malinowski put it, isolated words are in fact only linguistic figments, the products of an modernistic linguistic analysis (Malinowski 1935 11, cited by Robins 1990 154). So what units are impound as tools for a preliminary linguistic analysis?It seemed natural to answer those units that are clearly inseparable 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 labelled morphemes in section 1. Thus, despite Saussures disposition 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 string of sounds, such as Latin arbor (spelled arbor) or French y e (spelled juger), such that every uni t of parole is analysable exhaustively as a string of signifiants (part 1, chapter 1, section 3). What we will hold open is a temptation towards signs with signifiants that deviate more and more 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 replacement of f morphology by syntax at the centre of grammatical theory-construction. Nevertheless, I will tittle-tattle 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 su ffix 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 kinda 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 transcription for these two words, the suffix will appear in two different shapes, /z/ and /s/, (/fl? , ps/), and there is yet a third shape, either / z/ or / z/, according to dialect, found in words such as roses, horses, churches and judges. 8 must(prenominal) we then recognise deuce-ace different signs with the same signifie? Such an analysis would place these three 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 complementary color dissemination o f the three shapes / z/ appears after strident chaplet sounds, while elsewhere /z/ appears after utter sounds and /s/after intemperate 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. Just 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 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 intimately 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 individually meaningful units that are not divisible into smaller meaningful units, provided that they are synonymous and in complementary distributio n, 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 likewise not pronounced directly, but represented 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 elevate 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 concede t hat the units that deserve sign status, as an alternative 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 superfluous from the point of view of the Saussurean t sign, constituting neither a signifiant nor a signifie.On the other hand, if we wish to continue to say that it is morphemes that are signs, rather than allomorphs, we must pop out 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 escape from this dilemma.If the preference 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 rightfully are dealing with only one string within the speech chain, not three. If so, the problem of multiple 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 supply 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 elicitation that the voiced form of the suffix appears after voiced sounds (other than coronal stridents). But this is not because the alternative suffix shapes yield badly 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 terms 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, contemporary Optimality Theory) can we motivate a single phonological underlier for all three. Around the middle of the twentieth century, problems such as the one we have just encountered were typically handled by positing a take of analysis in some grade distinct from both phonology and morphology, called morphophonology (sometimes shortened 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), acquire phonologically as / z/, / z/ or /s/, according to the context. 10 This allows us to posit a single signifiant vestigial / z/, /z/ and /s/, but at the cost (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 clear 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, ambush and bath supply f f f an illustration of this. In the singular, they end in a gruelling blatant /waif/, /louf/, / /ba /. In the plural, however, their stems end in a voiced raucous (/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 distin ct morphemes? To say so would be consistent 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 pick of the voiced-fricative allomorph. The noun wife itself can carry the possessive case 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 exhibit this voicing in the plural for example, it does not occur in the plural forms fifes, oafs or breaths.So the voicing is limit 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 phonem e in the plural and a voiceless one in the singular (Harris 1942). These nouns 10 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 untouchable, 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 said 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 eminence into confusing t morphophonemes with archiphonemes. 14 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY an then be represented morphophonologically (rather than phonologically) as / street child/, /louF/ and /ba /. The morphophoneme can be seen as a eddy 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 handling all multipleallomorph patterns satisfactorily? The answer is no, as I will demonstrate in the next subsections. . 2 Case study the completed participial forms of English verbs I use pure(a) 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 regular 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 w ith the noun plural suffix, phonology alone does not always guarantee the correct choice of suffix. For d t example, /k? n d/, /k? nd/ and /k? nt/ are all phonologically possible words and indeed actual words canine member of the subgroup of mammals to which wolves d and dogs belong, canned contained in a can and banking concern 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 handling 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 preced es is a coronal plosive.Examples of these orthographic-t verbs are build (perfect participle create), bend (bent), feel ( mat up), affirm d t d t l t (kept), spell (spelt), lose ( deep in thought(p)), teach (taught), and deal (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 pattern (1) Orthographic-t verbs Base Perfect participle build built bend bent feel felt Regular verbs Base gild tend peel Perfect participle cheap 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 heaved felled seepaged 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 characteristic of orthographic-t verbs is that they nearly t always display a stem form that differs from the base or present-tense stem. What flat concerns us is the suffix, however.Is it or is 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 adopt 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 perfect coincidence. But, just as with wife and wive-, it goes against the corpuscle 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