An ecosystem view of English word-formation

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-20
Author(s):  
Vincent Renner

Abstract This article takes a function-to-form approach to word-formation in present-day English and argues that the ecosystem metaphor can help morphologists see competition in word-formation and its resolution in a new light. The analysis first draws correspondences between four lexical functions (transcategorial, transconceptual, evaluative, and compacting) and ten formal operations (prefixation, suffixation, compounding, blending, morphostasis, stress shift, clipping, desuffixation, initialization, and replication) and concludes that there is no across-the-board interoperation competition to encode each function, but rather a fairly complementary distribution of the operations between the four functional subsystems. Each functional subsystem is then reviewed in turn and it is shown that, again, there is no full-scale competition at this level, but rather some fairly pronounced tendencies towards complementariness, and, in one case, also towards combination. The broad division of labor within each subsystem can, remarkably, be accounted for in different terms: the conditioning is primarily semantic (with formal subconsiderations) in the transcategorial and transconceptual subsystems while it is formal in the evaluative and compacting subsystems.

Author(s):  
Ryan Cotterell ◽  
Hinrich Schütze

Much like sentences are composed of words, words themselves are composed of smaller units. For example, the English word questionably can be analyzed as question+ able+ ly. However, this structural decomposition of the word does not directly give us a semantic representation of the word’s meaning. Since morphology obeys the principle of compositionality, the semantics of the word can be systematically derived from the meaning of its parts. In this work, we propose a novel probabilistic model of word formation that captures both the analysis of a word w into its constituent segments and the synthesis of the meaning of w from the meanings of those segments. Our model jointly learns to segment words into morphemes and compose distributional semantic vectors of those morphemes. We experiment with the model on English CELEX data and German DErivBase (Zeller et al., 2013) data. We show that jointly modeling semantics increases both segmentation accuracy and morpheme F1 by between 3% and 5%. Additionally, we investigate different models of vector composition, showing that recurrent neural networks yield an improvement over simple additive models. Finally, we study the degree to which the representations correspond to a linguist’s notion of morphological productivity.


2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 431-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
RÉKA BENCZES

In English morphological literature, the term ‘tautological compound’ has been typically used to refer to two distinct – but closely related – phenomena: (1) compounds composed of a hyponym and a superordinate term (such as oak tree); and/or (2) compounds based upon two synonymous units (such as subject matter). Such combinations are one of the quirkiest – and least researched – phenomena of English compounding. Their oddity can be attributed to two main factors. First, as their name, ‘tautological compound’ implies, at face value such combinations can be considered as prime examples of the redundancy of language. Second, they do not follow normal compound-forming rules in the sense that both constituents can function as the semantic head (as opposed to ‘normal’ English compounds, which follow the Right-Hand Head Rule).Perhaps it is the quirkiness of tautological compounds that accounts for the fact that not much has been said about them in traditional accounts of compounding, which typically relegate them to a marginal area of the English language. However, there is more to tautological compounds than meets the eye. What the present study wishes to demonstrate is that the term ‘tautological compound’ is a misnomer, as such combinations are far from being tautological or redundant in their meaning. Accordingly, the article first clarifies the notion of tautological compound, and then aims to give an account of the various roles that such combinations play in language, thereby demonstrating their non-tautological and non-redundant nature – in order to assign this much-neglected category to its proper, well-deserved place within English word formation.


Language ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 619-619
Author(s):  
Iman Makeba Laversuch
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (11) ◽  
pp. 8384-8388
Author(s):  
Nimfa G Dimaculangan ◽  
Leah E Gustilo
Keyword(s):  

Language ◽  
1951 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 597
Author(s):  
Fred W. Householder ◽  
Anna Granville Hatcher
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document