|
Theme: Stylistic usage of word-formation patterns
Introduction
The given course paper is dedicated to the study of syntactical usage of word-formation patterns as a productive way of word-formation, which presents a certain interest both for theoretical investigation and for the practical language use.
The aim of this course paper describes the main productive way of word-formation in English according to this general aim there put forward the following particular tasks: to define word-formation as a subject;
to describe the various types and ways of forming words
to analyze the productive way of English word formation ;
to study the types of affixation, borrowing, abbreviation, compounding.
The theoretical significance of this course paper is that, the theoretical position can be used in scientific works besides, that they may be used delivering lectures on Lexicology. The practical value of the course paper is that, the practical results and conclusion can be used in seminars on Lexicology.
The structure of this course paper is as follows: Introduction, main part, conclusion and bibliography.
Nowadays, the terms ‘word formation’ does not have a clear cut, universally accepted usage. It is sometimes referred to all processes connected with changing the form of the word by, for example, affixation, which is a matter of morphology. In its wider sense word formation denotes the processes of creation of new lexical units. Although it seems that the difference between morphological change of a word and creation of a new term is quite easy to perceive, there is sometimes a dispute as to whether blending is still a morphological change or making a new word. There are, of course, numerous word formation processes that do not arouse any controversies and are very similar in the majority of languages. In linguistics, word formation is the creation of a new word. Word formation is sometimes contrasted with semantic change, which is a change in a single word's meaning. The boundary between word formation and semantic change can be difficult to define as a new use of an old word can be seen as a new word derived from an old one and identical to it in form.
Where does word formation belong? Does it really belong in morphology? Exactly what is being formed in word formation? Is word formation stem formation? Is the formation of lexical idioms—with many word forms—word formation? Is word formation to be construed in terms of processes, or process results? How are different kinds of word formation to be defined? What exactly is it that is shared by different kinds of word formation, such as compounding, derivation, and conversion? What exactly is the difference between word formation and inflection, and what do they have in common? What is it that makes one kind of word formation, such as compounding, the same kind in different languages? How do we arrive at a consistent, disambiguated terminology for dealing with word formation? What is an appropriate format for word-formation statements? There continues to be considerable disagreement on these questions, and no current approach appears to have answers to all of them. It is the aim of the present essay to characterize a conception of word formation and a theory—meant to be adequate for all formation types—that would allow us to answer the questions in a unified way. The theory is to be called the Process Model of Word Formation. The conception and the theory have four basic aspects:
1) they allow for a clear distinction to be drawn between what is morphological and what is syntactic in word formation;
2) they assume that only three basic processes are involved in word formation: compounding, derivation, and conversion, each of them morphosyntactic because of its two major subcases: a morphological process resulting in stem forms, and a syntactic process resulting in word forms;
3) they construe all processes involved in word formation in a unified way;
4) they interlink with a specific Word and Paradigm model.
The first aspect, touching upon a basic problem of long standing in word-formation theory—topical in Construction Grammar work—is left undiscussed here in its general form. Impasses and oppositions appear to prevail in interrelating the lexical, the morphological, and the syntactic, both within and between approaches (for recent discussion, see Blevins 2006, Müller 2006, Jackendoff 2011). It may be claimed, though, that the Process Model of Word Formation avoids them by adopting (2), (3), and (4). Aspects (2) and (3) are at the centre of this essay; the fourth aspect is treated only as far as necessary for dealing with the other two.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
