A comparative view of approaches in non-morphemic word-formation; researching clipping, blends, acronyms and abbreviations, reduplication, back-formation as well as borderline cases that cannot be assigned clearly. This paper delves into the commonalities and differences of non-morphemic word-formation in Schmid's "English morphology and word-formation" and Plag's "Word-formation in English".
Non-morphemic word-formation is a linguistic field full of exceptions and the odd one out in terms of morphology. It is a particularly interesting case in point as it does not rely on morphemic building blocks and shows some peculiarities that can be viewed from various angles.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Non-morphemic word-formation
2.1 Clipping
2.2 Blends
2.3 Acronyms and Abbreviations
2.4 Reduplication
2.5 Back-formation
3 Borderline cases
4 Conclusion
5 Bibliography
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to provide a comparative analysis of the linguistic approaches to non-morphemic word-formation as presented in Hans-Jörg Schmid's "English morphology and word-formation" and Ingo Plag's "Word-Formation in English," highlighting both their theoretical disagreements and their complementary viewpoints.
- Investigation of divergent classification models for word-formation processes.
- Cognitive vs. syntactical approaches to analyzing lexemes.
- Examination of specific linguistic phenomena: clipping, blends, acronyms, reduplication, and back-formation.
- Identification of "borderline cases" that challenge standard morphological categorization.
- Assessment of the role of historical context in word-formation analysis.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 Clipping
Clipping retains meaning as well as word-class in lexemes (Schmid 2016: 213) – a noun will remain a noun, and clipping does not change that. It is considered a form of abbreviation by both Schmid (Schmid 2016: 211) and Plag (Plag 2003: 121). This is indeed the case as clipping involves – often massive - shortening of a lexeme, with entire parts being cut out. There are various forms – fore-clipping, back-clipping and middle-clipping (Schmid 2016: 213). These terms are slightly misleading as fore-clipping removes the first part of its source word and back-clipping the last one (Schmid 2016: 213); however, middle-clipping refers to the remaining part (Schmid 2016: 213). Schmid mentions cases that involve clipping as well as suffixation (Schmid 2016: 214). An example is Aussie (Australian), where the suffix -ie is added to the clipped lexeme (Schmid 2016: 214). Cases such as capital city result in abbreviation by means of removing the second or last element entirely (Schmid 2016: 214) – capital is in frequent use, as much or even more than its full form. Proper names, for instance Chris (Christopher) are often subject to clipping (Schmid 2016: 214). Plag’s scope of clipping is much more limited than Schmid’s (Plag 2003: 121). He classifies clipping as a sub-section of truncation (Plag 2003: 116) and admits that clipping is “a term that in other publications is often used as an equivalent to ‘truncations’” (Plag 2003: 121). Not getting involved with Schmid’s types of clipping (Schmid 2016: 213), Plag focuses on proper names for the largest part of his chapter, which he views as cases of truncation (Plag 2003: 116-120). Nevertheless, Schmid’s classification can be applied to Plag’s examples anyway.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter outlines the paper's aim to compare Schmid’s and Plag’s divergent definitions and classifications regarding non-morphemic word-formation processes.
2 Non-morphemic word-formation: This section provides a comparative analysis of specific linguistic mechanisms—clipping, blends, acronyms, reduplication, and back-formation—emphasizing the differences in the authors' cognitive vs. syntactical focus.
3 Borderline cases: This chapter investigates ambiguous lexemes that do not fit neatly into traditional categories, exposing the limitations of current morphological classification systems.
4 Conclusion: This chapter synthesizes the main findings, asserting that while the authors differ in their specific focus and methodologies, their works effectively complement each other to offer a comprehensive understanding of the field.
5 Bibliography: This chapter lists the referenced works of Hans-Jörg Schmid and Ingo Plag that serve as the foundation for the comparative study.
Keywords
Non-morphemic word-formation, Morphology, Clipping, Blends, Acronyms, Reduplication, Back-formation, Cognitive linguistics, Lexeme, Compounding, Truncation, Linguistic analysis, Historical linguistics, Derivation, Lexicon
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
This paper focuses on comparing the different theoretical approaches to non-morphemic word-formation processes found in the works of Schmid and Plag.
What are the central themes covered in the book?
The central themes include the classification of non-morphemic processes, the role of speakers' minds in word-formation, and the structural differences in how lexemes are shortened or combined.
What is the core research goal?
The goal is to contrast how two seminal authors categorize processes like clipping and blending and to identify areas where their theories overlap or conflict.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author uses a comparative and analytical approach, contrasting specific definitions and examples provided by the source authors to test the consistency and validity of their morphological models.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body examines five specific processes—clipping, blends, acronyms, reduplication, and back-formation—and explores "borderline cases" that defy clear categorization.
How would you describe the key characteristics of this paper?
It is a comparative, theory-oriented study that highlights the inherent irregularity of the English lexicon and the creative nature of word-formation.
How do Schmid and Plag differ in their treatment of 'clipping'?
Schmid focuses on the speaker's cognition and perception, while Plag treats clipping as a sub-section of truncation, focusing more on syllable structure and stress patterns.
Why is back-formation considered exceptional in this study?
It is the only process within the scope of this paper that leads to a change in the word-class of the lexeme, making it a unique and historically dependent phenomenon.
How does the author handle 'chunnel' as a borderline case?
The author analyzes how 'chunnel' defies standard blend classifications, noting that it functions effectively like a compound, highlighting the debate between Schmid's and Plag's interpretations.
What role does historical context play in the research?
Historical context is identified as crucial, particularly for back-formation, where determining which term emerged first is necessary to classify the process accurately.
- Quote paper
- Romy Zhang (Author), 2021, Processes of non-morphemic word-formation. Schmid’s "English morphology and word-formation" and Plag’s "Word-Formation in English", Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1474075
