Lecture
Это окончание невероятной информации про деривационный синтез.
...
accounting of the results of its operation, it is a reflection of the realization of the capacity of different word-formation models, in certain time periods, for word-production. Many word-formation models differ precisely in the quantitative aspect: cf. the fairly limited and closed list of derivatives with the suffix -dom (Kingdom, princedom, etc.) and the huge, open series of derivatives with the suffix -er in Modern English; cf. also, in Russian, the series of derivatives with the suffix -изн(а), the suffix -ение and others.
Activity - is the dynamic, processual aspect of the word-formation system, its capacity for action, for replenishing the language with new lexical units, for performing certain communicative tasks. Naturally, the static and processual aspects in word-formation are closely connected and difficult to delimit. That is why it is sometimes impossible to determine whether we use derived words in speech as ready-made units or create them anew according to active word-formation models.
It must be said that the activity of word-formation models is determined by numerous factors - linguistic and extralinguistic: phonetic, phonological, morphological, etymological, derivational, semantic, stylistic, etc. properties of lexical units, competition with already existing linguistic designations, communicative and pragmatic reasons.
In English, for example, derived adjectives contain up to 70 suffixes of various origin. Of these, the suffixes -ate, -ory, -ine, -id and others never combine with native stems; on the contrary, such suffixes as -ward, -most, -fold never combine with borrowed stems.
It is not without interest that in 96% of cases the native suffixes by means of which derived adjectives are formed in English are attached to monomorphemic base forms (wolfish 'wolfish', fatherly 'fatherly', painful 'painful', papery 'papery', swanlike 'swanlike' and others).
An example of the restrictive effect of the semantics of base forms may be the combinability of the adjectival suffix -ly with designations of persons, units of time measurement (manly 'manly', kingly 'kingly', daily 'daily', weekly 'weekly', etc.) and the exclusion from the scope of this suffix of names of plants, materials, etc., which are typical of the model with the adjectival suffix -y (piny 'piny', clayey 'clayey' and others)
The activity of a word-formation model is, without doubt, regulated by units already existing in the lexical system of the language. Thus, the absence of derivatives with the prefix un- of the type *ungood, *unsoft, *unlong in the series of words of the type unkind 'unkind', unready 'unready', unpleasant 'unpleasant', etc. is conditioned, among other factors, by the fact that the vocabulary of English already has the simple words bad 'bad', hard 'hard', short 'short', etc.
The emergence of derivatives according to one or another word-formation model is thus the result of the operation of numerous regularities, or rules. It should be noted that word-formation depends on a far greater number of factors compared, for example, with syntax - so much greater that some linguists are inclined to see in the system of derived words - this product of word-formation processes - only a set of exceptions, or a complete set of irregularities.
It should be noted that the modern understanding of productivity and activity, especially in foreign linguistics, is not identical to its traditional interpretation in a purely quantitative aspect. Productivity, without a discussion of which works on generative grammar, and in fact almost no work on word-formation, can do, is conceived not only as a function of the combined operation of numerous filters that permit or block the formation of new units. It, as the debates that have flared up have revealed, is connected with that type of speech activity of speakers which is governed by certain regularities and as a result of which new units arise in the lexicon whose novelty is not felt either by their creators or by their listeners. In this, productivity differs from creativity, or speech behavior of speakers not regulated by rules, which is based on a conscious intention, when generating a new unit, to create some special effect, while the generation itself, analogical in its essence and therefore unpredictable, occurs relying on unproductive and unique patterns.
Productivity is scalar and multidimensional. Alongside the quantitative dimension mentioned earlier, in which derivational processes are qualified as productive, low-productive and unproductive according to the number of linguistic units formed, productivity can be calculated on the basis of the ratio of base and derived units and thereby the ratio of all potentially possible and actually formed derivatives according to a given model. Oriented toward fundamentally different indicators, undoubtedly shaped by the size of the classes of lexical units drawn into the sphere of word-formation and their open or closed character, such a correlation makes it possible to grasp more precisely the degree of the generative capacity of derivational models. Another dimension of the productivity of word-formation models, which S.R. Anderson proposes to call their activity, may be the capacity of a model or rule to extend its operation to new units, new both in the sense that they have only just appeared in the lexical system of the language (as a result of word-formation or borrowing), and in the sense of words that already exist but were not previously involved in the model. It is important to emphasize that the above-stated concept of productivity and activity, which, alongside other parameters, may become the foundation of a taxonomic description of word-formation, rests on the fundamental recognition of the directionality of derivational processes and their modeling models, namely a directionality from the base form, and not the other way around – from lexical units to base forms.
An extremely interesting and, apparently, the least studied aspect of the functioning of the word-formation system – usage frequency, or realization, of word-formation models in text.
There is no doubt that the usage frequency of a word-formation model, by which, in our opinion, one should understand not only the very fact of the realization of derivatives of one or another" word-formation series in text, but also the character of their textual distribution, i.e. the dispersion of derivatives, is connected with the specific weight of this word-formation model within the onomasiological category for the designation of which the derivatives formed according to the model are intended. It is also connected with the communicative importance of the phenomena denoted by the derivatives. In other words, the usage frequency of a model is, to a certain extent, a reflection of the significance and usage frequency of the derivatives created according to it. It is important not to equate the usage frequency of derivatives with the usage frequency of a word-formation model. In order to distinguish between them, it seems expedient to introduce the term "speech activity of a word-formation model".
In the few existing studies of the functioning of word-formation systems or subsystems, there is a practice of determining the speech representation of word-formation models:
a) by the number of all derived words recorded in texts of a given length (often of a given functional style);
b) by the number of different, non-repeating units built according to the models under analysis, recorded in texts.
However, in the first case, what is at issue is not so much a characterization of the word-formation model as the functioning of derived words as individual verbal signs, whose frequency is determined by their place in the lexical system of the language. Such an examination is, of course, important for characterizing a given word, for understanding its significance in the language system and in the processes of communication, for comparing the role of simple and derived units in text, etc. But for describing word-formation models as analogues, patterns for building derived words, it is clearly insufficient, since as a result of such an analysis we obtain information only about the dispersion of derivatives of one or another word-formation series in texts. In other words, the characterization of the speech activity of a word-formation model turns out to be unjustifiably narrowed and one-sided.
In the second case, what comes into the researcher's field of view is not the frequency of use of individual derived units in texts, but a fairly complete picture of the representation of a given word-formation model in text. However, this aspect of the description of the speech functioning of a word-formation model, too, isolated from its other aspects, appears to be deficient, since, without relating speech activity to the length of the corresponding word-formation series and to the possibilities for new formations - the productivity and activity of the model, it is impossible to determine the degree of speech activity and to give a systemic description of the functional aspect of the word-formation system.
The speech activity of a word-formation model, in our view, is the ratio of the number of different representations of the word-formation model to the total number of formations according to the model, i.e. its productivity, which reveals a direct dependence on the activity of the model, and, accordingly, the number of occasional and new words recorded in speech.
Determining the speech activity of a word-formation model in the form proposed above is associated with a number of difficulties: determining a text length sufficient for the reliability of conclusions, recording derived words and establishing the length of the word-formation series, calculating the productivity of the model as a whole, determining the activity coefficient of the model, etc. But taken apart from other functional parameters, the speech activity of a word-formation model cannot receive a more or less convincing description, since the realization of derivatives of a given model directly depends on the total number of derivatives already created and being created according to that model.
A certain interdependence between the speech activity and the productivity of word-formation models manifests itself not only in the quantitative ratio of derived units formed according to a given model and realized in texts. The dispersion of derived words in text also reveals a certain correlation with the productivity of the corresponding model. As observations of the speech functioning of derived adjectives in Modern English show, the realization and concentration in text of derivatives of models differing in their productivity and activity proceeds differently. Of the whole set of derivatives built according to unproductive and/or inactive models, only some, frequently repeated "representatives" of these models are, as a rule, encountered in texts, whereas the set of derivatives formed according to productive and active models is represented in texts by different words with more or less the same frequency. Thus, of the entire set of derived adjectives with the suffixes -ful, -en, -ly in Modern English, only the words beautiful 'beautiful', wonderful 'wonderful', careful 'careful', golden 'golden', wooden 'wooden', friendly 'friendly' and a few others are in current use in texts.
Derived adjectives with the suffixes -y, -less, -like and others are represented in texts more evenly and do not show sharp differences in frequency of use. On this basis it can be concluded that the speech activity of word-formation models with productive suffixes is higher than the speech activity of word-formation models with unproductive suffixes. This is also fostered by the activity of many productive models and the formation of occasional words according to them.
+The speech activity of word-formation models is also conditioned by the specifics of the functional styles in which the derivatives are realized. The speech activity of word-formation models with the suffixes -like, -ish is close to zero in texts of scientific and newspaper-publicistic prose and rises sharply in texts of literary prose. The spheres of functioning of derivatives of other word-formation models also differ.
In conclusion, it must be said that the functional characteristics of a derivational model determine its place and significance in the overall word-formation system of a given language, which in turn determines the importance of describing the functional aspect of word-formation models in the general description of the language.
The most important distinctive feature of derived words as compared with simple words, which name objects, phenomena, features of objective reality directly, immediately, and which are their conventional, arbitrary signs, is that derived words, in order to carry out their nominative function, turn, as E.S. Kubryakova writes, to the world of words, and, acting as motivated combinations of arbitrary signs, are characterized by the property of double reference – reference to the entities denoted and reference to the linguistic units on the basis of which the derived sign is built. Like simple words, derivatives denote, name certain phenomena of objective reality, and, accordingly, like individual designations, they possess an individual lexical meaning. At the same time, derivatives, unlike simple words, are turned toward the world of words; they are connected by relations of word-formation derivedness with other words and name a phenomenon not directly, but through correlation with another unit, thereby pointing to a connection with another phenomenon. Thus, the words worker 'worker', driver 'driver', singer 'singer', etc. denote persons, but this designation, unlike the words man 'man', girl 'girl', boy 'boy', is built on an indication of the actions that these persons perform. The meaning of the words girl 'girl', woman 'woman', on the one hand, and poetess 'poetess', actress 'actress', stewardess 'stewardess' on the other, contains the semes of a female person, but in the meanings of the second series of words this seme is explicit and is linked with the presence in the word of the suffix -ess, whereas in the words girl, woman it is hidden and is revealed only in the process of componential analysis.
The connection of a derivative with another word (words), and, on the basis of this connection, the dissected way of representing its semantics through motivating units, sets derived words apart from the class of holistically-shaped words and brings them closer to more complex units of nomination – the sentence and the word-combination.
The use of already existing linguistic units for forming derived words determines their formal and semantic dependence on these units and their motivation. Derivatives appear as units containing in their structure and semantics a referential part, which fully or partially repeats the structural-semantic properties of the base unit, and a forming, or formant, part, reflecting the formal operation as a result of which the derived word was formed, and its semantic consequences. Owing to their motivation, derived words, unlike simple ones, become units with a transparent internal form, derivable units, whose meaning can be deciphered by turning to the source of motivation and establishing the semantic load carried by the formal transformation of the base unit. It is precisely for this reason that the semantic structure of a derived word is not elementary, but represents at least a binary structure, including semantic information about the source of motivation and the meaning, or nominative task, of the formal operation of derivation.
Thus, owing to the specificity of the nominative act leading to the creation of derived words, the latter acquire the feature of semantic dissectedness, semantic non-elementariness.
Accordingly, in order to reveal truly fully the semantics of a derived word, a semantic analysis of it is needed in which the derived word would be compared with the utterance that motivates it, constituting its complete semantic description, or definition. A definition constructed according to special rules must include, as one of its constituent parts, the motivating word in a definite syntactic position, must indicate the character of its connection with the object or phenomenon of reality being denoted, and must enter into a definite formula of motivation, repeated throughout the entire series of formations of the same type within a single word-formation series. This striving toward precisely this manner of defining derived words, and the resulting requirement of unifying the description of derivatives, finds a certain reflection in lexicographic practice. To a greater or lesser extent, the repeatability of words or word-combinations, so-called identifiers, used to describe the semantics of derivatives of one and the same type, takes place in English, Russian, German, etc. lexicographic tradition. Cf., for example, English recast 'to recast, to rework' cast again, recount 'to recount' – count again, retry 'to try again' – try again, Russian мечтатель – one who indulges in dreams, освободитель – one who liberates, who frees someone or something from oppression, coercion, etc.
Turning to the semantic properties of the sources of motivation helps to understand the heterogeneity of the definitions of derivatives of different types, to clarify what part of the semantics of the motivating units is preserved in the derivative in explicit or implicit form, and, most importantly, to determine the essence and nature of the semantic component that is necessarily present in the meanings of derived units. This semantic component represents a special type of meaning, distinguishing derived words from simple ones, and is termed word-formation meaning (WM).
WFM has been defined differently by different linguists. Various features of WFM — its intra-word character, its closeness to grammatical meanings, formal expression, seriality, the presence of a classifying function, and the capacity to act as a taxonomic device in the language system as a whole, etc. — predetermined the existence of several concepts of WFM – the affixal one, in which WFM was linked to the presence of an affix and identified with it (V.I. Maksimov and others), the configurational ones, in which WFM was defined by the configuration of elements in the surface-observable structure (B.N. Golovin, I.S. Ulukhanov and others), the combinatorial one, in which WFM was established on the basis of the interaction of categorial meanings (P.A. Soboleva), etc.
However, none of the concepts listed made it possible to bring the above-described features of WFM together into a single system of interrelated characteristics. The onomasiological approach — treating derivatives from the standpoint of the naming task they perform, with an orientation toward the dynamics of word-formation phenomena — made it possible to grasp the essence of WFM in a new way and to give it a definition fundamentally different from earlier ones. Proceeding from the naming task of the word-formation act, the mode of naming and the operations corresponding to it, E.S. Kubryakova defines WFM as "a complex-structured meaning naming a specific type of relation between specific role structures of the components of a derivative: a relation marking one component of the derivative as its base, and the other as its mark, and, accordingly, predetermining the role played in the given derivative by its referential (motivating) part" (8, 102). The author stresses the need to define WFM as naming a type of relation between two categorial meanings, with an obligatory indication not only of the type of relation but also of the terms being related, one of which is perceived as the onomasiological base of the thing named, and the other as its onomasiological mark. WFMs arise at a certain level of abstraction when a member of one onomasiological category is named through another, and are meant for the marked expression of the main conceptual categories of individual parts of speech and their further formal detailing.
At the level of practical description, WFMs are three-term structures in which the following general, categorial characteristics are indicated: a) the word-formation series of the derivatives, b) their motivating words as such, and c) the type of relation connecting them. Thus, for compound words of the type pond-lily 'a lily growing in a pond', garden-party 'a reception held in a garden' and the like, the WFM can be identified as "that which is denoted by one generating base, which functions in the derivative as the onomasiological base and determines its semantic and part-of-speech membership (lily, party), occurring, taking place (the type of relation) where that which is denoted by the second generating base is located (pond, garden), \ {the role of which reduces to the onomasiological mark, which specifies, modifies in a particular way (i.e. according to the established type of relation) the onomasiological base."
Undoubtedly, all three of its constituent components are extremely important for WFM, for the type of relation, often appearing as a hidden component in the semantics of the derivative, is determined to a considerable extent by whether the generating bases carry the meaning of processuality, or of substantivity, or of quality, and even by which semantic subclass of substantivity, processuality or quality they belong to, as well as by the categorial properties of the final result of derivation – the derivative itself. The formulas of WFM can vary. They must reflect the lexico-grammatical properties of the derivative and of the unit motivating it, and are built using a special metalanguage that includes sets of identifier words for each part of speech ("object", "process", "quality", etc., or their more refined and modified variants such as "event", "container", "place", "agent", etc.). The formula of WFM also includes the relation, which is the most important constituent part of WFM and is identified by means of a special group of words, many of which are verbs denoting the most general types of connection (for example, have, be located, consist of, cause, relate (be related to), etc.). The list of identifier words for WFM in the lexicographic description of derivatives is fairly large and varied, and therefore one of the key problems in defining WFM becomes: a) identifying the most general identifiers that subsume all the others; b) determining the atomicity, or of elementarity, identifier and, correspondingly, discreteness of WFM, and c) the choice of such identifiers as would ensure a general and natural description of WFM.
The varying degree of generality of the types of relation, and thereby of the WFMs themselves, on the one hand, and the different levels of abstraction and" definition, on the other, determine the hierarchical ordering of the system of WFM, in which general WFMs are refined and made concrete by a number of particular WFMs. Thus, in the system of derived adjectives of the English language, alongside such an extremely generalized WFM as "relating to that which is denoted by the generating base' (identifiers of or relating to), found in the semantics of derivatives such as economic 'relating to the economy', cultural 'relating to culture', colour-blind 'unable to distinguish colours', there is also a number of particular WFMs such as "intended, fit, suitable for that which is denoted by the generating base" (identifiers for, meant for, suitable for) in derivatives such as eatable 'fit to be eaten', kingly 'fit for a king, regal', summery 'typical of summer', etc., "made, consisting of that which is denoted by the generating base"(identifier made of) in derivatives such as wooden 'made of wood', golden 'made of gold', woollen 'made of wool', etc.
Analysis of general and particular WFMs in the system of the main parts of speech leads one to consider the possibility of computing WFM by means of a matrix, in which all possible combinations of categorial meanings would be recorded. Moreover, as observations show, the system of WFM for a given part of speech in a given language turns out to be finite and limited to a comparatively small list of meanings.
The finiteness and limitedness of this system should not be understood to mean that the word-formation means of a given part of speech can express only a limited number of meanings altogether. A comparison of the lexical systems of different languages shows how broad and varied the set of word-formation, and especially particular word-formation, meanings can be (cf. the meanings of singularity (a single grape, a single stalk of straw, etc.) or of "meat" (mutton, pork, veal, etc.) expressed in Russian by word-formation means, and the absence of such means in the system of the English language) or the meanings of a product (lemonade 'a sweet drink made from lemons', orangeade 'a sweet drink made from oranges'), of style, manner of speech (journalese 'the style typical of newspaper writing', telegraphese 'a terse telegram style') in present-day English. What is meant is that the word-formation system that has developed in a given language is directed at expressing the WFMs that are determinate and enumerable for that language, the finiteness of which is dictated by the fundamental orientation of word-formation, as a rule, toward denoting sufficiently generalized, grammaticalized meanings. The finiteness and limitedness of the list of WFMs is, finally, determined by the fact that it includes only meanings fixed in the language system and based on the most regular and therefore predictable types of relation recorded in the semantics of derivative words. It would be true, however, to say that in enumerating these meanings we nevertheless do not exhaust all the possible types of relation that derivative words can and do name in speech contexts. The informational resources of derivatives in speech are extremely great, and with respect to derived adjectives this was convincingly demonstrated by E.A. Zemskaya using the example, of the Russian compound car money (avtomobilnye dengi), which, depending on context, can have the meanings "money saved up to buy a car", "money received from selling a car", "money left behind in a car", "money found in a car", etc. An analogous picture exists in the system of derivative words of present-day English as well. According to observations by P. Downing, J. Levi and others, the relations expressed by derivative, in particular compound, words are manifold, but their variability is not infinite. In other words, among the enormous diversity of relations conveyed by derivative words in speech, it is possible and important to single out the most typical ones, those that have become established in the language system and are, as a rule, recorded in the dictionary definitions of derivatives. Determining these types of relation, which determine the system of WFM of a given language, constitutes the principal task of the description of word-formation.
For learners of a foreign language, however, what is significant is not only the fact that the WFM of a language is finite and limited, but also the high degree of generality of WFM, thanks to which many WFMs turn out to be universal (for example, the meanings of "similarity", "presence", "causation", "purpose", "belonging", "locativity", "temporality", etc.).
As a consequence of the universality of WFM, correlativity of word-formation categories arises in different languages (cf., for example, the category of the agent in English and Russian, many members of which are semantically equivalent and structurally analogous in the two languages: teacher – uchitel, reader – chitatel, writer – pisatel etc.), which considerably facilitates finding the necessary expression when translating from one language into another.
Another extremely significant consequence of the universality of WFM is the commonality of the semantic categories that semantically link morphology (inflection), word-formation and syntax. Scholars of different periods and different schools could not fail to notice the close connection of word-formation with grammar (both morphology and syntax). As linguistic thought developed, it became clear that the connection of word-formation derivation with morphological and syntactic derivation is organic, many-sided and deep. Its origins lie in the semantic orientation of word-formation processes, in the capacity of word-formation, as E.S. Kubryakova points out, to develop and refine, and sometimes even duplicate, grammatical meanings (and this brings morphology and word-formation closer together). At the same time, the fundamental orientation of word-formation toward expressing the same types of relation that make up the semantics of syntax forms the foundation for the close interaction of word-formation with syntax.
The correlation of word-formation meanings with grammatical ones is especially evident in languages with a developed morphology, in which, as V.V. Vinogradov noted, "a number of grammatical categories are, as it were, supported, semantically enriched and differentiated by the word-formation system" (1, 66). Thus, in present-day Russian the grammatical meanings of number, gender, etc. in the system of nouns are closely connected with the word-formation meanings of singularity (for example, kartofelina, goroshina, rosinka and others), plurality, or collectivity (for example, soldatnya, inzheneriya, vishnyak and others), femininity (for example, kranovshchitsa, obladatelnitsa, sosedka, monashenka) and others. In the English language, just as in Russian, in the sphere of deadjectival adjectives word-formation, as it were, repeats the grammatical category of degrees of comparison, grading and arranging in a particular way the properties denoted by the derived units on a scale of intensity of the feature (cf.: Engl. hypersensitive 'overly sensitive', underripe 'not fully ripe', biggish 'rather big', longish 'somewhat long', etc., Rus. bolshushchy, zdorovenny, dlinnyushchy, sverkhvazhny, premily, sinevaty, etc.). Deverbal adjectives likewise demonstrate a close connection between grammatical and word-formation categories, for the formation of word-formation meanings in this lexical subsystem of derivatives is concentrated mainly around the grammatical meanings of voice and modality that are cardinal for the verb. The word-formation meanings of deverbal adjectives are merely various combinations of the categorial features of active or passive action, and of real, possible or desired action. Cf. the meanings "performing that which is denoted by the generating stem' and "capable of performing that which is denoted by the generating stem", in which the features of active and real or "possible action are combined (Engl. trembly 'shaking', mournful 'sad, sorrowful', neglectful 'inattentive', prohibitive 'prohibiting', Rus. lezhachy, kusachy, pakhuchy, raskidisty, osvezhitelny, oskorbitelny, etc.); cf. also the meaning "able to be performed", in which the features of passive and possible action are combined (e.g., Engl. allowable 'permissible', deci-'pherable 'able to be deciphered,'recognizable 'able to be recognized', curable 'able to be cured' and others; Rus. priyemlemy, prokhodimy, poznavayemy, syedobny and many others). The combination of these categories and their modification along the line of negation and type of modality produce that range of word-formation meanings which deverbal adjectives record. Thus, the meanings expressed by the verb grammatically also find reflection in the sphere of word-formation, but here they take on a different, hidden form of expression and function as characterizing meanings of deverbal adjectival words.
Numerous examples of the correlation of grammatical and word-formation meanings in other languages likewise testify to the existence of a close and inseparable connection between morphological and word-formation derivation and, moreover, to the possible determination of word-formation meanings by the set of grammatical meanings of a given language. In English, for example, a language of the analytic type with a system of grammatical categories somewhat different from that of Russian, the set of word-formation meanings likewise turns out to be somewhat different. It is possible that the absence of the grammatical category of gender in English is significant for the system of word-formation: derivatives with the meaning of femininity are few in it, and most of them are borrowings, such as the derivatives Parisienne 'a female inhabitant of Paris', cosmonette 'a woman cosmonaut' and others.
The close and inseparable connection between grammatical and word-formation meanings does not, in our view, however, mean direct, immediate cause-and-effect relations between them. "- The establishment of a rigid dependence between morphology and word-formation would apparently be a simplification, or even a distortion, of the actual process by which linguistic categories come into being. At the same time, the expression in word-formation of meanings already singled out by linguistic consciousness and fixed in the form of grammatical meanings represents undoubted interest both for understanding human speech-thought activity and for understanding the functioning of the word-formation system itself.
It has repeatedly been stressed in the literature that the redundancy of word-formation means is only apparent, for the role of word-formation processes of various types is not reduced, as V.V. Vinogradov, E.S. Kubryakova and other researchers have noted, to a simple repetition of grammatical meanings, but consists in a certain differentiation, refinement of these meanings, in imparting some additional properties to the derived units as compared with the corresponding grammatical forms of non-derived words. Illustrative in this respect is the analysis of derived adjectives in present-day English, in particular deadjectival adjectives with the meanings of diminutiveness and augmentativeness. In the semantics of this group of English derivatives there takes place a modification of the initial feature with respect to the degree of its manifestation, i.e. a repetition, as it were, of the grammatical category of comparison is carried out. However, while approaching this grammatical category in terms of its semantic task, the word-formation processes differ from the corresponding process of morphological derivation in that, by placing the feature at one point or another on the scale, they simultaneously absolutize the indicated degree of intensity of the feature, making it self-sufficient, which is what makes it possible for derived words of this type to be used independently. In other words, derived adjectives indicating this or that degree of a feature do not require, unlike adjectives in the comparative or superlative degree, an obligatory context, explicit or implied, or a background of comparison. Cf. He was tallish and slender 'He was rather tall and slender'. Another difference of this word-formation process in English from the correlative formation of degrees of comparison is that the modification of the initial, generating units along the line of intensity of the feature can take on the form of a complicated modification, which ultimately leads to the creation of a new feature on the basis of a refinement of the degree of the initial feature, i.e. to the derivative denoting a feature somewhat different from the one being modified. Cf. adjectives of the type superhuman 'beyond human', underdeveloped 'not fully developed' and others in English, whose use with adverbs, or even the possibility of forming degrees of comparison, indicates the presence of a new feature. A deeper study of individual onomasiological categories and the correlation of the various means of their nomination will undoubtedly provide rich material allowing a more subtle differentiation of correlative word-formation and grammatical categories. It is clear, however, that, while interacting closely with morphological derivation, word-formation processes not only supplement, develop and differentiate this or that meaning expressed in the language by means of morphological categories, but also bring about a change in the form of representation of this or that meaning. In the course of word-formation processes there takes place, and this seems to us extremely important, a transfer or transition of meanings from the surface level of representation to the level of deep, hidden categories (cf. the preservation of verbal grammatical meanings in deverbal adjectives), or, conversely, the objectivation of deep, hidden meanings at the level of surface structures (cf. the actualization of the meaning of femininity in derived words of the Russian language).
No less close is the connection of word-formation with syntax. It is especially evident in the sphere of compound words, in which the juxtaposition of the units functioning as generating elements is meant not only to create a new, complex designation, but also (this is one of the conditions of the generation process) to reflect certain relations between the juxtaposed quantities. It is no accident that the theories in which the idea of the connection between syntax and word-formation crystallized most clearly operated precisely with compound words as the material for proving their postulates. However, with a deeper penetration into the semantics of syntactic relations, on the one hand, and the semantics of word-formation, on the other, a deeper understanding of the grounds for the connection of these most important aspects of the language system became possible. It turned out that word-formation is close to syntax not only because compound and, more broadly, derived units, consisting of an onomasiological base and an onomasiological mark, possess the same types of syntactic links between their components as in a sentence, the same dynamism and articulateness of representation. The study of the communicative functions of linguistic phenomena revealed the complementarity of the two linguistic subsystems – syntax and word-formation – despite the presence of cardinal differences between them, and made it possible to see in word-formation a powerful means by which the recategorization of lexical units, the univerbation of complex syntactic constructions for the purposes of a certain thematic-rhematic organization of the text, the imparting of new syntactic roles to words, the compression of information in minimal surface structures, and the performance of a number of other functions are carried out. The main point, it seems, is that at the basis of word-formation, oriented, as stressed above, toward the expression of generalized, grammaticalized meanings, lie the same semantic categories that are fundamental for syntax as well. A classic example of the reflection in word-formation of syntactic-semantic relations is provided by the meanings of agent, patient, locative, instrument and others, which are fixed in the systems of derived units by word-formation means and reproduce, at the level of surface structures, the case frame of the predicate. Accordingly, the derived word also has the right to be considered as "a form of the generating word (emphasis ours. - Z.Kh.), meant to codify by intra-word means the presence and general validity of those semantico-syntactic properties of the generating word that determine its functioning in the text" (2, 3). The list of word-formation meanings of denominal adjectives, for example, in English and Russian likewise confirms that word-formation is oriented toward expressing this or that connection established between the names of objects in a sentence. In this case, however, the meanings of "similarity", "presence", "causation", "purpose", "locativity", "temporality" and others are transferred to the level of deep structures and appear as the preservation or hidden refinement of connections established between two names of objects, one of which functions in relation to the other in the role of an attribute.
Thus, an analysis of the correlation of the processes of word-formation and syntactic derivation reveals both the commonality of the semantic categories significant for both syntax and word-formation, and their peculiar refraction in the sphere of word-formation. In this case too, word-formation not only repeats the meanings that organize the syntactic system of the language, and not only carries out the recategorization of lexical units, giving them a different syntactic status, but at the same time performs the function of translating content from the surface level to the deep one and vice versa, representing this or that meaning in an explicit or implicit form.
In light of the foregoing it is legitimate to conclude that word-formation as a whole functions as a process in which the objectivation of meanings hidden at other linguistic levels takes place, and the representation, in hidden form, of those meanings that appear explicitly at other levels of the language.
CONTROL TASKS
Часть 1 Word-Formation and the Morphemic Structure of the English Word: Derivational Synthesis and Morphemic Analysis
Часть 2 Word-formation meaning. The semantic connection of word-formation with other subsystems
Comments