In Defence of Neo-Classical Word Formation

Pius ten Hacken & Evanthia Petropoulou
Presented at the 2001 Autumn Meeting of the LAGB, Reading 4-6 September 2001

[PowerPoint Presentation] [Abstract]

Table of Contents

1. Properties of neo-classical word formation
Neo-classical word formation
Distributional behaviour
Semantic and phonological regularities
Structural considerations
Arguments
Structures
Questions

2. Types of lexicon extension
Extension of the (mental) lexicon
Acquisition of word formation rules
Result of acquisition process
Interaction with borrowing
Borrowing and word formation
Borrowings with morpho
Scope of the reanalysis
Properties of morpho

3. Models of the lexicon
Models of the lexicon 1
Problems
Bauerís (1998) model
Problems with Bauer's model
A new model with neoclassical word formation

4. Conclusions

Authors: Pius ten Hacken & Evanthia Petropoulou

Email: 
pius.tenhacken@unibas.ch, evanthia.petropoulou@unibas.ch

Home Pages: 
http://www.unibas.ch/LIlab
http://www.unibas.ch/LIlab/staff/tenhacken
http://www.unibas.ch/LIlab/staff/vanessa

Back to Overview of Conferences
 

In Defence of Neo-Classical Word Formation

Although there is a fairly widespread feeling that neo-classical word formation is a special category in morphology, it is hard to pin down the properties setting it off from other morphological processes. As a consequence, it is often mentioned briefly but rarely discussed in more depth. In one of the few recent studies of the subject, Bauer (1998) analyses neo-classical compounding as a named area in a three-dimensional conceptual space defined by the three axes of native vs. foreign, simple vs. complex, and full form vs. abbreviation. Each of these axes is taken to be a cline, so that individual words can be more or less typical as neo-classical compounds to the extent that they are closer to or further removed from the prototype. Problems not addressed by this model include the questions why there are prototypes at all and why there should be a prototype for neo-classical word formation.

Many characterizations of neo-classical word formation appeal to etymological criteria. Lüdeling et al. (2001) also mention intuitions about the classification as a reason to consider neo-classical word formation as a separate phenomenon. Though useful as hints, in our opinion such criteria cannot define a morphological class. Ultimately the only valid source for criteria to identify a class such as neo-classical word formation is a morphological theory explaining the behaviour of the elements in question in distributional terms.

The crucial phenomenon to be explained in the context of neo-classical word formation is the existence of elements such as anthropo in English. These items are elements of the English vocabulary, but neither words nor affixes, and correspond to Ancient Greek stems in form and meaning. We analyse these items as a special type of formative, NCF (Neo-Classical Formative). Many of the distributional properties of NCFs can be explained by assuming that they lack a syntactic category. In order to occur as a word in a surface form, they have to acquire a syntactic category by entering derivational processes which assign a syntactic category to the result. This can be suffixation, e.g. anthropic, compounding with an NCF followed by suffixation, e.g. anthropology, philanthropy, or combining with a word in head position of a compound, e.g. socio in sociolinguistics.

It would be too easy to say that neo-classical word formation is a matter of analogy, because there has to be a starting point for the analysis. We propose that the history of the process can be outlined as follows. First there were borrowings of complex words from Ancient Greek and Latin, e.g. anthropology. At some point, there were enough similar cases of such borrowed words that they could be reanalysed as complex items [[[anthropo][logo]]y]. Then the NCFs started to be used in the formation of new words, independent of the existence of such words in Ancient Greek or Latin. Finally, new elements could be added to the class of NCFs either by virtue of their Greek or Latin origin or because of some other perceived similarity, e.g. euro as found in eurocratic.

Some of the examples mentioned by Bauer in his argument against the occurrence of NCFs as a proper class of items in English concerns the interaction with clippings. Thus, in the case of gastro-guide, gastro is a clipped form of gastronomy, behaving as a normal word of the English vocabulary which can enter compounding. It is not identical to the NCF gastro occurring in gastropod.

References

Bauer, Laurie (1998), 'Is there a class of neoclassical compounds and if so is it  productive?', Linguistics 36:403-421.
Lüdeling, Anke, Tanja Schmid & Sawwas Kiokpasoglou (2001), 'Neoclassical word formation in German', ms. Universität Stuttgart.