Fuzziness in Word-Formation
Workshop convenors: Lívia Körtvélyessy (P. J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia), Pavol Štekauer (P. J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia)
Language at all of its levels is fraught with overlapping cases and fuzzy limits, categories, processes and relations. Word-formation is no exception. Fuzziness appears as a natural consequence of the scalar nature of linguistic facts, frequently reflected in vague boundaries between word-formation processes and categories on the one hand, and between word-formation per se and other levels of language on the other (e.g. inflection, syntax, phonology). The following is an overview of some of the cases discussed most frequently, among many others:
Word-formation system: What falls within the scope of word-formation? Marchand (1960) maintains that word-formation deals with words which are syntagmas. From this point of view, the position of clipping and acronyms seems to be uncertain. The more so that word-formation is defined as the system producing new words. Are clippings and acronyms new words or are they mere formal reductions of existing words? Their position is fuzzy. Do sound-symbolic phenomena belong to word-formation? Is the onomatopoeia-formation a part of word-formation?
Word-formation vs. inflection: A lot has been written on this issue. A classical example concerns the fuzzy boundary between past participles and their adjectival homonyms; it is one of many theoretical problems of this kind that have not found a unanimous solution either among theoretical morphologists or from a cross-linguistic perspective. The absence of a clear-cut borderline between inflection and derivation may reach the point in which, rather than separate processes, word-formation and inflection are treated – as in Ket and other Yenissean languages – as a single process of forming new lexical units (Štekauer et al. 2012). Arguments have been raised in the literature concerning the derivational status of what has traditionally been considered an integral part of the inflectional system of language, as is number (cf., among others, Plank 1994: 1672, van Marle 1996: 74). Beard (1982) lists several similarities between pluralization and derivational processes. Similarly, Kießling (pers. comm.) assumes that plural formation in Datooga and other Southern Nilotic languages is derivational.
Word-formation vs. syntax: A hackneyed example regarding the word-formation-syntax boundary is the fuzzy boundary between compounds and phrases in English. And can blending be viewed as a variant of compounding?
Fuzzy status of word-formation processes:
Back-formation: One of the most frequently discussed fuzzy processes is what is labeled as back-formation. Its status is uncertain, as shown in Štekauer (2015): they are accounted for as compounding, conversion plus clipping, noun incorporation, reinterpretation, or paradigmatic word-formation.
Circumfixation vs. prefixal-suffixal derivation: The boundary between prefixal-suffixal derivation and circumfixation may be fuzzy. A borderline case can be found in Karao, where prefixal-infixal derivation and infixal-suffixal derivation are considered types of circumfixation because, according to Brainard (pers. comm.), both affixes are required and unique meanings cannot be assigned to each affix. Thus, two affixes are combined in Karao, which implies prefixal-infixal, suffixal-infixal type of derivation. Since, however, the two affixes cannot be assigned specific semantic contributions to a new word, the pattern resembles circumfixation.
Potential vs. actual words: When a word counts as an actual (existing) word?
Affixes with a fuzzy status: Some units behave partly like suffixes and partly like independent words, for example the English ‑like in childlike, robot-like, or worthy in newsworthy, trustworthy.
Productivity: When can we speak about a process, rule or affix as productive? Productivity is a scale and the boundary between productive and unproductive is fuzzy.
Giegerich (2005) assumes that the stratal distinction in the English lexicon – essentially one between an irregular, root-based and a regular, word-based morphology – has to be regarded as fuzzy if it is to account for borderline phenomena.
The workshop convenors invite papers which can offer a new view, new approach, or an interesting insight to any aspects of fuzziness in word-formation.
Please submit anonymous abstracts of up to 300 words (excluding references) to Lívia Körtvélyessy (livia.kortvelyessy@upjs.sk) and Pavol Štekauer (pavel.stekauer@upjs.sk) by 15 March 2027.
References
Beard, Robert. 1982. The plural as a lexical derivation. Glossa. An International Journal of Linguistics, 16(2): 133-148.
Giegerich, Heinz J. 2005. Lexical Strata in English: Morphological Causes, Phonological Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marchand, Hans. 1960. The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-Formation: A Synchronic-diachronic Approach. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Štekauer, Pavol. 2015. Back-formation. In Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton; 340-351.
Štekauer Pavol, Salvador Valera & Lívia Körtvélyessy. 2012. Word-Formation in the World’s Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Marle, Jaap. 1996. The unity of morphology: On the interwovenness of the derivational and inflectional dimension of the word. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Springer; 67-82.