16.1238, Review: Morphology: Baeskow (2004)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-1238. Tue Apr 19 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.1238, Review: Morphology: Baeskow (2004)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomi at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Collberg at collberg at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 18-Apr-2005
From: Evanthia Petropoulou < evapetro at cc.uoi.gr >
Subject: Lexical Properties of Selected Non-native Morphemes of English 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 04:26:04
From: Evanthia Petropoulou < evapetro at cc.uoi.gr >
Subject: Lexical Properties of Selected Non-native Morphemes of English 
 

AUTHOR: Baeskow, Heike
TITLE: Lexical Properties of Selected Non-native Morphemes of English
SERIES: Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 482
PUBLISHER: Narr Verlag GmbH + Co. KG
YEAR: 2004
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-3161.html


Evanthia Petropoulou, Department of Philology, University of Patras

OVERVIEW

The book presents a feature-based description of complex words in English, 
containing at least one non-native morpheme which does not occur as an 
independent word in English. It contains an introduction and two long 
chapters, dealing with derivation and compounding respectively. 

SYNOPSIS

In the introduction the notion of "compatibility" between the morphemes 
involved in a morphological process is presented as an important 
prerequisite for the process to be successful. In a derivational one, this 
means that "the suitability of a base to serve as an input to affixation 
depends on its lexical properties"(1). Compatibility between affixes and 
bases can be described either with a Word Formation Rule or a 
subcategorization frame, but as this is only feasible in cases of bases 
which constitute independent words in English, belonging to one of the 
major grammatical categories, other ways are required to show 
compatibility between bound bases and affixes in words such as 'nihil-
ism', 'conscious' and 'mortal'. For this reason, the framework presented 
by Baeskow is a feature-based one rather than one making use of 
traditional categorical labels such as N, A, V, etc. 

The first chapter of the book introduces in detail, the theoretical 
framework of this study, a morpheme-based framework, provided by the 
feature-based theory of word formation, MinLex, initiated by Baeskow 
(2002), which is in turn based on the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1993, 
1995) which dispenses with categorial labels in favour of feature 
representations of lexical items. Through the presentation of different 
features ([+/- nominal], [+/- human], phi-features, etc.) the writer shows 
the advantage of a feature-based theory over a theory using categorial 
labels in the "precise specification of the input and the output of 
derivational processes" (9). After a discussion favouring a morpheme-based 
theory of word formation the writer presents a feature-based analysis of 
derivation, by gradually building up the lexical entry for the suffix '-
ism', which is a good example as it constitutes a very productive affix in 
English and a complex case at the same time, as its derivatives assign to 
it a dual membership in the affix classes I & II, defined in the theory of 
Lexical Phonology by selecting both bound roots at Level 1 and free bases 
at Level 2. For the "optimal encoding" of such an item, a phonological 
feature is required, which constitutes a separate component of the 
lexicon, referred to as the "Phonetic Form of Lexical Items (PFLI)"(19). 
The formal features of a lexical entry are those morphosyntactic features 
([+/- count], [+/- concrete], [+/- common], etc.) which serve as the 
categorial labels, thus making them redundant and in a derivational 
process are those percolated from an affix to its derivatives.

 An important feature is the "subcategorization frame" which imposes 
restrictions on a suffix's potential input (20) and is different from one 
affix to the other. The subcategorization frame for '-ism' consists of 
three parts -- all of which are thoroughly built up -- as the potential 
input of this particular suffix may be classified under the categories N, 
A and V. The peculiarity of the suffix '-ism', that it selects the same 
bound bases with the verbal suffix '-ize' (e.g. 'baptism', 'baptize'), 
creates a challenge, as the relationship of the two suffixes in this 
respect needs to be shown in the subcategorization frame, but without 
yielding non-existing forms like *bapt or wrong formations like *baptize-
ism. This however gives Baeskow the opportunity to show the advantage of a 
feature-based theory with a morpheme-based approach, where features can be 
assigned both to the suffix '-ize' and to the bound root 'bapt-', thus 
making it available for selection to the suffix '-ism' via the operations 
SELECT and INSERT (26). Under this process, in the theory 
described, "derivational processes are thus morpheme-based although 
affixes are allowed to make use of the lexical content of the lexemes 
realized by certain bound roots" (27). The semantic representation of the 
lexical entry reveals only the approximate meaning of lexical items, while 
the formal representation, just like the phonological information which is 
processed at PFLI, belongs to the separate lexical interface level LFLI, 
which also interacts with the lexical entries. 

After completing the lexical entry for a suffix, Baeskow deals with the 
specification of the lexical properties of those non-native morphemes 
similar to 'bapt-' serving as bases in some specific derivatives, which 
are not part of the English language, such as 'nihil-', 'credul-', 'manu-
', etc. Their compatibility with the suffixes '-ism', '-ous' and '-al' 
respectively is difficult to be represented in the subcategorization frame 
of each suffix, because they lack morphosyntactic properties other than [-
Germanic]. Various solutions are examined by Baeskow who adopts that of 
a "configuration frame" for each of these morphemes which indicates 
specific suffixes and in this way accounts for the compatibility between 
the morphemes and the suffixes, preventing overgeneration at the same 
time. An important point raised by Baeskow, throughout this chapter is 
that the interpretability of foreign bases varies among the speakers of 
English, as there are people not only with intuitions about 
the 'foreignness' of some of these morphemes but also with a partial or 
more extensive knowledge of Latin or Greek etymology. Thus, under 
an "optional diachronic perspective", MinLex should also include some 
etymological information, referred to as the "epsilon-feature". 
Considering also the fact that some word formation patterns in the 
languages of origin have been transferred to English, as the case 
of 'baptize' and 'baptism' indicates, the epsilon-feature could also 
include this kind of information apart from that concerning the origin of 
the bound morpheme (i.e. [+ Greek] / [+ Latin]). 

The second half of the book deals with the other major word formation 
process involving non-native morphemes, namely compounding, or so-
called "neoclassical compounding". A great part is devoted to presenting 
and reviewing the already existing analyses concerning the treatment of 
the constituents of neoclassical compounds and the processes in which they 
are involved. Concluding on the one hand, that these morphemes do not 
constitute affixes and on the other, that they cannot be treated as 
regular compounds either, Baeskow treats them under a special class of 
compounds. She then presents the different types of compounds involving 
non-native formatives starting from the prototype of neoclassical 
compounding and moving to cases diverging from it. As for the prototype, 
Baeskow argues that it concerns 1) the combination of two or more bound 
roots of classical origin, as for example in 'microscope', 'telephone', 
'geograph-' (72), or 2) the combination of a free and a bound root, both 
of which are classical in origin, such as 'zoolog-', 'biolog-', 
'oceanograph-' (73). There are few discrepancies here, though. First, 
it is not specified whether the items constituting prototypical neoclassical 
compounds are free lexemes or bound compound bases. For example, 'microscope' 
and 'telephone' are independent words in English, while 'zoolog-' and 
'oceanograph-' are not lexemes, but potential bases for derivation. 
Second, in category 2) there is semantic evidence against the view that 
'zoo' in 'zoolog-' is an independent word in English, as in this case it 
refers to the Greek zôon (= animal), not to the area where animals are kept. 
If the above combinations, described as prototypes "are selected by suffixes 
we obtain well-formed sequences like biolog-y, [...] geograph-er," (73) etc., 
a process described by Cannon (1992) as "neoclassical compound derivation" 
(488). However, if we assume that the latter process yields lexemes, then 
what morphological process assigns a lexemic status to the above mentioned 
'telephone' and 'microscope'?

The discussion then moves to "hybrid formations" (74), which combine 
native free with neoclassical bound morphemes. As the writer notes, these 
constitute violations of the classical word formation pattern (77), found 
in 'biology', 'anthropomorphic' (ten Hacken 1994), 'geographer' and so on, 
which actually imitate the formation pattern of Greek compounds (Rálle 
2005), for example [[bio (stem) + log (stem)] -ia (deriv. suffix)], as the 
formations 'baptize' and 'baptism', mentioned earlier, do. Baeskow, 
examines separately formations of the type 'native root + FCF', for 
e.g. 'hamburgerology' or 'jazzophile' and of the type, i.e. native lexeme, 
for e.g. 'telecommunications', 'microgroove' and 'biofeedback' (the terms 
ICF and FCF, introduced by Bauer (1983), and here used throughout the 
whole chapter, Baeskow explains, "constitute rather abstract notions for 
the position a bound root can occupy within a neoclassical compound" (91) 
and are used for convenience). 

Formations of the second type, 'ICF + freely occurring constituent', are 
considered as violating the Level ordering, causing a discrepancy in the 
hierarchy of MinLex. What the writer correctly proposes, is that elements 
such as 'micro-', 'tele-' and 'bio-' could be "reinterpreted" as class II 
prefixes without being recategorized as affixes (78) and can thus combine 
with free native constituents, be they simple or complex at level 2. Then 
formations like 'microgroove' and 'biofeedback' would be normally 
generated. Indeed, as it has been elsewhere stated, there are certain 
Greek and Latin prefixes which have retained the status of a prefix in 
English, such as 'hypo-', 'meta-', 'intra-', 'supra-' (Adams 2001), and 
some neoclassical formatives which are in the process of becoming 
prefixes, such as 'bio-', 'techno-'. Warren (1990) notes that  "we find 
combining forms, particularly among initial combining forms, which have 
developed characteristics of affixes", citing 'pseudo-' and neo-' as 
examples (124). A close look at the combinations of 'bio-' and 'techno-' 
with native lexemes from a semantic viewpoint reveals that they are 
different from those in prototypical neoclassical compounds. 'Bio-' 
in 'biocomputer' and 'biophysics' refers to 'biology' and would rather be 
considered a clipped form, as 'techno-' in 'technofreak' refers 
to 'technology'. Bauer (1983) discusses 'bio-' in the same respect as 
being a very productive formative occurring in many word families, citing 
a dictionary's definition of it, as 'biological' (Barnhart et al. 1973). 
In the end of this section, Baeskow further supports the behavior of these 
elements as class II prefixes, at the phonological level.

The last section in turn contains the feature representation of the bound 
morphemes previously discussed, which is gradually built up mainly for the 
bound morpheme 'phon', as it was for the suffix '-ism' in the previous 
chapter and shares with it many features. One important difference is that 
the lexical entry for 'phon' includes a configuration frame instead of a 
subcategorization frame, as that of 'nihil', because as it has been argued 
in the theoretical discussion, neoclassical bound roots appearing both in 
word-initial and word-final position are not affixes. The configuration 
frame also includes the thematic vowel 'o' or 'i', which is shown to be 
determined by the word-initial neoclassical formative and at PFLI is 
represented as a floating vowel. According to this, a linking vowel is 
inserted depending on the ending of what functions as an ICF each time, be 
it a neoclassical combining form (e.g. 'phon') or a lexeme turning to an 
ICF (e.g. 'magnet'). The neoclassical formative 'path', however, receives 
ICFs which either end in a vowel (e.g. 'allopathy', 'antipathy', 'telepathy'), 
or in a consonant and do not require the epenthesis of 'o', such as 'syn' and 
'en', which assimilate the /n/ to /m/ before the voiceless bilabial stop /p/ 
(e.g. in 'sympathy' and 'empathy'). For this reason, it is suggested that a 
configuration frame idiosyncratic to 'path' is created (95). However, it has 
to be pointed out here, that this is not valid only for 'path', but also 
for 'phon' in 'symphony' and 'chron' in 'synchrony' and many others, 
because what they receive is actually a prefix and not a stem. Prefixes 
are different from other combining morphemes, they appear only word 
initially and if they end in a consonant, in most cases, this is 
assimilated before the next consonant. The reason why there is no linking 
vowel in the words 'sympathy', 'empathy', 'synchrony', 'symphony', 
'synthetic' and others is because they constitute cases of derivation 
rather than compounding and the linking vowel appears only in compounding. 
So, they should be treated in a different way from other word-initial 
combining forms. In my opinion, the problem arising here is partly due to the 
overuse of the terms 'ICF' and 'FCF', which are used for convenience, but 
do not discern between different kinds of formatives. Finally, the chapter 
ends with an optional etymological component for bi- or multilingual 
speakers.

CRITICAL EVALUATION

This book succeeds in presenting us with the lexical properties of 
selected non-native morphemes in English. It does not only provide us with 
unique complete feature-based descriptions of the selected items, but from 
a theoretical point of view, it offers well-founded argumentation for the 
points it asserts from many fields of linguistics apart from morphology, 
such as semantics, phonology and first language acquisition, an important 
characteristic of scientifically good study. Although, it could be argued 
that the selective treatment it offers does not suffice for all cases, an 
enterprise that would only be feasible within a project on a large-scale 
basis, it has to be noted that the selection of the particular morphemes 
offers very important insights and makes their treatment suitable to serve 
as an example for the treatment of other non-native morphemes.

REFERENCES

Adams, Valerie (2001) Complex Words in English. Essex: Pearson Education 
Ltd.

Baeskow, Heike (2002) Abgeleitete Personenbezeichnungen im Deutschen und 
Englischen. Kontrastive Wortbildungsanalysen im Rahmen des 
Minimalistischen Programms und unter Berücksichtigung sprachhistorischer 
Aspekte. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter (Dissertation, Universität Wuppertal 
2001).

Barnhart, Robert K., Sol Steinmetz and Clarence L. Barnhart (1990) Third 
Barnhart Dictionary of New English. New York: Wilson.

Bauer, Laurie (1983) English Word Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press.

Cannon, G. (1992) "Bound-Morpheme Items: New Patterns of Derivation" in: 
C. Blank (ed): Language and Civilization: A Concerted Profusion of Essays 
and Studies in Honour of Otto Hietsch. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Publishers, 
pp. 478-494.

Chomsky, Noam (1993) "A minimalist program for linguistic theory" in: 
K.Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.) The View from Building 20. Cambridge, Mass: 
The MIT Press, pp. 1-52.

Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT 
Press.

ten Hacken, Pius (1994) Defining Morphology. A Principled Approach to 
Determining the Boundaries of Compounding, Derivation and Inflection. 
Hildesheim: Olms.

Warren, Beatrice (1990) 'The importance of combining forms' in: Wolfgang 
Dressler et al. (eds) Contemporary Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ralle, Angelike (2005) Morphologia. Athens: Patakes. (in Greek) 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Evanthia Petropoulou has participated in the SNSF-Research Program "Word 
Formation as a Structuring Device in English and Italian Lexicons: A large-
scale exploration", at the University of Basel, as a research 
lexicographer. At the moment she is a PhD student at the Department of 
Philology, University of Patras, Greece. Her research focuses on the 
process of compounding as this is realised in Greek, English and Italian.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-1238