WEB-ресурс научно-практических конференций

A NEW MODEL FOR DERIVATIONAL PARADIGM

Soroka O.V.

The given paper presents an attempt at an introduction of the novel formulation for modeling derivational paradigm. The aim of the paper is to make a generalized notion of paradigm less abstract.

The object of the paper is derivational paradigm. The scientific novelty of the thesis is predetermined by the necessity to explore a new model for derivational paradigm.

The model addresses two specific areas in which the contributions of van Marle , Pounder and Bochner are lacking. The first concerns realizing a formulation that is both appropriate and adequate for the requirements of synchronic word formation. The second concerns achieving a formulation that is suitable for implementation .

The particular notions of derivational paradigm of van Marle and Pounder both suffer from conflating the behavior of derivational processes with the structure of the derivational paradigm [4, s.115]. The fallacy of this may be better appreciated by first considering the behavior of inflectional processes with regards to the structure of an inflectional paradigm [4, s.190].

Inflectional processes serve to realize the word form associated with each cell in a paradigm. However, the number or organization of the cells themselves is not determined or altered by the range of inflectional processes available in the language. This follows logically from two facts: 1) inflectional processes do not create new lexemes; and 2) the number and organization of cells in an inflectional paradigm are only determined by the set of morphosyntactic properties inflectionally encoded in the language. Essentially the structure of an inflectional paradigm is static for the class of lexeme it represents.

In many respects the opposite is true of derivational paradigms. The structure of a derivational paradigm is inherently dynamic in so far as a single, underlying static structure does not exist for all derived lexemes of any given base lexeme. This too follows logically from two facts: 1) derivational processes do create new lexemes; and 2) the number and organization of cells in a derivational paradigm are determined by both the set of lexicosemantic properties derivationally encoded in the language and the range of parallel derivational processes corresponding to the particular properties [1, p.201]. Competing or parallel processes refers to the fact that a language may employ more than one derivational process of the same type. For instance in English the deadjectival nouns socialist and socialism are each realized by ‘parallel’ processes, both taking an adjective and deriving a noun. Thus for a given adjective in English its potential set of deadjectival nouns may include both, one or none of these options with the concomitant effect that the derivational paradigm for a particular adjective need not strictly resemble that of another adjective. The option for any lexeme resulting from a derivational process to potentially be the input for further derivation also makes the structure of derivational paradigm inherently dynamic [2, p.252].

In opposition to the inherent dynamicity of derivational paradigm, the range and behavior of possible derivational processes for a given language are logically confined to a restricted set which can be schematically represented as illustrated in figure below.

Partial schema for derivational processes

Denominal processes are represented on the left and deverbal processes on the right. Not depicted are two additional clusters representing deadjectival and deadverbial processes. The two center circles represent base forms and the outer circles represent derived forms. The derived forms are also encircled to represent the possibility of each being the base for further derivation. The multiple arrows linking the bases to the derived forms represent possible parallel processes. The CP indicates compounding. These figures represent all logical denominal and deverbal possibilities, actual languages would vary as to which are used and in what combination.

Trying to map a representation for derivational paradigm directly onto a logical schema for derivational processes inevitably groups derivates of a base according to the processes creating them. This is essentially the situation with the models of both van Marle and Pounder . While this approach can be said to ‘preserve’ the derivational composition of a complex lexeme, in the absence of credible evidence that speakers rely on ‘reconstructing’ the derivation of every complex word they utter, the crucial relevance of this information in synchronic word-formation is questionable. The morphological ‘information’ about derived words critical for synchronic word formation lies not with the processes by which they are derived, but rather with the regularities ( i.e. patterns) among complex words sharing a common base.

That’s why a model for derivational paradigm organizing derived words according to the processes deriving them is considerably less suitable for synchronic word formation than one organizing them into subgroups sharing a common base or stem.

Bibliography:

1. А dams V. An Introduction to Modern English Word-formation. – L.: Longman, 1973. – 370 p.

2. Bauer L. Derivational paradigms. In Yearbook of Morphology, 1996. – P. 243-256.

3. Bochner H. Simplicity in Generative Morphology. – N.-Y.: Mouton Publishers, 1993. – P.154-203.

4. Paunder A. Processes and Paradigms in Word-Formation. – Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter , 2000. – S.113-256.