2004
Volume 25, Issue 2-3
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Abstract

Abstract

This study aims to discuss libfixing as a non-morphemic process of word formation. Libfixes are ‘liberated’ elements that originate from the reanalysis of existing words, usually opaque forms or blends. A well-known example of a libfix is - from , whose borrowing and spreading in Dutch has been discussed by Hüning (2000). Among the other examples that are discussed are English - as in , - as in and Dutch - as in and - as in . This contribution shows how widespread the process of libfixing is. Moreover, it is claimed that libfixing operates systematically and can therefore be a subject of morphological analysis and theory. In addition, it is shown in this analysis that it is irrelevant whether a new formation is consciously formed or that it is the result of an unconscious productive process. What counts is whether the neologism is acceptable as a word in the language in question. Examples that are discussed in this article come from English and Dutch.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2020.2-3.015.HAMA
2020-10-01
2021-11-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bauer, Laurie(2001). Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Booij, Geert (2019²). The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. Booij, Geert & Arianevan Santen (2017³). Morfologie. De woordstructuur van het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  4. Haeringen, Coenraad B. van(1945). Cafetaria, taria. De Nieuwe Taalgids38, 148-149.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Hamans, Camiel(1987). De overeenkomst tussen literama en actreutel. Zabrocki's diacrise als oplossing voor enige klassieke morfologische problemen. Spektator17, 289-299.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Hamans, Camiel(2009). Oddities as universals. In: GregováRenáta, KörtvélyessyLivia & TomaščikováSlávka (red.), Universals and Typology in Word Formation, Teaching Materials. Slovak Association for the Study of English-SKASE.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hamans, Camiel(2010). The productivity of blending: linguistic or cognitive? Or how to deal with administrivia and ostalgia. In: StanulewiczDanuta, WolańskiTadeusz Z. & RedzimskaJoanna (red.), Lingua Terra Cognita II. A Festschrift for professor Roman Kalisz. Gdansk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego, 467-490.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hüning, Matthias(2000). Monica en andere gates. Het ontstaan van een morfologisch proces. Nederlandse Taalkunde5(2), 121-132.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Land, Wouter van der(2019). Schel en andere dorado’s. Neerlandistiek.nl. <https://www.neerlandistiek.nl/2019/11/schel-en-andere-dorados/#more-44042>
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Marchand, Hans (1969²). The categories and types of present-day English word formation. A Synchronic-diachronic approach. Munich: Beck.
  11. Marle, Jaap van(1985)On the paradigmatic dimension of morphological creativity. Dordrecht: Foris.
  12. Meesters, Gert(2004). Marginale morfologie in het Nederlands. Paradigmatische samenstellingen, neo-klassieke composita en splintercompositia. Gent: KANTL.
  13. Norde, Muriel & SarahSippach(2019). Nerdalicious scientainment: A network analysis of English libfixes. Word Structure12, 353-384.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Santen, Ariane & Marijkevan der Wal(2000). Honderd jaar Nederlands en meer. Nederlandse Taalkunde5, 343-355.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Schultink, Henk(1961). Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. Forum der Letteren2, 100-125.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Sijs, Nicoline van der(2001). Chronologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands. De ouderdom en herkomst van onze woorden en betekenissen. Amsterdam: L.J. Veen.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Toorn, Maarten C. van den (1987a). De trochee op -o. De Nieuwe Taalgids80, 107-110.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. ToornMaarten C. van den (1987b). Morfologisch niemandsland: commerciële naamgeving. Forum der Letteren28, 108-114.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Zabrocki, Ludwik(1965). Aufbau und Funktion der phonologischen Einheiten. In: BethgeWolfgang & ZwirnerEberhard (red.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences Münster 1964. Basel/New York: S. Karger, 598-602.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Zabrocki, Ludwik(1969). Phonologie und distinctive Morphologie. In: GraurAlexendru (red.), Actes du Xe Congrès International des Linguistes Bucarest 1967. Boekarest: Editions de l'Académie de la République socialiste de Roumanie, 367-375.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Zabrocki, Ludwik(1980). U podstaw struktury i rozwoju języka. At the foundation of language structure and development. Warszawa/Poznań: Państowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
  22. Zwicky, Arnold(2010). Libfixes. <https://arnoldzwicky.org/2010/01/23/libfixes/>
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Zwicky, Arnold(2011). Inventory of libfix postings & More libfix inventory. Arnold Zwicky’s blog. A blog mostly about language. <https://arnoldzwicky.org/2011/06/11/inventory-of-libfix-postings/> <https://arnoldzwicky.org/2011/06/21/more-libfix-inventory/>
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2020.2-3.015.HAMA
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2020.2-3.015.HAMA
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error