PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University
Nijmegen
The following full text is a publisher's version.
For additional information about this publication click this link.
http://hdl.handle.net/2066/15612
Please be advised that this information was generated on 2017-06-17 and may be subject to
change.
Remarks
Remarques
DEGREES OF TRANSPARENCY
IN
WORD
FO R M A T IO N
A nne C utler
University of Sussex
N e w words can be form ed by a d d in g suffixes to o t h e r words.
D e riv e d w ords form ed in this w a y m a y be phon olog ically t r a n s ­
p a r e n t w ith respect to th e ir base w ord, or t h e y m a y be o p a q u e ;
monstrous is p re s e rv e d in monstrousjfness b u t not in ?nonstros-\-ity.
T h e j u n c t u r e b etw e en suffix a n d ste m is e ith e r a w o rd b o u n d a r y
(#) or a f o r m a tiv e b o u n d a r y ( + ), a n d while w o rd b o u n d a r y
d e r iv a tio n s are alw ays t r a n s p a r e n t , fo r m a tiv e b o u n d a r y d e r i v a ­
tions u s u a lly result in stress sh iftin g to a syllable o t h e r t h a n the
syllable which is stressed in the base w ord, vowel q u a l i t y ch an g in g ,
etc.
T r a n s p a r e n c y of th e base w ord is an i m p o r t a n t factor in d e t e r ­
m in in g s p e a k e r s ’ choice of neologism. T h u s w hen sp e a k e rs are
asked to m a k e a choice b e tw e e n a w ord b o u n d a r y a n d a fo rm a tiv e
b o u n d a r y d e r i v a t io n from the s a m e base word, t h e y prefer word
b o u n d a r y d e r iv a tio n s if th e f o r m a tiv e b o u n d a r y d e r iv a tio n s are
o p a q u e ( sinistej'jfness , sinister +/Vy), b u t show no preferences
e ith e r w a y if b o th w ord b o u n d a r y a n d fo rm a tiv e b o u n d a r y
d e r iv a tio n s are t r a n s p a r e n t (jejunejfness,jejun-{-ity ; C u t l e r 1980).
Sim ilarly, if sp e a k e rs are p r e s e n te d w ith a list of words of which
som e are real words, som e n o n w o rd s, a n d som e possible words
form ed w ith w o rd b o u n d a r y or f o r m a tiv e b o u n d a r y suffixes, a n d
are asked to j u d g e for each one w h e th e r it is an E nglish word,
t h e y a c c e p t significantly m ore possible w ords form ed w ith w ord
b o u n d a r y t h a n w ith f o r m a tiv e b o u n d a r y suffixes when the
c jl/r c l
26:1 ( 1981 ) / 73
f o r m a tiv e b o u n d a r y d e r iv a tio n s are o p a q u e ( suppressivejfness ,
s u p p r e s s iv + ity ; A ro n o ff & S c h v a n e v e l d t 1978), b u t show no
preference e ith e r w a y if b o t h f o rm a tiv e b o u n d a r y a n d w o rd
b o u n d a r y d e r iv a tio n s are t r a n s p a r e n t ( submarineHness , subm arin + i t y ; C u t l e r 1980). T h e r e is also a t e n d e n c y in s p o n t a n e o u s
slips o f the to n g u e for a t r a n s p a r e n t d e riv e d form to s u b s t i t u t e
for an o p a q u e i n t e n d e d w o rd (for ex a m p le , professoral for
professorial , expection for expectation \ C u t l e r 1980).
I t w ould seem t h a t in choosing neologisms, at least, s p e a k e rs
p refer th e base w ord to re m a in i n t a c t in the d e riv e d form. T h i s
should n ot be s u rp r is in g ; since a neologism is p r e s u m a b l y a w ord
t h a t th e h e a re r has n o t h e a r d before, th e re will exist a c o n ­
siderab le risk o f m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g unless th e s p e a k e r is careful to
m a k e th e origin o f th e neologism ( a n d th u s its m e a n in g ) clear. By
leaving the base w ord i n ta c t , th e s p e a k e r allows th e h e a re r to
access the e n t r y for th e base w o rd in his i n te r n a l lexicon, a n d this
accessing has p r o b a b l y been ac h iev e d by th e tim e th e final
p o r tio n s o f th e w o rd — th e w o rd -c la ss-a lte rin g suffix— are h ea rd .
T h e r e are, how ever, ex ceptions to th e general preference for
t r a n s p a r e n t d e r i v a t io n s ; in som e cases n o n - t r a n s p a r e n t fo r m a tiv e
b o u n d a r y d e r iv a tio n s are u n e q u iv o c a lly p re fe ra b le to t r a n s ­
p a r e n t w o rd b o u n d a r y d e r iv a tio n s . T o m a k e a n o u n from a v erb
like revitalize , for in sta n c e , can only be d o n e by a d d in g -Ration;
d e r iv a tio n s w ith f a l or ftment w ould not be a c c e p ta b le . Sim ilarly,
A ronoff a n d A n s h e n (1981) show t h a t E nglish s p e a k e rs p refer to
m a k e a d je c tiv e s e n d in g w ith -ible (for exam p le, suppressible) into
n o u n s b y a d d in g + ity r a t h e r t h a n jjness.
Such w ords involve a shift of p r i m a r y s tre ss— revitalize , b u t
revitalization , suppressible b u t suppressibility — a n d t h u s c a n n o t be
called t r a n s p a r e n t . B u t it is n o t e w o r t h y t h a t th e shift of p r i m a r y
stress location is all t h a t has h a p p e n e d to th e base w o r d ; no
c o n s o n a n ts h a v e been lost, vowel q u a l i t y has n o t been altered.
M o re o v e r, a lth o u g h p r i m a r y stress has s h ifte d t o w a r d s th e en d of
th e w ord, th e syllable which was stressed in th e base w o rd is still
m ore p r o m i n e n t t h a n th e syllables s u r r o u n d i n g i t : revitalization ,
suppressibility . Stress, of course, is r e la tiv e ; th e r e la tiv e p r o m i ­
nence o f th e syllables o f th e base w o rd is p r e s e r v e d ; a n d since the
s e g m e n ta l values are also c o n s t a n t , it could be said t h a t as tar as
th e speech processor is co n c ern ed , revitalization a n d suppressibility
are n ot o p a q u e at all, b u t fu n c tio n a lly t r a n s p a r e n t — th e initial
p o r tio n s o f th e w ord h a v e th e s a m e s e g m e n ta l values a n d the
s a m e relativ e p r o m in e n c e as th e base w ord, a n d t h u s suffice to
en ab le access of th e base w o r d ’s lexical e n t r y . B y th e tim e th e
74 /
c jl/r c l
26:1 ( 1981 )
suffix comes aloilg, w ith a y e t m ore highly stressed syllable, th e
base w o rd has a lr e a d y been accessed.
T h u s t r a n s p a r e n c y a p p e a r s to be a g r a d a b l e c o n c e p t — w here
suppressivity is i n d u b i t a b l y o p a q u e , a n d je ju n ity c o m p le te ly
t r a n s p a r e n t , suppressibility is s o m e w h e re in b e tw e e n . N eologism s
can m o v e som e d is ta n c e along th e t r a n s p a r e n c y c o n t i n u u m from
th e c o m p le te ly t r a n s p a r e n t end a n d still re m a in a c c e p ta b le .
F o r in sta n c e , w hen s u b je c ts are asked to c re a te th e ir own verb s
from a d je c tiv e s such as splendid , t h e y use -\-ify m ore t h a n h a l f the
tim e, a n d o v e r w h e lm in g ly p refer th e liquid-liquefy p a r a d i g m , in
w hich th e p r i m a r y stress s ta y s p u t b u t th e final c o n s o n a n t is lost,
to t h e fluid-fluidify p a r a d i g m , in which all th e c o n s o n a n t s o f the
base w o rd are p re s e rv e d , b u t th e stress shifts from first to second
syllable ( C u t le r 1980). Sim ilarly, in th e w ord decision task,
excusion was p re fe rre d to excusement , a lth o u g h th e form er in ­
volves a c h a n g e in th e final c o n s o n a n t from [z] to [z] which th e
l a t t e r does not.
T h u s p r e s e r v a tio n of th e initial p o rtio n s of the base word
w ould seem to be m o re i m p o r t a n t t h a n p r e s e r v a tio n o f th e final
p o r tio n s in defining t r a n s p a r e n c y . T h is is c o n s is te n t with a model
of th e m e n t a l lexicon in which w ords are accessed b y th eir left-torig h t phonological s t r u c t u r e . W e m a y m a k e a suggestion a b o u t
e x a c tly how m u c h of th e base w ord needs to be p re s e r v e d for th e
d e riv e d form to be fu n c tio n a lly t r a n s p a r e n t b y in v o k in g a c o n c e p t
from one such model of le ft-to -rig h t lexical access, t h a t p ro p o se d
by M a r s le n - W ils o n (in press). M a rs le n -W ils o n p o in ts o u t t h a t for
each w ord th e re is a th e o r e tic a lly earliest p o in t at which it can be
identified, n a m e l y th e p o in t at which it becom es u n iq u e ly
d is tin g u is h a b le from all o t h e r words in th e la n g u a g e beginning
w ith th e s a m e seq u e n c e of s o u n d s ; he calls this th e recognition
p o in t. For som e w ords th e recognition p o in t occurs late in the
w o r d — th u s intestine a n d intestate o n ly becom e d is tin g u is h a b le on
th e ir final s o u n d ; for o th e rs it is fairly e a rly — the o n ly words
b e g in n in g w ith [ski], for ex a m p le, are sclerotic a n d its m o r p h o ­
logical relatives. (T h e se are a s su m e d to be s to r e d t o g e t h e r ; th ere
is a b u n d a n t p sy ch o lin g u istic evidence t h a t entries in th e in te rn a l
lexicon for m o rp h o lo g ically re la te d words are n o t i n d e p e n d e n t —
M u rrell & M o r t o n 1974, S n o d g rass & J a r v e l l a 1972, S ta n n e r s ,
N eiser, H e r n o n & H all 1979.)
If we now d e t e r m i n e th e recognition p o in ts for th e a c c e p ta b ly
n o n - t r a n s p a r e n t neologisms m e n t i o n e d above, we find t h a t
excuse becom es d is tin g u is h a b le from o t h e r words b eg in n in g w ith
[sksk]— exclude , exquisite , excrescence etc.— a t th e o cc u rre n c e of
c jl/r c l
26:1 ( 1981 ) / 75
th e glide [j]; th u s th e final c o n s o n a n t is n o t n ec essary tor access of
th e base w o r d ’s lexical e n t r y , a n d excusioii sh o u ld be as effective a
cue as excusement. Sim ilarly, while th e re are m a n y w ords b e g in ­
ning w ith [spl] ( splatter , splice , splurge , splint etc.) a n d even one
o t h e r w ith [splen] ( splenic ), splendid a n d its relativ es are th e only
w ords b e g in n in g w ith [splend], so t h a t splendify s h o u ld d ire c t th e
processor to th e a p p r o p r i a t e lexical e n t r y as easily as w ou ld
splendidize. Suppress becom es in d is tin g u is h a b le from o t h e r words
b e g in n in g w ith th e s a m e s o u n d s at th e second [s], at w hich it
p a r t s c o m p a n y from supremacy , so t h a t suppressibility , in which
th e first six so u n d s are th e s a m e as in suppress , will cue th e
a p p r o p r i a t e e n t r y w i t h o u t difficulty. Suppressivity , on th e o t h e r
h a n d , begins w ith [sAp], a n d will th e re fo re m islead th e processor
to a g r o u p of en tries b e g in n in g w ith t h a t seq u e n c e ( supper ,
supplement , suppurate , etc.). H e n c e suppressibility is a c c e p ta b le
(Aronoff & A n s h e n 1981), suppressivity is n o t (A ron o ff &
S c h v a n e v e l d t 1978).
I t w ould a p p e a r , th e n , t h a t as long as a d e r iv e d w o rd preserves
th e s e g m e n ta l values a n d re la tiv e syllable p r o m in e n c e o f th e
base w ord u p to th e base w o r d ’s recognition p o in t, it will c o u n t as
t r a n s p a r e n t . T r a n s p a r e n c y in w o rd fo rm a tio n is n o t a m a t t e r of
p r e s e r v in g i n t a c t th e whole of th e base w ord, b u t m e re ly en o u g h
o f it to en a b le sure access of th e base w o r d ’s lexical e n t r y . H o w
m u c h is en o u g h will differ from w o rd to w ord, a n d d e p e n d s in th e
long run on th e c h a ra c te r is tic s of th e v o c a b u l a r y as a whole. T w o
im p lic a tio n s of this d e p e n d e n c y are w o r th noting. F irs t, differ­
ences in th e size of in d iv id u a l s p e a k e r s ’ v o c a b u la rie s can effect
differences in w here th e recognition p o in t occurs in p a r t i c u l a r
w ords a n d hence in th e re la tiv e a c c e p t a b i li t y of neologistic
d e r iv a tio n s from t h a t word. T h u s th e recognition p o i n t of splendid
a n d its relatives for a s p e a k e r who does n o t k n o w splenic is at the
[e], a n d such a person sh o u ld find, say, splenify as a r e la tiv e of
splendid m ore a c c e p ta b le t h a n w ould a s p e a k e r w ho does know
splenic. Second, a d d itio n o f new w ord s to th e lexicon as a whole
could resu lt in a c h a n g e in th e a c c e p t a b ili ty of t o t a ll y u n r e l a t e d
neologisms. S up p ose, for in sta n c e , t h a t a w o rd excube , p r o n o u n c e d
[ikskjub], were to beco m e a p e r m a n e n t m e m b e r of th e E nglish
v o c a b u la r y , forcing th e recognition p o i n t of excuse to shift from
th e [j] to th e [z]. U n d e r these c ir c u m s ta n c e s we w ould exp ect t h a t
sp e a k e rs seeking a n o u n m e a n i n g ‘s t a t e of being e x c u s e d ’ w ould
show a preference for excusement , w hich preserv es th e [z], over
excusion , which does not. T h e a c c e p ta b i lit y o f neologisms, in
conclusion, d e p e n d s crucially on th e ease w ith which th e ir base
76 /
c jl
/ r c l .26:1 ( 1981 )
w ord can be recognized w ith in th e m , b u t this in t u r n d e p e n d s on
th e ease w ith which the base word itself can be recognized as
d i s t i n c t from o t h e r w ords in th e lan gu age.
NOTE
11 This re s e a r c h was s u p p o r t e d by a g r a n t from th e Science R e s e a r c h C o u n cil,
U . K . R e q u e s t s for r e p r i n t s s h o u ld be a d d r e s s e d to th e a u t h o r a t T h e C e n t r e
for R e s e a r c h on P e r c e p t i o n a n d C o g n it io n , L a b o r a t o r y o f E x p e r i m e n t a l
P s y c h o lo g y , U n i v e r s i t y o f Sussex, B r i g h t o n B N l 9 Q G , E n g l a n d .
REFERENCES
Aronoff, M . a n d F. A n s h e n (1981)
‘M o r p h o lo g ic a l p r o d u c t i v i t y a n d p h o n o lo g ic a l t r a n s p a r e n c y . ’ C J L / R C L 26:
6 3 -7 2 .
A ronoff, M . a n d R. S c h v a n e v e l d t (1978)
‘T e s t i n g m o rp h o lo g ic a l p r o d u c t i v i t y . ’ A r m a i s o j the N e w Y o r k A c a d e m y o j
S c ie n c e s , 3 1 8 .1 0 6 -1 1 4 .
C u t l e r , A. (1980)
' P r o d u c t i v i t y in w o rd f o r m a t io n . ’ P a p e r s f r o m the S ix te e n th R e g i o n a l M e e tin g ,
C hicago L i n g u i s t i c S o c ie ty .
M a r s l e n - W i l s o n , W. (in press)
‘S p eech u n d e r s t a n d i n g as a p sy c h o lo g ic a l p r o c e s s .’ In J. C. S im o n , ed.,
S p o k e n L a n g u a g e G e n e ra tio n a n d U n d e r s ta n d in g . D o r d r e c h t : Reidel.
M u r r e l l , G. A. a n d J. M o r t o n (1974)
‘W o r d re c o g n itio n a n d m o r p h e m i c s t r u c t u r e . ’ J o u r n a l o j E x p e r i m e n t a l
P s y c h o lo g y , 10 2 .9 6 3 -6 8 .
S n o d g r a s s , J. G. a n d R. J . J a r v e l l a (1972)
‘S o m e lin g u istic d e t e r m i n a n t s o f w o rd classification t i m e s . ’ P s y e h o n o m ie
S c ie n c e , 2 7 .2 2 0 - 2 2 .
S t a n n e r s , R. F., J. J. N e is e r, W . P. H e r n o n a n d R. H a ll (1979)
‘M e m o r y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n for m o r p h o lo g ic a lly r e l a t e d w o r d s . ’ J o u r n a l o j
V e r b a l L e a r n i n g a n d V e r b a l B e h a v io r , 18.399-412.
c jl/r c l
26:1 ( 1981 ) / 77