Pagrindinių darybos būdų skyrimo klausimu

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LII (2005), 83–89 On the question of distinguishing the principal word-formation methods Antanas Smetona Vilniaus universitetas This article deals with problems of the classification of derivational devices in Lithuanian. The classifying procedure proposed here is based on the general principles of scientific classification laid down in the international standard “Terminology Work – Principles and methods” (ISO 704:2000(E)). In accordance with this methodology, the different types of oppositions occurring in the derivational system are empirically established, and the features underlying the oppositions are classified. On the basis of these features a system of notional relationships is established and a schema is drawn of the main derivational devices of Lithuanian. The feature diagram and the notional schema show that the relationships between the main derivational devices are considerably more complex than hitherto assumed, and that rather than attempting one general and abstract classification one should set apart the individual features underlying derivational oppositions and classify derivational types according to each separate feature. 1. THE ESSENCE OF THE PROBLEM In word-formation theory, the question is raised of how many word-formation methods there are in a language. Traditionally, four principal word-formation methods are generally distinguished in Lithuanian: prefixation, suffixation, paradigmatization, and composition (Urbutis 1978: 283–288; Morkūnas, ed., 1999: 140; Keinys 1999: 22–23). Their relations can be represented approximately as follows (Figure 1): FIGURE 1. TRADITIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF WORD-FORMATION METHODS 84 | ANTANAS SMETONA Such a division is entirely possible and understandable, if we disregard certain contradictions. First, the first criterion for classification immediately stands out—it is entirely logical to imagine that derivation is distinguished from composition according to the number of bases. However, in the case of morphological word formation, the word-formation formative should take center stage: “When distinguishing word-formation methods, only the general nature of the word-formation formative is considered” (Urbutis 1978: 283). And how can composition be connected to the classificatory criterion of the word-formation formative? Alternatively, it is explained that “depending on whether a derivative is formed from one base word with some affix..., or is compounded from two words, derivation and compounding are distinguished” (Keinys 1999: 22)—the basis of classification is clearly not the number of bases, which means that the classification itself is unscientific. Another inconsistency is that phenomena clearly not of the same nature fall into one classificatory group: negeras: geras, poilgis: ilgas, begalvis: galva. On the other hand, placing the word-formation formative in the foreground and comparing the four word-formation methods raises new questions: “(1) suffixation, which produces suffixal derivatives, (2) prefixation, which produces prefixal derivatives, (3) paradigmatization, which produces ending derivatives, and (4) composition, which produces compounds” (ibid.). This could be represented approximately as follows (Figure 2): FIGURE 2. CLASSIFICATION BY WORD-FORMATION RESULT Here, only one general basis for classification is possible—the word-formation result (rather than the word-formation formative). It is then unclear how such a classification correlates with the word-formation formative and the word-formation base. Thus, there is ample reason for doubt. The most important question, therefore, is whether it is possible to describe such a complex phenomenon as word-formation methods logically, as comprehensively as possible, and in a more syncretic manner? 2. METHODOLOGICAL BASIS FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM Whatever its specific or speculative nature, linguistics as a branch of science must conduct its research in accordance with the general laws of cognition and scientific theories. The principles of concept analysis and classification are set out concisely in the international terminology standard “Terminology work – Principles and methods” (ISO 704: 2000(E)). Since the phenomena designated by the terms prefixation, suffixation, paradigmatization, and compounding are concepts that form a certain microsystem, it is possible to draw on the methodology for concept formation and classification specified in this standard. The standard states that first, distinct, interrelated objects of objective reality are identified empirically; then their essential characteristics are abstracted from their properties, and these are grouped according to types of characteristics. The concept’s intension is then formed from the set of essential characteristics. PAGRINDINIŲ DARYBOS BŪDŲ SKYRIMO KLAUSIMU | 85 The differences and similarities between the characteristics of concepts belonging to a single subject field are used to determine the relations between concepts, formulate concept definitions, and create names for concepts or definitions—that is, terms. In the present case, both the terms and the objects are fairly clear. The aim of the article is to reveal the actual relations among word-formation processes on the basis of identified and grouped characteristics, and to classify the concepts according to uniform criteria. 3. IDENTIFYING WORD-FORMATION PROCESSES IN THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE The objects of the domain under consideration that exist in objective reality could be different word-formation oppositions. These are generally “the basis for word-formation analysis,” and differences between the types of their components (base, derivative, formant) (Urbutis 1978: 65–66) could provide a basis for analysis and classification. Accordingly, we select empirically identifiable oppositions between different word-formation processes: namelis: namas, stalius: stalas, grėbliakotis: grėbliokotas, begalvis (adj.): be galvos, eiti: nueiti, apygeris: geras. We identify the following types of characteristics of word-formation oppositions: base type, word-formation formant type, and derivative type. We enter the elements of these oppositions and the types of characteristics in a table (Table 1). This makes it easier to compare and determine what unites and distinguishes these oppositions. TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF OBJECTS IN REALITY—WORD-FORMATION OPPOSITIONS Base Base type Formant Formant type Derivative Derivative type namas word -elis suffix (with inflection) namelis suffixed form eiti word pa- prefix paeiti prefixed form stalas word -us paradigm stalius paradigmatic form grėbliokotas compound (direct) -is paradigm rake handle compound without a head phrase (prepositional) -is paradigm headless prefixed derivative good word apy-, -is prefix (with inflection) apygeris prefixed derivative Several new terms are used in the table. First, attention should be drawn to the names of the derivational results (types of derivatives). These were needed primarily because the usual terms sometimes do not reflect reality at all. For example, it is commonly held that “prefixation yields prefix derivatives.” According to such a claim, begalvis, too, should be considered a prefix derivative. Unfortunately, this cannot be considered true, because (1) the derivational base is not 86 | ANTANAS SMETONA a single word, but a phrase (begalvis raitelis: raitelis be galvos), and (2) even if we were to discern prefixation here, we could in no way explain one general axiom of linguistics—that a prefix has no transpositional function, i.e. derivational processes should take place within the boundaries of a single part of speech. Here, however, we see that a prefixed adjective is derived from a noun. Therefore, it is better to call it a prefixed derivative rather than a prefix derivative. The other names for derivational results are formed by analogy. The relationship between composition and paradigmatic derivation has been discussed in some detail (Urbutis 1978: 284, Paulauskienė 1994: 64–63). The position of Aldona Paulauskienė seems more consistent and convincing to the author of this article. However, it still requires more thorough substantiation. The classification of the principal derivational processes presented in this article, developed in accordance with the ISO standard and, we believe, fairly comprehensive, specifically supports the latter position. For understandable reasons, the derivational formant of paradigmatic derivation is considered to be the paradigm expressed by a set of inflections, rather than the inflection itself. Sometimes paradigmatic derivation can be understood as a change in the stem ending (in which case the question of the derivational formant would also be resolved differently), but this is hardly expedient, since a change in the stem ending is not necessarily derivation, and in some cases of paradigmatic derivation the stem ending does not necessarily change (vilkžolė: vilko žolė). Once the features of the concepts have been established, their relationships can be shown in a diagram. The presence of such a table of features should prevent features identified on different bases from being placed at the same level of classification. First, one must decide which feature to foreground (we do not think this is of great importance, but it could indicate that, for the author of the classification, it is the most important feature). The choice of which features to prioritize could also be determined by the possibilities for further classification. For example, if classification is first carried out on the basis of the derivational result, the possibility of continuing the classification and incorporating other features is lost. In developing the diagram presented below, it was decided to foreground the type of derivational formant, since this is probably the main criterion for distinguishing morphological derivational processes. It is mentioned by all authors. The derivational-type column shows three types of formants; therefore, three derivational processes are distinguished as well—prefixation, suffixation, and paradigmatic derivation. Paradigmatic derivation, in turn, is not homogeneous either: it is distinguished by the type of derivational base, which may be a word or a phrase. Derivatives formed from phrases are themselves of two kinds (apparently because phrases, too, are varied): two independent words, or an independent word combined with a dependent one. It is important to distinguish between these, because the root (or stem) of an independent word, when incorporated from a syntactic construction into the stem of a compound, retains its lexical meaning to a greater or lesser extent, whereas a dependent word, which has no lexical meaning, is ordinarily regarded as (becomes) a prefix within a word stem. Finally, the last classification criterion is the type of derivative (the derivational result). Classification according to this criterion is also important, because it shows that derivatives with the same structure (e.g. a prefixed derivative) can be obtained by different processes, or that derivatives formed with the same formant (e.g. in paradigmatic derivation) may, depending on the derivational base, fall into different groups of derivational results. Thus, these considerations take the form of a diagram that comprehensively presents the microsystem of the principal word-formation processes in Lithuanian, whose units’ relationships and hierarchy are determined by different types of structural elements of the derivational opposition. PAGRINDINIŲ DARYBOS BŪDŲ SKYRIMO KLAUSIMU | 87 3 DIAGRAM. CLASSIFICATION OF DERIVATIONAL PROCESSES This is not the only possible diagram of the relationships among the concepts. Everything depends on which kind of feature is brought to the foreground. If we began the classification, for example, with the type of base (a word or a phrase), the diagram would be entirely different. 88 | ANTANAS SMETONA 4 SCHEME. ALTERNATIVE CLASSIFICATION OF WORD-FORMATION METHODS Clearly, this classification is considerably inferior to the first one—the scheme does not include derivatives formed from phrases among the forms of word formation, and the difference between apygeris and paeiti is levelled out. Above all, one must not forget the fundamental principle of scientific classification: coordinate concepts should be distinguished only according to the same kind of feature. Yet this, it seems, is unavoidable in traditional classifications of the principal word-formation methods. 4. SUMMARY The concept of the principal word-formation methods operating in the Lithuanian word-formation system has traditionally been greatly simplified. Such simplification fails to reveal the role played in the word-formation process by different types of structural elements of the word-formation opposition, or the relations among those elements; it even leads to classification based on more than one criterion. By applying the principles of terminological work set out in the international standard ISO 704, it is possible to identify very successfully the essential features of the basis, derivative, and word-formation formant of a word-formation opposition and, on that basis, to create schemes of the principal word-formation methods that show the variety and complexity of word-formation methods PAGRINDINIŲ DARYBOS BŪDŲ SKYRIMO KLAUSIMU | 89 much more accurately than traditional schemes. The greatest advantage of such a classification is that it clearly reveals the fact that no abstract, generalized concept of word-formation methods exists independently of the structural elements of the word-formation opposition. The question of how many word-formation methods there are in Lithuanian admits several answers: according to the word-formation basis, there is one set of methods; according to the word-formation formant, another; and according to the word-formation result, a third. LITERATŪRA KEINYS, St. 1999: Bendrinės lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla. MORKŪNAS, K., par., 1999: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. PAULAUSKIENĖ, A. 1994: Lietuvių kalbos morfologija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. URBUTIS, V. 1978: Žodžių darybos teorija, Vilnius: Mokslas. Antanas Smetona Gauta 2005 08 05 Lietuvių kalbos katedra Vilniaus Universitetas Universiteto g. 5, 01122 Vilnius, Lietuva [email protected]