Abstract
Marchand (1960; 1969) presents a unique analysis of back-formation (e.g., editorN > editV) as a combination of zero-derivation (editorN > editorV) and clipping (editorV > editorV). This paper will take a closer look at his analysis and argue that its revised version, which uses the notion of conversion rather than zero-derivation, is superior to the mainstream analyses of back-formation. Citing a lot of instances of back-formed verbs, we will show that back-formation does not necessarily delete an affix (e.g., liaisonN > liaiseV) and that it is semantically parallel not to affixation (e.g., filmN > filmizeV) but to conversion (e.g., refereeN > refereeV). Almost all the preceding analyses fail to deal with these facts, for they are based on the assumption that backformation deletes a (supposed) affix, or it is the reverse of affixation. Our new analysis, on the other hand, is free from this traditional assumption and can account for various properties of back-formation, including the above two, in terms of general characteristics of conversion and clipping.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 33-72 |
| Number of pages | 40 |
| Journal | Acta Linguistica Hungarica |
| Volume | 54 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2007 Mar |
Keywords
- Affix deletion
- Back-formation
- Clipping
- Constructional iconicity
- Zero-derivation/conversion
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Language and Linguistics
- Linguistics and Language