Productive word-formation (adjectives) in foreign language teaching: Linguistic analysis and pedagogical aspects E-Book

Ilona Gaul

• Herausgeber: GRIN Verlag
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2008

Beschreibung

Examination Thesis from the year 2006 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Linguistics, grade: 2,0, University of Marburg (Anglistik und Amerikanistik), language: English, abstract: The following paper consisting of three main parts, namely an analytical, a didactic and an empirical section, seeks an approach to second language learners’ acquisition and comprehension of certain word-formation rules. The study is based on questionnaires filled in by students of the grammar school Martin-Luther-Schule Marburg who are taking English as their special subject. The thirteenth graders are all German native speakers who have been taught English since the fifth grade. If word-formation is integrated into school lessons – at least to some extent – as curriculum and pedagogical literature demand the students, being advanced learners should have some analytical knowledge about the features of common English affixes and be able to apply their skills to the three tasks they are given in the questionnaires. These tasks demand receptive and productive skills which will be illustrated in detail in the empirical part where the survey is evaluated. The pedagogical opinion in research literature towards teaching word-formation in school will be discussed in more detail so that a comparison between theory and practice can be drawn. A vital point at issue will be the character of teaching word-formation in school. As usual, opinions are divided here. It is a major aim of this paper to defend an approach which is still fairly unpopular, namely an approach that includes productive aspects into the teaching of word-formation in school. Most educationalists still prefer an exclusively receptive approach as the discussion in the pedagogical part will show. As far as the linguistic analysis is concerned, it will be looked at adjectival suffixation. The suffixes being investigated in detail are German L1 suffixes -ig, -isch, and -lich as well as English L2 suffixes -ed, -ic, -ish and -ly. The high productivity of these suffixes will be shown whereas the term productivity is to be defined beforehand. Each suffix will be carefully described with regard to semantic, syntactic, morphological and phonological aspects. Of course, it will be dealt with relevant aspects only. Questions such as whether an adjective can be used attributively, adverbially and predicatively are not taken into consideration because they do not play a role for the formation of words. Moreover, it is not talked about phonological constraints because none of the affixes treated here seems to be subject to phonological restrictions. Therefore, it is only talked about the phonological effects the suffixes have on their bases. On the basis of such a description a contrastive analysis can be established. As contrastive analysis has been severely criticized for its tendency towards over- and underprediction of mistakes for years (cf. Kühlwein 1984: 314) it will be highly interesting to see from the results of the students’ questionnaires if the mistakes predicted by the contrastive analysis are really made by the learner or if perhaps unpredicted ones materialise. As I intend to become a school teacher for English and German the results of this study turn out to be not only very interesting but practically useful as well.

Leseprobe

Table of Content

1. INTRODUCTION.

2.1. Description of German L1 suffixes.

2.1.1. The suffix -ig

2.1.1.1 Semantic scope.

2.1.1.2 Morphological and syntactic constraints

2.1.1.3 Phonological changes.

2.1.2. The suffix -isch.

2.1.2.1 Semantic scope.

2.1.2.2 Morphological and syntactic constraints

2.1.2.3 Phonological changes.

2.1.3. The suffix -lich

2.1.3.1 Semantic scope.

2.1.3.2 Morphological and syntactic constraints

2.1.3.3 Phonological changes.

2.2. Description of English L2 suffixes

2.2.1. The suffix -ed

2.2.1.1 Semantic scope.

2.2.1.2 Morphological and syntactic constraints

2.2.1.3 Phonological changes.

2.2.2. The suffix -ic

2.2.2.1 Semantic scope.

2.2.2.2 Morphological and syntactic constraints

2.2.2.3 Phonological changes.

2.2.3. The suffix -ish

2.2.3.1 Semantic scope.

2.2.3.2 Morphological and syntactic constraints

2.2.3.3 Phonological changes.

2.2.4. The suffix -ly

2.2.4.1 Semantic scope.

2.2.4.2 Morphological and syntactic constraints

2.2.4.3 Phonological changes.

2.3. Contrastive analysis of German and English suffixes

2.3.1. Comparison of -ig and -ed

2.3.2. Comparison of -isch, -ish and -ic.

2.3.3. Comparison of -lich, -ly and -ish

3.1. Goals and advantages of teaching word-formation

3.2. Word-formation: a means to teach receptive and productive skills?

3.3. Which word-formation patterns are to be taught and how?

4. THE SURVEY AND ITS EVALUATION

4.1. Completion task

4.2. Comprehensive task.

4.3. Translation task

5. CONCLUSION

6. REFERENCES.

7. GERMAN SUMMARY

8. APPENDIX

Page 1

Erste Staatsprüfung für das Lehramt an Gymnasien

Wissenschaftliche Hausarbeit im Fach Englisch

Datum: 19.10.2006

Productive word-formation

Page 1

1.Introduction

The following paper consisting of three main parts, namely an analytical, a didactic and an empirical section, seeks an approach to second language learners’ acquisition and comprehension of certain word-formation rules. The study is based on questionnaires filled in by students of the grammar school Martin-Luther-Schule Marburg who are taking English as their special subject. The thirteenth graders are all German native speakers who have been taught English since the fifth grade. If word-formation is integrated into school lessons-at least to some extent-as curriculum and pedagogical literature demand the students, being advanced learners should have some analytical knowledge about the features of common English affixes and be able to apply their skills to the three tasks they are given in the questionnaires. These tasks demand receptive and productive skills which will be illustrated in detail in the empirical part where the survey is evaluated. The pedagogical opinion in research literature towards teaching word-formation in school will be discussed in more detail so that a comparison between theory and practice can be drawn. A vital point at issue will be the character of teaching word-formation in school. As usual, opinions are divided here. It is a major aim of this paper to defend an approach which is still fairly unpopular, namely an approach that includes productive aspects into the teaching of word-formation in school. Most educationalists still prefer an exclusively receptive approach as the discussion in the pedagogical part will show.

As far as the linguistic analysis is concerned, it will be looked at adjectival suffixation. The suffixes being investigated in detail are German L1 suffixes-ig, -isch,and-lichas well as English L2 suffixes-ed, -ic, -ishand-ly.The high productivity of these suffixes will be shown whereas the term productivity is to be defined beforehand. Each suffix will be carefully described with regard to semantic, syntactic, morphological and phonological aspects. Of course, it will be dealt with relevant aspects only. Questions such as whether an adjective can be used attributively, adverbially and predicatively are not taken into consideration because they do not play a role for the formation of words. Moreover, it is not talked about phonological constraints because none of the affixes treated here seems to be subject to phonological restrictions. Therefore, it is only talked about the phonological effects the suffixes have on their bases.

On the basis of such a description a contrastive analysis can be established. As contrastive analysis has been severely criticized for its tendency towards over- and

Page 2

underprediction of mistakes for years (cf. Kühlwein 1984: 314) it will be highly interesting to see from the results of the students’ questionnaires if the mistakes predicted by the contrastive analysis are really made by the learner or if perhaps unpredicted ones materialise. As I intend to become a school teacher for English and German the results of this study turn out to be not only very interesting but practically useful as well.

2. Linguistic analysis of selected adjective suffixes

Word-formation represents the core area of morphology. Among the various processes of word-formation affixation and thus suffixation, too, belongs to the most frequent and most natural ones (cf. Naumann/Vogel 2000: 933, 940). The utterly productive process of attaching a suffix to a base and thus creating the derivative belongs to explicit derivation (cf. Fleischer/Barz 1992: 46).

Since the term productivity is controversially discussed among linguists, it is to be defined here before the suffixes are individually analysed. For obvious reasons it will be talked about productive suffixes only. A suffix is generally called productive if it can be used to derive new words.

“Speakers of a language can expand the vocabulary of that language by coining new words

from already existing words in the language, and speakers of earlier generations have done so

before them. When such new formations involve the meaning as well as the form and/or

grammar of the basis and when there are several items that have been coined in a similar way,

we speak of word-formational patterns.” (Stein 2002: 141)

The number of words belonging to a fully productive pattern is therefore theoretically infinite (cf. Storch 1979: 4). Although Bauer argues convincingly that frequency and transparency cannot be equated with productivity, they are nevertheless important properties of productive word-formation patterns. The more productive a suffix is, the more entries of different words ending in this suffix will be found in a dictionary. It is, however, possible that fairly frequently occuring suffixes have ceased to be productive which can be misleading. Generally, productive word-formation patterns are transparent which means that their meaning can be deduced from the meaning of their base and their suffix. However, in some cases such a deduction is only possible through context. Bauer cites the example ofchok-erwhich can be a person, an instrument or a location (cf. Bauer 2005: 328). It is obvious that productivity is subject to certain constraints. Not any word can function as a base for certain suffixes. The “subset of possible bases is called the pattern’s domain” (Rainer 2005: 335). This domain can be restricted by semantic, morphological, phonological and syntactic

Page 3

constraints. A special kind of constraint is the phenomenon of blocking which subdivides into token blocking and type blocking. The former is understood to make motivated words likestealerunacceptable because the wordthiefalready exists (cf. Rainer 2005: 336). The latter means the rivalry between two suffixes which will be illustrated in the contrastive analysis of -ic and -ish (cf. 2.3.2). The degree of productivity varies from suffix to suffix. In the following the productivity of each suffix is to be proved by entries in reverse dictionaries and text corpora.

Before it will be shown that word-formation is not of minor importance in school teaching, the following is meant to constitute a thorough analysis of the already mentioned adjectival suffixes.

2.1. Description of German L1 suffixes

In the following the German suffixes -ig, -isch and -lich are to be analysed in detail. Apart from the meaning the special qualities regarding morphological, syntactic and phonological aspects of each suffix will be carefully investigated.

2.1.1.The suffix-ig

Ho Lee’s reverse dictionary of German states around 5770 adjectives ending in -ig which is, of course, highly outbid by the DWDS-corpus (Digitales Wörterbuch Deutscher Sprache) which comprises around 40,800. The suffix -ig is still very productive today as recently cited words likeHDTV-fähig, placeboartig, aggromäßig, houselastig, microsoftig, grinsig, mainstreamig, prizzelig(cf. Lehmnitzer, Neue Wörter) show whereas it might be argued that the former examples rather prove the productivity of compounding.

2.1.1.1 Semantic scope

The suffix-igit can be called extremely polysemous. Possible paraphrases are ‘being X’, ‘feeling X’, ‘looking, behaving or being like X’, ‘by means of X’ whereas X is a replacement character for the respective base. The base together with the suffix may denote various items which is illustrated in the table below.

Page 4

table 1: Semantic patterns of -ig-adjectives

The introduced patterns here and in the following do not lay claim to be complete and are only understood in a semantic sense. For a more detailed pattern analysis Motsch, whose work is the inspiration for tables 1-7, can be consulted (cf. Motsch 1999: 176-305). It is generally possible that some adjectives fit into more than one pattern or that there might be some adjectives which do not fit into any pattern at all. For adjectives with metaphorical meaning this is likely to be the case. Due to the adoption of a figurative meaning words often lose their “self-explanatory” character (Kastovsky 1981: 170) and might no longer belong to a productive pattern.

Apart from the semantic patterns j), k), l) and m),ig-derivationsare usually gradable. The derivatives of pattern k) referring to body parts have to be specified somehow in order to make sense (cf. Erben 1975: 119). Since it is, for instance, obvious that humans have a nose it would be superfluous to call someonenasig.But it is perfectly reasonable to distinguish someone’s nose because it might be special in some respect:stupsnasig (snub-nosed).In the case ofbärtigthe derivative has not necessarily to be specified because a beard is an optional part of a man’s body and it may distinguish one man from another without having a specifier. Erben mentions another use of the -ig-suffix. It dialectically marks adjectives without

Page 5

suffixes especially in cases where the noun is identical to the standard German adjective as inelend > elendigor where foreign adjectives are formally adapted to native ones:nobel > noblig(cf. Erben 1975: 101).

Patterns a) and c) rarely permit new word creation since emotional and physical states are not infinite. Patterns k), l) and m) are obviously semantically restricted, too, as there is a limited amount of body parts and measures of length. Highly productive patterns are b), d), e), f) and g). Pattern d) is very often used in literature while especially technical terminology makes frequent use of pattern g).

2.1.1.2 Morphological and syntactic constraints

The suffix-igis either simply attached to the base as inWitz > witzigor it substitutes-s, -(e)n, -e: damals > damalig, Belieben > beliebig, knausern > knauserig, Kreide > kreidig.The suffix appends to almost every possible base which means that the base can be nominal:Lust > lustig,verbal:zappeln > zappelig,adjectival:voll > völligand adverbial:vorher > vorherig.It goes together not only with simple bases but with compositional bases as well:kahlköpfig.Moreover, prefixed bases are common:ab-artig, un-verdächtigwhereas only the suffix -er can serve as a base suffix:Schläfer > schläfrig.With verbal bases the suffix-igshows a tendency to attach rather to the past tense stem than to the infinitive form:strittig, großwüchsig(cf. Fleischer/ Barz 1992: 256). Although words like *singig, *kontaktig or*zieligare possible they do not exist. These concepts describing behaviour or characteristic features have to be expressed by compounds:singfreudig, kontaktfreudig, zielstrebig.In general,-igdoes not attach to foreign bases.

Among the category changing word-formation processes, the derivation from both noun and compositional bases is most common. The derivation from adjectival bases occurs only few and far between.

2.1.1.3 Phonological changes

Bases which end in a /«/-sound lose it: /Èhyt«/ > /ÈhytIC/, /Ètrau«r/ > /ÈtraurIC/. Sometimes bases ending in -el and-ermay keep the /«/-sound, especially in careful speech: /Èkiùz«l/ > /Èkiùz«lIC/ versus /ÈkiùzlIC/, /ÈdEm«rn/ > /ÈdEm«rIC/ versus /ÈdEmrIC/. The latter versions without the /«/-sound are colloquial in this case.

There is no regular pattern for the umlaut. Many simple bases do not show a sound change as /Èzaft/ > /ÈzaftIC/ but there are also some which do as /Èkraft/ >

Page 6

/ÈkrEftIC/. In most cases the umlaut is built according to the plural form: /Èbaùrt/ > /ÈbEùrtIC/ but again, there are exceptions: /Èglaub«/ > /ÈglybIC/. In rare cases both versions with and without umlaut exist and denote different meanings: /Ètsuùk/ > /ÈtsyùgIC/ versus /ÈtsuùgIC/, the former meaning ‘speedy’ and the latter meaning ‘draughty’ (cf. Fleischer/Barz 1992: 257).

It has to be noted that not every speaker pronounces -ig like /IC/ which is the standard form used in dictionaries. Depending on regional dialects it may also be pronounced like /Ik/.

Page 7

2.1.2.The suffix-isch

Ho Lee’s reverse dictionary lists around 4,620 -isch-adjectives while their occurence in the DWDS-corpus is with 10,600 entries quite small. The current productivity of -isch is shown in recently cited adjectives likephalloplastisch, altherrenerotisch, ost-denglischormerkelianisch(cf. Lehmnitzer, Neue Wörter) whereas it might be argued again that the former examples rather prove the productivity of compounding.

2.1.2.1 Semantic scope

Like the suffix-igthe suffix-ischcomprises a great variety of different meaning nuances. Possible paraphrases are ‘being X’, ‘being or acting like X’, ‘coming from X’, ‘belonging to X’, ‘by means of X’. The following table illustrates the range of semantic patterns.

table 2: Semantic patterns of -isch-adjectives

Of all these semantic patterns only patterns j), k), m), and n) are gradable. For words belonging to patterns i) and l) it might be thought of an appropriate context where they can be compared.

Page 8

The majority of comparative adjectives implies a pejorative meaning, especially the words belonging to pattern j). Eichinger contrasts the negative -isch-implication with semantically neutral or even positive adjectives ending in-lich: kindisch, weibisch, männischvs.kindlich, weiblich, männlich(cf. Eichinger 1984: 115). Nevertheless, a few of the comparative-isch-adjectiveshappen to have an inherently positive meaning:himmlisch, paradiesisch, fantastisch.

One also has to be careful with pattern c) adjectives referring to countries. It often happens that the adjective is not derived from the country but from the person living in that country:Russland, Russe > russisch.For those words referring to a city often two bases are possible. The base may either be the city itself:Berlin > berlinischor the inhabitant:Berliner > berlinerischwhereas both are synonymous.

The suffix-ischis highly productive with foreign words and agent nouns which turn up in every pattern but c) and d). Pattern c) is also very productive since-ischis the typical suffix deriving geographical adjectives. Pattern d) is productive as well but words often occur with the suffix variant-schwhen used attributively:die Merkelsche Politik,probably either to avoid negative connotations or for the sake of economic speech production to avoid the creation of another syllable. Patterns h) and l) obviously comprise limited domains and for pattern a) it has to be noted that some formations sound uncommon:informatikerisch.There is a complementary distribution of-ischand-lichfor adjectives relating to something:erzieherische Maßnahmeversusrichterliche Anordnung(cf. table 3). As there are no hints why -isch or -lich are preferred in the respective examples above one can speak of type blocking.

2.1.2.2 Morphological and syntactic constraints

In most cases the suffix-ischjust attaches to its base:Alkohol > alkoholisch.Bases terminating in-e, -ie, -isor -ik lose these endings:Mode > modisch, Ironie > ironisch, Physis> physisch, Optik >optisch.Almost exclusively nouns function as bases. The base may be simple:Kind > kindischor complex:Tagträumer > tagträumerisch.The pattern agent noun + -isch is utterly prevalent:Draufgänger > draufgängerisch, Betrüger > betrügerisch.As far as foreign bases are concerned the infix-istis inserted in cases where there is actually no agent noun:charakter-ist-isch.If the foreign base is not related to a person the interfix -ar-occursfrequently:diziplin-ar-isch.It has already been adumbrated that the suffix -isch has a strong tendency to attach to foreign words. Due to this affinity especially to words

Page 9

originating from Latin and Greek, it often happens that the base is a bound root:elektr-ischwhich means that such a base cannot stand alone but needs a suffix in order to build a proper word. With verbal bases infinitives are rare:misstrauen > misstrauisch.The extension with -eroccursmore frequently although there may be no respective-er-noun: regn-er-isch.There seems to be no formation with native adjective bases. Fleischer/Barz only mentionslink > linkisch(cf. Fleischer/Barz 1992: 260). The amount of foreign adjective bases is also limited:binär > binärisch, antik > antikisch.Apart from creative formations in literature adverbs are not used as bases.

There are some adjectives which are clearly derived from formerly existing words. The isolated base cannot be understood any more. Since such -isch-derivations are not analysable to the current speaker their meaning has to be learned and stored in the mental lexicon. This is the case for words likestörrisch, läppisch, schnippisch(cf. Fleischer/Barz 1992: 259) where the bases are remnants of formerly existing words .

One of the main functions of the suffix -isch is obviously to derive adjectives from foreign nouns by adapting them to the German language system.-ischmethodically substitutes Latin -icus, French- iqueand Greek -ikós (cf. Erben 1975: 102).