Word formation rules

A very important means of word formation involves building up complex words

from base morphemes and affixes. As an illustration , consider what are called
agentive nouns , formed by adding the suffix er to
(2)
erb agentive noun ( v! er)
(to) write writer
(to) "ill "iller
(to) play player
(to) win winner
(to) run runner
#he derived noun form means rougly $one who does % ,& or $ an instrument that does
% , $ where % is the meaning of the verb . suppose that new verb enters the english
language , such as the ver to %erox . native spea"ers of 'nglish automatically "now
that this verb can be converted into an agentive noun , xeroxer . this word would be
perfectly natural in a sentence such as if you want to get that copied , youll have to
see john , because hes our xeroxer around here . hence , the processs of agentive
noun formation ( using the suffix(er) astablishes a relationsip between verbs and
nouns . the study of how affixes combine stems to derive new words is "nown as
derivational morphology , and affixes such as the er agentive suffix are "nown as
derivational affixes .
We will examine the general process of word formation by examining in cetail
one such process in 'nglish , namely , the word formation rule for the derivational
suffix(able . consider the following sets of words.
())
*ead readable
Wash washable
+rea" brea"able
,rin" drin"able
-ay payable
.n the left( hand column is a set of verbs / in the right(hand column those same
verbs have the derivational suffix( ale attached to them .
With other derivational suffixes the phonological change is not so trivial . for
example , when ion is added to verbs , it triggers sound(changes in the verb stem
itself
(0)
,ecide decision
*elate relation (ti pronounced as sh)
#he suffix( able introduces another obvious change when it is added to a
word . note than when able attaches to verbs , the resulting words are ad1ective (and
hence can modify nouns)
(2)
a. this a boo" is readable ( compare 3 this boo" is blue)
b . a readable boo" ( compare a blue boo"
the suffix able introduces a new element of meaning , rougly $ albe to be x4d,&
where % is the meaning of the verb . for example , brea"(able means rougly $able to
be bro"en ,& movable means $ ale to be moved,& and so on . thus , at least three
changes are associated with the suffix 3
(5)
a. a phonological change (sound change)
b. a category change ( part(of(speech change)
c. a semantic change (meaning change)
other facts reveal that there are certain restrictions on the use of able . for example, if
we wish to express the idea that man is mortal, we cannot say an is dieable . if a car is
able to go , we nevertheless cannot say that it is goable/ if 1ohn and mary able to cry ,
they are still not cryable . it is all to tempting to suppose that these cases are somehow
exceptions or that no rule governs the data in 6uestion . but if we compare the
columnd in (7) , a generali8ation emerges 3
(7)
erbs ta"ing able verbs not ta"ing able
*ead die
+rea" go
Wash cry
-ly sleep
9end rest
,ebate weep
:se sit
,rive run
;pray stand
#he verbs on the left are transitive(vthey occur with ob1ect noun phrases whereas
the verbs on the right are intransitive( they do not occur with ob1ects . for example 3
(<)
a. pat read the boo" ( read ! the boo" = transitive
verb ! ob1ect)
verb ob1ect
b. terry bro"e the dish

verb ob1ect
c. 1ohn washed his clothes

verb ob1ect
(>)
a. pat died . ( died = intransitive verb with no following ob1ect)
b. terry went .
c. 1ohn cried .
it seems to be the case that able attaches only to transitive verbs , not t to intransitive
verbs .
an interesting relation emerges between sentences with transitive verb and sentence
with corresponding able words . a comparison of the following examples will reveal
what is going on 3
(?@)
a. we can read these boo" ( these boo"s = ob1ect of the verb read)
b. these boo"s are readable ( these boo"s = sub1ect of are readable)
(??)
a. we can wash these clothes
b. these clothes are washable
(?2)
a. we can drive this car
b. this car is drivable
the relation that emerges is this 3 the sub1ect of each (b) sentence corresponds to the
ob1ect in the corresponding (a) sentence . in other words, the sub1ect of ! able is
always understood as the ob1ect ( that wich $undergoes& the action) of . for this
reason , if ( at a tennis match) we say "im isn4t beatable , we mean that no other
player can beat "im ("im is understood as the ob1ect of beat)/ we do not mean that
"im is unable to beat other players .
we can now state the able wor formation rule as follows3
(?))
a. phonological change3 when able is attached to a base , the pronounciation of the
ase is augmented by the phonetic se6uence (Abl .
b. category change 3 (able is attached to transitive verbs and converts them into
ad1ective
c. semantic change 3 if % is the meaning of the verb , then able adds the meaning
$able to be %4d $
in general , then, whenever we postulate a systematic morphological relation between
sets of words , we will describe (a) the systematic phonological changes , if any, (b)
the category changes , (c) the semantic changes , if any, that the characteri8e the
relationship.
-roblematic Aspects of 9orphological Analysis
productivity and Isolating the Base:
analy8e the morphology, the exceptions or apparent exceptions to many aspects of a
given analysis. Bor example, we have claimed that the suffix -able is attached only to
transitive verbs. Cet 'nglish does have a small set of nouns that seem to occur with
the same suffix -able:
(?0)
-eaceable actionable
companionable saleable
marriageable reasonable
impressionable fashionable
"nowledgeable
,oes this mean that word formation rule (?)) is wrongD #he answer seems to be no.
#he nouns listed in (?0) form a small, closed set, and as far as anyone can tell, few
words, if any, are entering 'nglish that consist of able attached to a noun. :sing more
technical terminology, we say that the attachment of -able to transitive verbs
is productiveEthat is, it happens 6uite freelyEbut its attachment to nouns is not
productive. Few (f able forms continually enter the language, but the nouns in (?0)
are now fixed, or dead, expressions that are learned by rote, not formed, or
analy8able, by a productive rule.
Another general problem we must be sensitive to is the possibility of false
analysis. Gonsider the following words3
(?2)
hospitable
si8eable
'ven though these words end in the phonetic se6uence obi, it is unli"ely that we
would want to analy8e this se6uence as the suffix -able. Bor one thing, able in these
words does not seem to have the meaning $to be able,& which is certainly a feature of
regular (productive) -able words. Bor another thing, the -able suffix can itself
regularly ta"e the suffix -ity to form a noun3
(?5)
readable readability
provable provability
brea"able brea"ability
+ut this is not possible with the words listed in (?2)3 hospitability and si- zeability are
not possible 'nglish words. We do not spea" of the hospitability of our host or the
si8eability of the crowd. .n two respects, then, able in the words of (?2) differs
significantly from the productive suffix -able, hence, it would seem to be a false
analysis to claim that the words of (?2) contain the productive suffix -able. #hese
words simply happen to end in a se6uence spelled -able, and they bear only an
accidental resemblance to words with the real suffix -able.
*eturning to the words in (?0), we might try to ma"e the case that these words end
accidentally in the phonetic se6uence obi and that it would be a false analysis to claim
that it is the -able suffix. Against this idea we note that some of the words do seem to
include the meaning $be able& (e.g., marriageable $eligible to marry&), and the -
ity noun form marriageability does seem possible (although some spea"ers of 'nglish
might well re1ect it). Hther words of (?0), however, are not so regular. .n any event, in
carrying out a morphological analysis we must always be careful to determine
whether the processes in 6uestion are productive and whether a certain analysis might
be a false analysis.
Glosely related to these issues is another classic problem of morphology, namely, the
Gase of a complex word with a recogni8able suffix or prefix, attached to a base that is
not an existing word of the language. Bor example, among the -able words are words
such as malleable and feasible. .n both cases the suffix -able (spelled ible in the
second case because of a different historical origin for the suffix) has the regular
meaning $be able,& and in both cases the -ity form is possible (malleability and feasi-
bility). We have no reason to suspcct that ubleible here is not the real suffix -
able. Cet if it is, then malleable must be bro"en down as malle !
able and feasible as feas!ible" but there are no existing words (free morphemes) in
'nglish such as malle or feas, or even malley or fease. We thus have to allow for the
existence of a complex word whose base exists only in that complex word (recall the
earlier discussion of the bound base cran-, which occurs only in cranberry and a few
other words).
#he problems discussed so far are problems in isolating the base of a complex word3
(?) sometimes the base (the form to which the affix is attached) comes from a closed
set of forms no longer productive as the base for the word formation rule/ (2)
sometimes one must be alert to the possibility of a completely false analysis of the
base/ and ()) sometimes the base may not be an existing word All of these problems
have to do with correctly analy8ing how the complex word is structured.