LEXICALIZATION AND INSTITUTIONALIZATION
Traditional studies of WF, including Marchand’s, were almost exclusively concerned with ESTABLISHED complex lexemes recorded in dictionaries. So- called ad hoc formations or nonce formations were excluded. In recent years, perhaps beginning with an article of Pamela Downing, non-established complex lexemes, their function, the actual process of coining came into focus. The interpretation of such innovations heavily depends on the context in which they occur, and are therefore called contextuals by Clark & Clark. Nonce formation is by L. Bauer conceived as the first stage in the “life” of complex words. In his approach nonce formations are regular coinages that are generated on the basis of productive WF Rules. As soon as a nonce-formation is accepted by a speech community (which may be a group of native speakers people of various size), it becomes institutionalized, i.e., it becomes an established word of a language. The last stage which is in no way obligatory for complex words is the process of lexicalization, that is to say, the loss of formal or semantic ties with the motivating constituents.
KASTOVSKY’S APPROACH K. defines L as follows: The incorporation of a WF syntagma in the lexicon with semantic a/or formal properties, which do not completely derivable or predictable from its constituents or a WF rule. For K., demotivation and idiomatization are symptoms or aspects of Lexicalization. Kastovsky distinguishes between IDIOSYNCRATIC and SYSTEMATIC LEXICALIZATION. Slight semantic changes, such as the addition of a semantic feature like HABITUALLY and PROFESSIONALLY to Agent nouns like smoker, baker, teacher, driver , or the feature PURPOSE in drawbrisge, chewing gum represent instances of SYSTEMATIC LEXICALIZATION. Systematic LEXICALIZATION thus emphasizes the regularity of WF rukles
Bauer extensively discusses Lexicalization in his Word-formation in English (1983). His approach is different from that of Kastovsky in two respects. 1. The definition of lexicalization as the third stage of the development of a morphologically complex word 2. Stress on the deviation from the regular WF rules.
Thus warmth is an instance of L, because the –th derivation has ceased to be a productive WF rule. Bauer maintains that while warmth is analysable, it is lexicalised. The same holds for involvement because -ment does not seem to be a productive suffix any more.
Bauer distinguishes three stages in the development of a lexeme the first being NONCE–FORMATION . Traditional studies of WF, including Marchand’s, were almost exclusively concerned with ESTABLISHED complex lexemes recorded in dictionaries. So-called ad hoc formations or nonce formations were excluded. In recent years, perhaps beginning with an article of Pamela Downing, non-established complex lexemes, their function, the actual process of coining came into focus. The interpretation of such innovations ususally depends on the context in which they occur, and are therefore called contextuals by Clark & Clark. In Bauer’s approach nonce formations are regular coinages that are generated on the basis of productive WF Rules. A special subcategory of nonce-formations is represented by DEICTIC COMPOUNDS which instead of generalizing refer to a very specific, concrete situation, illustrated by applejuice seat referring to ‘the seat in front of which a glass of applejuice had been placed’. Another example is pumpkin bus which is institutionalised within the community of linguists, but although it clearly does not constitute a nameworthy new category.
As soon as a nonce-formation is accepted by a speech community (which may be a group of native speakers people of various size), it becomes INSTITUTIONALIZED , i.e., it becomes an established word of a language. Institutionalized lexemes are transparent and belong to the norm of the language. Institutionalization is conditioned by EXTRA-LINGUISTIC FACTORS, especially the naming demand, the need of a speech community to use a word for a particular object. DOWNING calls it NAMEWORTHINESS. Thus snowman is not nameworthy in African speech communities, just like non- Catholic Japanese or Chines will not need a name for Ash Wednesday . With teetotaller (not related to tea but derived by reduplication of total ) and fundamentalist Arab communities, words like beer-glass , wine-glass are not very much noteworthy. In the latter speech-communiters, words like feminist, male chauvinist , etc. are not welcome.
The last stage which is in no way obligatory for complex words is the process of LEXICALIZATION, that is to say, the loss of formal or semantic ties with the motivating constituents. Other terms used with a similar meaning is PETRIFICATION and FOSSILIZATION. He distinguishes 5 types (1. phonological: (a) stress pattern [‘Arabic], (b) phonetic changes [husband]; 2. Morpohlogical [eatable/edible, warmth, tuppence]; 3. Semantic [playboy, understand, mincemeat, Schreibfeder]; 4. Syntactic [pickpocket; believe-disbelieve], 5. Mixed [length, gospel].
LIPKA One of those linguists who have most significantly contributed to the theory of lexicalization is Leonhard Lipka. He defines LEXICALIZATION as the phenomenon that a complex lexeme once coined tends to become a single complete lexical unit, a simple lexeme. Through this process it loses the character of a syntagma to a greater or lesser degree. It follows that LEXICALIZATION is a diachronic process, which, however, leaves its traces on the synchronic status of lexemes.
The process of is connected with changes in form and/or content and leads to the loss – to a greater or lesser degree – of its motivation as consisting of parts or being derived from other words of a language. The result of this basically historical or diachronic process is that type-familiarity is replaced by ITEM- FAMILIARITY . Semantic changes are also labelled as IDIOMATIZATION, and may be explained as addition or loss of semantic features. Synchronically lexicalization is manifested in various degree of idiomaticity , it has a SCALAR character. At one end of the scale, items only show small phonological and/or semantic as in postman, writer, gambler, sleepwalker [HABITUALLY, PROFESSIONALLY] At the other end, the combination of several aspects may produce considerable graphemic, phonological, or semantic deviation as in fo’c’sle standing for forecastle, cupboard, holiday.
Lipka specifies high frequency of use to be an essential condition for the process of lexicalization.
He refers to three sub-types of lexicalization: 1. NON-MORPHEMIC AND SUBMORPHEMIC CONSTITUENTS, AND SO-CALLED REDUCTIVE WF: CLIPPING, BLENDS Submorphemic : Example: U-turn where the first constituent is iconic , i.e., motivated by the shape of the letter, and it combines with full morpheme. Acronyms are usually opaque with regard to the internal morpholoigical structure. If they are read as a single word ( radar – radio direction finding and ranging; laser – light amplification through stimulated emission of radiation) instead of being spelled by letters, this furthers the unification process and underlines the loss of motivation.
Examples of Demotivation and Idiomatization Due to (a) linguistic, or (b) extra-linguistic changes, or (c) both of them. Graphemic changes: fo’c’sle for forecastle, bo’s’n and bousun for boatswain (lo ďmajster) tuppence for twopence Phonological changes: Reduction of a vowel: Monday, postman Considerable changes: breakfast, prayer [pre ∂], Wednesday, waistcoat Semantic changes: Addition of Semantic Features, such as [PROFESSIONAL], [HABITUAL]: sleepwalker, gambler, writer Loss of SF” ladykiller, saddler (who makes other leather articles as well) Combination: callboy (a boy who calls actors onto the stage), callgirl (a girl which is called by men on the phone asking for paid sex), pushchair , wheelchair , streetwalker (š ľapka).
2. SEMANTIC TRANSFER, ESP. METAPHOR AND METONYMY backseat driver (a traveller in a car who continuously gives advice to the driver how to drive) bluebell redbreast (a bird) dogfight (battle of fighters – boj stihaciek) tick (klieš ť – metaforicky prenesené na človeka) domino effect requires specialized extralinguistic knowledge for its interpretation. Hardware, software, joystick, mouse
Demotivation due to the extralinguistic changes: Blackboard, shoemaker, watchmaker (rather than producing these items, they ‘only’ repair them) cupboard is neither a board nor for cups only to ship (can also mean to transfer goods by air)
3. LOAN PROCESSES FROM OTHER LANGUAGES Few Germans know that fesch (Slovak fešák ) is a loan from English fashionable . English stein [stain] (a special cup for beer) is a clipped loan from German Steingut . Similarly, the Russian perestrojka , German Gestapo are loans whose motivation in the borrowing language got completely lost.