English-Spanish Contrastive Analysis on Word-Formation Processes

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0

English-Spanish contrastive analysis on word-formation processes

María del Mar Moure Peña Universidad de Quintana Roo

Abstract Languages are in constant change and new words spring all the time, and even though not all of them stick, some come to be part of the language’s vocabulary as full-right members. What is aimed for is to contrast the mechanisms English and Spanish have for coining words that prior did not belong to the language, to describe and exemplify each of them and to determine the frequency and productivity they have in each language.

INTRODUCTION One intrinsic characteristic of living languages is that of changing; their speakers get rid of unnecessary or unfashionable elements and give way to new ones. Similarly, languages have the inner capacity –as proclaimed by language universals- of expanding themselves through a series of mechanisms in order to be more specific, to name new objects or ideas, to express a non-systemic meaning, to make distinctions in register and, sometimes, because it just happens to strike the fancy of a person or a group. This is true for syntax. To illustrate this point, Spanish speakers have come to place an attribute anteceding the subject as a resource for expressing irony, and thus ‘Pedro es un hombre menudo’ has a very different meaning from ‘menudo hombre es Pedro’ (Lorenzo, 1994: 346-347); for semantics, since the very same word may drastically change its meaning over time and so something that was ‘awful’ back in the 17th century was referred to as deserving of awe and it did not have the nowadays quite opposite meaning (Bryson, 1990: 70); for morphology, for users of a language may overlook certain established patterns or create new ones in order to express something different, for example, we can affix twice (or more) the same element and get away with a dissimilar meaning, like in ‘tatara tatara abuela’; for phonetics and intonation, as

©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected] 396

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0 seen in the change English speakers have made to the pronunciation of ‘asked’ by removing the /k/ phoneme; indisputably it is true for pragmatics and just as well for the lexicon of a language. In this paper, the attention will be focused on this latter element. What is aimed for is to contrast the mechanisms English and Spanish have for coining words that prior did not belong to the language, to describe and exemplify each of them and to determine the frequency and productivity they have in each language. The way in which I will proceed to do this is by consulting specialized books on linguistics for both languages, other books with a broader view on what concerns languages, dictionaries and webpages. Many examples have been taken from documentary sources and are duly quoted; those which are not have been taken from my own experience as a speaker of both languages and from what reasonable intuition I deem fitting. In a later section of the paper song lyrics -both in English and Spanish- are going to be used as a source for finding neologisms and corroborating (or not) the results of my documentary research. It is important to highlight that the intention is not that of being exhaustive, but rather use them as an excuse to discover some of the latest neologisms that have sprung up and are yet to be accepted formally by the authorities of the English and Spanish languages as full-right members of the language. It is my believe that this topic deserves the attention of our fellow soon-to-be teachers of EFL in particular because want it or not we live on the realm of interlanguage, and knowing the word-formation processes and other particularities exposed in this paper will probably clarify some of our doubts and help us identify what belongs to each language separately from what belongs solely to Spanglish (there goes a portmanteau). In addition to this, the research may very well be worthy of the attention of linguists in general since despite the copious literature on English and Spanish coinage there is very little work done in comparing them.

©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected] 397

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0 ENGLISH AND SPANISH MECHANISMS FOR WORD COINAGE Before going straight to the point at hand, I would like to clarify the meaning of some terms that will be repeatedly used throughout the paper and whose understanding is essential for the overall comprehension of the topic. The online version of the Diccionario de la Real Lengua Española has defined neologism as a “vocablo, acepción o giro nuevo en una lengua”, whereas the online Oxford dictionary defines it in a narrower sense as “a newly coined word or expression”. Interestingly enough, I have found that many scholars in both languages use the term neologism not only for recently acquired words but also for well-established words that come from a different origin (see Lorenzo, 1994 and Bryson, 1990). From the same sources I have taken that in Spanish ‘acuñar’ in the sense that interests us is defined as “dar forma a expresiones o conceptos, especialmente cuando logran difusión o permanencia. Acuñar una palabra, un lema, una máxima” and in English to coin is “to invent a new word or phrase”, regardless of whether it sticks or not in the language. The corresponding nouns for these verbs are ‘coinage’ and ‘acuñación’, which came as a surprise to me because even though I am a Spanish native speaker I would have said ‘acuñamiento’ instead of ‘acuñación’. This error of mine is, as a matter of fact, a relatively prolific way of coming up with new words that we will later see. Now, Bryson (1990: 64) has identified six ways in which a language creates new words, namely: by adding to them, by subtracting from them, by making them up, by doing nothing to them, by borrowing from other languages and by mistake. For our purposes here the mechanism of doing nothing to them will be left out for in any case it belongs to historical semantics, so we will be accepting the English definition of neologisms that does not take into account the creation of a new sense to an existent word. Just as well, I will add up one more group to Bryson’s classification: by combining them. In order to take this to more familiar grounds, we can subdivide these general categories: when we talk about adding up to existent words we are referring to derivation and compounding, which, in fact, are the two more productive ways of creating new words in Spanish and English respectively. The

©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected] 398

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0 specific mechanisms associated with subtracting from the words are clipping, and then we have borrowings, mistakes (backformation or misspelling), and combining them, which can be subdivided into acronyms and blending (or portmanteaus).

Derivation Languages can get really specific sometimes, creating words with really complex meanings such as ‘arachibutyrophobia’ meaning “to have a morbid fear of peanut butter sticking to the roof of your mouth” (Bryson, 1990: 60) or the still unaccepted ‘des-desintoxicar’ (Lorenzo, 1994: 220). The author does not give us a context in which this word can be used but I figure that a suitable meaning would be that of city person intoxicated with the noise and smog going to the countryside to get clean from them and afterwards having to go back to the polluted city. If this meaning sticks, we can later on derive the adjective ‘des-desintoxicado’ for the person who returns to the city after being in the countryside and the noun ‘des- desintoxicación’ to name the process. The specific meanings of these two words have changed from their roots by a process of affixation, which not only changes the original sense but can also change their grammatical category. Fromkin, Rodman and Hyams (2003: 83) explain derivational morphology as the process of derivational morphemes being “added to a root morpheme or stem”. Each speaker of a language has a mental stock of affixes and the ways they are used. In Spanish we would not use the English prefix un- to denote ‘not’ but we would rather use in- (or its allomorphs ir- and i-), as in shown in the pair ‘unnecessary/innecesario’. Likewise, all speakers of Spanish know that we can add the suffix –mente to an adjective and thus form and adverb as in ‘rápidamente’ (even if they are clueless of what adjectives or adverbs are) and not to nouns like in ‘ranamente’. If a person were determined to express the meaning of doing something like a frog, he or she would probably come up with something like the adjective ‘ranesco’ which in turn can be made an adverb in ‘ranescamente’. This word does not exist (yet) but is possible accordingly with Spanish rules for deriving and would be understood by the rest of the speakers. Similarly, English speakers might want to have one word for saying that someone is an only child without

©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected] 399

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0 actually saying that phrase; according to English rules, a possible solution for the problem would be the creation of the word ‘siblingless’ and for the general condition the word ‘siblinglesshood’ or ‘siblinglessness’. They know, in turn that they cannot say ‘dreamish’ to mean that they were sort of dreaming, since the suffix –ish is attached to either nouns or adjectives, but not to verbs. Usually, when people borrow or calque a derived word from another language that word is going to be adapted to have their own affixes, for instance, the Spanish equivalent to the French word ‘mécontentement’ is ‘descontento’ not ‘mecontentamiento’, because the prefix mé- has no meaning in Spanish and saying ‘descontentamiento’, although possible, still sounds too forced when we already have the noun ‘contento’. I cannot be sure which word came from what language but, either way, what is certain is that there was a change in the affixes used. However, this general principle is being confronted with a tendency in Spanish to import and use freely foreign affixes, as noted by Lorenzo (1994). Why do we have to say in Spanish that oil is a ‘recurso no renovable’ (non-renewable resource) when we could have said ‘desrenovable’, ‘irrenovable’ or even ‘arenovable’? The same happens with the suffix –landia, which comes directly from the English word ‘land’. It is still more interesting that in English, I believe, is used as a compound whereas in Spanish it was adapted as a suffix. This proves the reluctance of Spanish words to form compounds. The wide productivity of derivation as a process to create new words is proven by the fact that there are over 240 accepted Spanish words ending in –azo (Lorenzo, 1994: 217) which is not even the most prolific affix. In English occurs the same, as it can be inferred by the fact that it is has over one hundred common prefixes and suffixes (Bryson, 1990: 74). Virtually any content word (noun, verb and adjective) is susceptible of being derived, so the possibilities are limitless. In Spanish it goes even further and in some dialects people even derive prepositions and adverbs, for example, ‘encimar’ is a verb derived from the preposition ‘encima’ and it is quite used in Mexican dialect.

©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected] 400

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0 Compounding Contrary to derivation that is a highly prolific mechanism for the creation of new words in both languages, compounding is extremely used in English (most content words have the inner ability to be compounded) but much less frequent in Spanish. The process in English entails no further complication that deciding whether use a hyphen, a space or nothing, because the words are added up without undergoing any changes. Of course there is logic to this; nouns can be compound with other nouns (goldfish), with verbs (skateboard), with adjectives (greenhouse), adverbs (nowadays) and even sometimes with prepositions (upstairs), as well as the combination of the other components. Nonetheless, we cannot put them in whatever order we want and expect to convey the meaning we intended; as a general rule the last word is the headword and so we translate ‘cornfield’ as ‘campo de maíz’ and not as ‘maíz de campo’. Although, as Bryson (1990: 76) points out, English does have “…the nifty refinement of making the elements reversible, so that we can distinguish between a houseboat and a boathouse, between basketwork and a workbasket, between a casebook and a bookcase”.

Furthermore, English can also compound phrases like ‘mother-in-law’. I have also read English native speakers hyphenating phrases that connote irony such as ‘a-not-so-very-brilliant-day’ to make it look like one word, and they also use hyphens for phrases borrowed from other languages such as ‘tête-à-tête’. Carstairs-McCarthy (6) also considers phrases with noun adjuncts such as ‘an American History teacher’ to be compounded. In Spanish we can also compound words of the same or different categories, although there are a lot more constrains than in English, and, in general, when in English they use compounds Spanish speakers opt either for a phrase (‘chivo expiatorio’ for ‘scapegoat’) or a derived word (‘ganadero’ for ‘cattleman’). Many compound words in Spanish suffer some alteration of the original spelling, reason why Spanish compounding is not merely juxtaposing word A to word B. Examples of compound words in Spanish are ‘sacapuntas’, ‘saltibanqui’, ‘montacargas’, ‘pelirrojo’, ‘destapacorchos’, ‘subibaja’.

©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected] 401

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0 Clipping Clipping or abbreviation is a quite handy resource that comes from deleting part (usually the last bit, though not always) of a word. I reckon that clipping is far more common than what dictionaries lead us to believe, since it is usually done while speaking and dictionary word researches need abundant written evidence so that they can be included as separate words. Nevertheless, many clipped words have stuck and are already part of the lexicon such as gym, exam, lab (Bryson, 1990: 76), info, bro, cab (from cabriolet), maths, etc. In Spanish we have tele, radio, foto, refri (or frigo in Spain), uni (for university), lic, profe, biblio (for ‘biblioteca’), cine, porfa, etc. Most of the times these words do not change the original meaning of the word, although sometimes the new word has come to mean something different, for example ‘cab’ which is synonym to taxi and ‘cabriolet’ that is a brand of cars. In both languages there is a tendency to clip proper names, to illustrate: Ben for Benjamin, Will for William, Sam for either Samuel or Samantha, Matt for Matthew, and in Spanish Bere for Berenice, Lupe for Guadalupe, Marijo for María José (here we have also a case of blending), Beto for Roberto or Alberto, Neto for Ernesto, etc.

Borrowings Languages that are in contact tend to adopt terms they lack from each other. According to Bryson (1990: 68) at least half of English common words come from non-Anglo-Saxon stock. This is a massive amount if we consider that English total number of words in use collected by the 2nd edition of the Oxford dictionary amounts to 301, 300 main entries and that number is constantly outdated by the language itself. Examples of borrowed words are ‘ranch’ and ‘rancher’ (slightly changed from the Spanish word ‘rancho’), kindergarten from German, pizza from Italian, shampoo from and Indian language, rendezvous from French and so on. Spanish also has a great number of originally foreign words and although I could not find which percentage, Álex Grijelmo (2006) and Mario León (2000) think they are already too many.

©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected] 402

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0 Even though Spanish tends to make more changes to borrowed words to make them fit into the Spanish system than English, I have found from the literature consulted that still English is more receptive to borrowings and in general praises itself for this ability whereas Spanish authorities tend to be very reticent to accept recent words with foreign origins. This overprotection of the language purity has taken us to the point where the term Gallicism or Anglicism connote a pejorative sense. What is even more, Spanish makes a distinction between neologisms that are needed because we lacked the concept and those that are superfluous (Moreno de Alba, 2003: 560, 586), category that is full of examples from borrowing. However, regardless of the reserve of some Spanish purists, the community of speakers embraces wave after wave of such words. Nowadays the language from which we borrow the most is indisputably English and this is especially true for Mexico both for its geographical and cultural proximity. Common youth talk includes expressions such as ‘cool’ or ‘in’, ‘bye’, ‘Ok’, ‘me llamas al phone’, ‘ parkea el coche’, ‘pushea el botón’, ‘conectate al chat, cliqueas el link de la izquierda y ahí posteas el mensaje’ and a long etcetera. Moreno de Alba (2003) states that most verbs borrowed from other languages are adapted to fit the 1° group (ending with –ar, -ear), some are included in the 2nd (ending with –er) and only a few join the 3rd group (termination –ir).

Backformation Backformation has been over the centuries the word-formation process that language purists have fought the most. The online Oxford dictionary defines backformation as “a word that is formed from what appears to be its derivative (e.g. edit from editor)”. Evidently, this process relies on the speakers’ internalization of the language system. Aware or not, we see patterns in language, that is why we can give a good guess at a word we have not seen before, let’s say ‘manliness’, if we understand the root and know what the suffixes –ly and –ness are for. However, sometimes words resemble a pattern while they actually are exceptions to it; people then generalize the rule and make up a logical word out of it. Of

©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected] 403

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0 course, this means that initially words created by backformation started as mistakes which explains the reluctance of grammarians and lexicographers to welcome them into the vocabulary. To illustrate this point, here I quote an example from Bill Bryson (1990: 65): “The words grovel and sidle similarly came into English because the original adjectives, grovelling and sideling, were assumed to contain the participles – ing, as in walking and seeing. In fact, it was the suffix –ling, but this did not stop people from adding a pair of useful verbs to the language”.

Some other famous cases of backformation that caused purists opprobrium and that now seem invaluably helpful to us are ‘edit’ (from editor), ‘enthuse’ (from enthusiasm) and ‘donate’ (from donation), ‘greed’ (from greedy), ‘beg’ (from beggar) and ‘difficult’ (from difficulty). I could not find much information specifically on Spanish cases of backformation so here is when the reasonable intuitions I mentioned at the beginning come into play. One paradigmatic example is the word ‘influenciar’ derived from ‘influencia’ which in turn came from ‘influir’, resulting in the duplication of a verb with the same meanings. From this I can infer that something similar must have happened with the synonyms ‘usar’ and ‘utilizar’; probably ‘usar’ was the original term and then we derived ‘útil’ from which ‘utilizar’ was nothing but the logical step to take. I would not dare saying that some other verbs that are repeated in Spanish such as ‘desertificar’ and ‘desertizar’, ‘concientizar’ and ‘concienzar’, ‘optimizar’ and ‘optimar’, come from backformation but more likely have been borrowed back into the language from another one with some distinctive changes. Due to the lack of information on this topic in particular and because in English I have seen pretty much the same examples in different literature, I must assume that backformation is not a very productive process for coinage. I believe this must owe to social factors; since backformation is perceived as a mistake people who use words derived from it might be constantly corrected or stigmatized, causing the gradual disappearance of the term or else only a dialectal use.

©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected] 404

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0 Acronyms The online Oxford definition for acronym is “a word formed from the initial letters of other words (e.g. laser, Aids)”. The DRAE version, however, distinguishes two meanings: “1. m. Tipo de sigla que se pronuncia como una palabra; p. ej., o(bjeto) v(olante) n(o) i(dentificado). 2. m. Vocablo formado por la unión de elementos de dos o más palabras, constituido por el principio de la primera y el final de la última, p. ej., ofi(cina infor)mática, o, frecuentemente, por otras combinaciones, p. ej., so(und) n(avigation) a(nd) r(anging), Ban(co) es(pañol) (de) (crédi)to.”

The sense given to the second meaning is what we call blending. In spite of the fact that the English entry makes no allusion to the pronunciation of acronyms, it is also possible to read them out if the resulting word compels to English phonetic system. So UFO, radar (not longer capitalized) and AIDS are pronounce like they would pronounce any other word and UNDP, OAS, UCLA, etc. are spelt out. The same applies for Spanish although we prefer to read them out so many organizations manipulate their names to be suitable for pronouncing, like MERCOSUR (Mercado Común del Sur). The common thing is that neither prepositions nor connectors are taken into account to figure in the acronym but sometimes this is overseen in favor of a smoother pronunciation like in the acronym SEyC (Secretaría de Educación y Cultura). Usually, technical terms and organization names are put into an acronym (this works for both languages), but common phrases can also follow this pattern, for example ‘asap’ (as soon as possible), R.I.P. (rest in peace), btw (by the way), omg (oh my god), lol (laughs out loud) and so on. The latter two may be well in their way to become standard words. In Spanish we can also make an acronym out of a common phrase, for instance Q.D.T.B. (que Dios te Bendiga), although it is rather rare. In general English speakers seem keener on creating acronyms than Spanish speakers. The possibilities for acronyms are limitless in both languages; it depends only in the need for them and the general acceptance of its use.

©Universidad de Quintana Roo – Departamento de Lengua y Educación http://fel.uqroo.mx - [email protected] 405

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0 Blending Also called portmanteaus; a blend results from combining two words, usually the beginning of one and the ending of the other although this may vary. From what I have noticed this is a very popular process for brands and advertising, as well as when the intention is satirical or comical, but recently they have being used more and more in technical papers or by some witty journalists. Some well-known blends in English are ‘smog’ (smoke + fog), ‘glocal’ (global + local), ‘Spanglish’ (Spanish + English), ‘knankles’ (knees + ankles), ‘replubicrat’ (republican + democrat, from Oxford online), etc. In Spanish we have ‘Tex-Mex’ (Texas + México), ‘Portuñol’ (portugués + español), PRIAN (combination of the acronyms PRI + PAN), ‘reflación’ (recesión + inflación, which is in turn a calque from English ‘stagflation’), ‘magitel’ (mágica + tela), etc. The nature of the process of blending is quite open-ended; nonetheless, the permanence of the created words depends first on people’s creativity on whether others like it and use it or not. I believe there are much more blends than what written information can gives us, especially in slang

NEOLOGISMS IN SONG LYRICS Music is a good way for words to reach people. If you come up with a word and use it in a song that turns up to be a hit it is very likely that that word will end up being part of the language. This is the reason why I have chosen to look into song lyrics and not something else. The way in which I have done it is browsing the Internet for lyrics with funny- looking words, checking in the Oxford online dictionary and the Spanish DRAE online - since they are constantly updated- whether they have been accepted or not, and then trying to come to some conclusions on their use and their relation with what I found out in theory. Borrowings are not taken into account for it is only too common to mix languages in songs.

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0 Crunk The word ‘crunk’, a blend standing for ‘crazy drunk’, was first introduced by musician Lil Jon in his album Get crunk, who u wit in 1997. The term was so successful that it has inspired the name of a music genre that combines electro and hip-hop and the Oxford dictionary has already accepted it to form part of the next edition.

Ñero Ñero (clipping of ‘compañero’) is a popular slang word in the central part of Mexico. It was spread to other parts of Mexico and abroad thanks to the son ‘ñero’ by Molotov (1999). As it was a term used mainly in low social classes it has also come to be a pejorative way to call its users.

Picker The English band Artic Monkeys (2007) released the song (and instant hit) ‘Teddy picker’ referring to a game. Even though to derive ‘picker’ from the verb ‘pick’ seems like a quite acceptable thing to do, the Oxford dictionary still does not recognize the validity of that word.

Corazonado Ricky Martin (1998) released the single ‘corazonado’, which is a very creative derivation. To me it seems to be backformation, because we have the term ‘descorazonado’ (still not recognized by the DRAE for being a calque of English ‘heartless) which evidently means to be cruel. However, there is no evident meaning to ‘corazonado’ except what we can infer from the antonym of ‘descorazonado’ which would be something like compassionate.

Frengers The word ‘frengers’ is a portmanteau of ‘friends + strangers’ popularized by the rock band Mew (2003) in the album carrying the same name.

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0 Even though the examples that I show you here are very scarce, there is a vast number of coined words in songs, which I don’t have the time or analytical means to further analyze. Nevertheless, what I have found more in songs -besides borrowings and compounds (in English) that are only too common- are blends and derivation, both aiming at giving an attractive twist to a word. So creativeness is a premise for neologisms in songs.

CONCLUSION As Grijelmo (2006: 301) says “una lengua que nunca cambiara sólo podría hablarse en un cementerio”. Languages are constantly changing and in order to expand they have a series of word-formation processes. In English and Spanish we have corresponding coinage mechanisms, although they vary in frequency and productivity. These processes are derivation, compounding, clipping, borrowing, backformation, acronyms and blending. Derivation and borrowing are highly prolific mechanisms in both languages; compounding is very much used in English but not so common in Spanish; the rest are less prolific and more or less equally frequent in both languages. From the literature revised, I can conclude that Spanish is more reticent to neologisms, particularly those who have entered the language from foreign words. English, on the other hand, on the overall praises itself for being so receptive and having such a wide lexicon. The particular status of English nowadays gives it much more freedom. As music, science, politics and other fields are predominantly monopolized by the English speaking world other languages feel defensive for such a heavy load of terms that can be barely assimilated by the language and so there is a tendency for acquiring needless words and expressions in detriment for their mother tongue. Talking about the reason behind word-formation and especially about the use and frequency of certain mechanisms says a lot of the culture, and even though it is not my intention to go any further in this essay, it is important to highlight the social, political and cultural factors that influence the change in word coinage over time. But that is material for another study.

MEMORIAS DEL VI FORO DE ESTUDIOS EN LENGUAS INTERNACIONAL (FEL 2010) ISBN: 978-607-9015-22-0 Referencias Artic Monkeys. (2007). Album: Favourite worst nightmare. Retrieved from: http://www.arctic- monkeys.com/discography/ on May 11th 2010. Bryson, B. (1990). Mother tongue: the English language. Penguin books: England. Carstairs-McCarthy. Phrases inside compounds: a puzzle for lexicon-free morphology. Retrieved from http://www.pulib.sk/skase/Volumes/JTL04/03.pdf on May 13th 2010 on May 13th 2010. Fromking, V., Rodman., and Hyams, N. (2003). An introduction to language. Thomson. Grijelmo, A. (2006). Defensa apasionada del idioma español. Santillana: Spain. León, M. (2000). Manuel de traducción e interpretación. Luna publicaciones: Madrid. Lil Jon. (1997). Album: Get crunk, who u wit: da album. Retrieved from: http://www.starpulse.com/Music/Lil_Jon/Discography/ on May 11th 2010. Lorenzo, E. (1994). El español de hoy: lengua en ebullición. Editorial Gredos: Madrid. Mew. (2003). Album: Frengers. Retrieved from: http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/Mew/a/albums.htm on May 14th 2010. Molotov. (1999). Album: Apocalipshit. Retrieved from: http://babox.altervista.org/molotov/discografia.htm on May 11th 2010. Moreno de Alba, J. G. (2203). Suma de minucias del lenguaje. Fondo de Cultura Económica: México. Ricky Martin. (1998). Album: Vuelve. Retrieved from: http://rickymartin.publispain.com/discografia.htm on May 14th 2010.

Biodata

María del Mar Moure Peña is currently an undergraduate student of the majors of English Language and International Relations at the University of Quintana Roo. Contact: [email protected]