Leksički sloj imeničkih složenica tipa imenica + imenica u savremenom engleskom jeziku

Abstract

U teoriji leksičke fonologije i morfologije, fonološka i morfološka pravila se dodeljuju odvojenim slojevima leksikona za koje se pretpostavlja da definišu njihov domen i način primene. Tako Kiparsky (1982) predlaže razlikovanje sledeća tri leksička sloja u engleskom jeziku: (1) 1. sloj : afiksi 1. reda i neregularna fleksija 2. sloj: afiksi 2. reda i slaganje 3. sloj: pravilna fleksija U ovoj disertaciji se razmatraju neki opšti problemi teorije o uređenju leksičkih slojeva i posebno problemi vezani za mesto složenica tipa imenica + imenica u hijerarhiji leksičkih slojeva. Tako npr. bilo je rano primećeno da u nekim primerima kao što su ungrammaticality, analyzability, standardization afiksi 1. reda mogu da slede afikse 2. reda (Selkirk 1982, Straus 1982). Primeri toga tipa su nazvani ‘paradoksi zagrađivanja’ i bili su dugo predmet diskusije i sporenja. Neki drugi problemi se odnose na mesto koje pripada slaganju u hijerarhiji (1). Takođe je rano primećeno da pravilna fleksija može u nekim slučajevima da učestvuje u gradnji složenica u engleskom jeziku, a to protivureči leksičkom uređenju (1) prema kojem pravilna fleksija pripada 3. leksičkom sloju, a slaganje 2. leksičkom sloju. Dalje su uočeni primeri da se u nekim složenicama u prvoj komponenti mogu javljati fraze - sintagme, što predstavlja ‘prodor’ sintakse u tvorbu reči. Na osnovu ovakvih pojava, neki lingvisti su čak tvrdili da se tvorba reči može shvatiti kao produženje sintakse, tj. da u tvorbi reči važe isti bazični principi kao u sintaksi (Lieber 1992). Svi ovi primeri narušavaju hijerarhiju leksičkih slojeva (1). Javljanje množinskih oblika reči na -s u prvoj komponenti složenica je upravo podstaklo neke lingviste da predlože postojanje samo 2 leksička sloja, tj. da spoje 2. leksički sloj, kojem pripadaju složenice, s 3. leksičkim slojem u kojem je pravilna fleksija. Tako Katamba i Stoneham (2006) smatraju da je dovoljno pretpostaviti postojanje samo dva leksička sloja. Prema Katambi i Stonehamu prvom leksičkom ...

In the theory of lexical phonology and morphology, phonological and morphological rules are assigned to separate levels of the lexicon which are supposed to define their domain and manner of application. Thus Kiparsky (1982) has proposed the following three lexical levels in English: (1) Level 1: the first order affixes and irregular inflection Level 2: the second order affixes and compounding Level 3: regular inflection In this dissertation I discuss some general problems with the theory of level ordering, particularly the problems associated with the location of compounding in the hierarchy (1). It has long been noted that in examples like ungrammaticality and standardization the first order affixes can follow the second order affixes (Selkirk 1982, Straus 1982). Examples of this type have been named ‘bracketing paradoxes’ and have been the object of discussion and controversy for many years. Some other problems are connected with the location of compounding in the hierarchy (1). It has been noticed that, in some cases, regular inflection can take part in the formation of compounds which violates hierarchy (1), where it has been assumed that regular inflection is located on the third lexical level, and compounding on the second lexical level. Further, it has also been noticed that the examples of compounds with phrasal first components present an ‘intrusion’ of syntax into word-formation. On the bases of such examples some linguists have claimed that word-formation is just an extension of syntax, i.e. that the same basic principles equally hold in word-formation as in syntax (Lieber 1992). All these counterexamples violate the level ordering in (1). The occurence of plural forms in -s in the first components of nominal compounds has prompted some linguists to propose the existence of only two lexical levels, i. e. to combine the second lexical level to the third lexical level. Thus, for example, Katamba and Stoneham (2006) claim that it is sufficient to assume the existence of only two lexical levels. According to their interpretation, irregular ...