DALIUS JARMALAVIČIUS

Vilnius University

Research areas: synchronic and diachronic word formation, the historical morphology of Germanic languages, and word-formation studies of Baltic bilingual manuscript dictionaries.

ON THE TERMS USED IN WORD-FORMATION THEORY AND THE CLASSIFICATION OF WORD-FORMATION ELEMENTS

Regarding the Used Terminology and Classification of Formative Elements in the Theory of Word-Formation

ABSTRACT

The analysis of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century bilingual manuscript dictionaries of the Baltic languages encounters not only the problem of interpreting the word-formation types of German nominal compounds, but also that of their categorization. It is also striking that word-formation researchers’ views on words from earlier periods vary considerably; various terms are coined to explain more complex cases, thereby even making the analysis of diachronic phenomena more difficult. This article seeks to draw attention to current problematic aspects of the formation of nominal compounds, expresses a critical view of the appropriateness of the terms used, and discusses debatable word-formation types, illustrating all of this with empirical examples.

To highlight the problem, two types of words are examined: some are complex words with semantically unmotivated constituents, which cannot be regarded as compounds from a synchronic perspective; others occupy an intermediate position between compounds and derivatives because of the properties of their constituents.

KEYWORDS: word formation, nominal compounds, derivatives, unique morphemes, affixoids.

ANNOTATION

Analysis of bilingual manuscript dictionaries of the Baltic languages reveals a classification problem of some word-formation types of nominal compounds. The author also

Straipsniai / Articles

75

DALIUS JARMALAVIČIUS

addresses the problem of different terminology used to describe similar terms in synchronic word-formation theory, and different researchers’ positions on the issues of diachrony. Therefore, it is difficult to interpret the received results of the analysis and to determine which words should be analyzed as formations and which should remain outside the boundaries of derivational analysis.

This article provides comments and proposals for the specification of the terms and discusses the definition of different status of complex words. The problem is exemplified by choosing two types of complex words: the first type covers words with semantically demotivated constituents, which are synchronically not regarded as compounds, while the second type includes the words, which take an intermediate position between compounds and derivatives.

KEYWORDS: word-formation, nominal compounds, derivatives, pseudo-morphemes, affixes.

0. INTRODUCTION

The article discusses a problem relevant to researchers of both synchronic and diachronic word formation. When studying scholarly literature, one encounters, first of all, excessive terminology used to describe words of a certain type, which undoubtedly makes the work of a word-formation researcher more difficult. On the other hand, the lack of a more uniform definition of the phenomenon of derivation in the sources does not allow the results of research on German compounds to be interpreted reliably. There are cases in which it is not easy to decide whether a word can still be analyzed morphologically or should be regarded as a simple word. To bring the problem into focus, the article addresses two types of complex words: some whose components do not provide a sufficient semantic basis, and others containing elements that occupy an intermediate position in word formation between the components of compounds and word-formation formatives. In addressing the question of the morphological interpretation of words representing a complex structure, the aim is to refine the criteria that allow a more reliable assessment of which German nouns should be classified as compounds or derivatives, and which words should remain outside the scope of word-formation research. To achieve this aim, the following tasks are set:

1. To offer insights into the accuracy and appropriateness of the word-formation terminology used synonymously in scholarly literature;

2. To assess the validity of the classification of word-formation elements in words with a complex structure, giving greater attention to diachrony.

The article first discusses words with unique elements in particular, presenting the perspective of representatives of synchronic word formation on these words, whose structure is not sufficiently clear. Having reviewed the scholarly

76

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Dėl žodžių darybos teorijoje vartojamų terminų ir darbinių elementų klasifikacijos

literature’s rather diverse terminology for describing words of this structure, the article seeks to offer certain comments and proposals concerning the refinement of terms.

The next part of the article is devoted to interpreting derivatives containing elements¹, also called affixoids in word-formation studies, which occupy an intermediate position between the components of compounds and the derivational formatives of derived words. Examples are used to highlight the boundaries between synchrony and diachrony, that is, to specify when a word should still be regarded as a compound and when it is already a derivative.

The empirical material for the study consists of German words collected from the following seventeenth- and eighteenth-century dictionaries: Clavis Germanico – Lithvana (a handwritten seventeenth-century German–Lithuanian dictionary) (hereinafter Clavis), Lexicon Lithuanicum (a handwritten seventeenth-century German–Lithuanian dictionary) (hereinafter Lex), Nīcas un Bārtas mācītāja Jāna Langia 1685, gada latviski-vāciskā vārdnīca ar īsu latviešu gramatiku (a handwritten 1685 Latvian–German dictionary by Jānis Langijs) (hereinafter L), and Lexicon Germanico-Lithvanicum et Lithvanico-Germanicum (a handwritten seventeenth-century German–Lithuanian dictionary by Jokūbas Brodovskis) (hereinafter B).

1. COMPOUND OR SIMPLE WORD?

As Peter O. Müller notes, one of the processes occurring in the historical development of language is the formation of unique morphemes (pseudomorphemes) from words that once existed and had an independent meaning (Müller 1993: 412). Unique morphemes (German unikale Morpheme) are word constituents that do not exist as independent words and are not found in other formations, e.g.: L 22 Himbeeren [Himbeeren] ‘raspberry’ (the first constituent Him- is associated with the word hinta ‘hind’ used in Old High German + Beere ‘berry’), L 281 Maul=beeren [Maulbeeren] ‘mulberries’ (the constituent Maul- derives from Latin mōrum ‘mulberry’ + Beere ‘berry’), Lex 19a Bräutigam ‘bridegroom’ (Braut ‘bride’ + the constituent -gam, associated with Old High German gomo ‘man’; the compound itself meant ‘young man’), B 58 Birnstein [Bernstein] ‘amber’ (Birn- is probably a variant of the verb brennen ‘to burn, blaze’ + Stein ‘stone’). Dozens of words with similar constituents can be found in manuscript dictionaries from the 17th and 18th centuries (for further examples, see Jarmalavičius 2014: 48–49, 75–76, 114–115).

As noted, the term unique morphemes is most commonly used in German word-formation theory to refer to these isolated elements, although,

¹ Given the special structure of these words and the differing approaches to them from synchronic and diachronic perspectives, the author avoids using the term compounds in the introductory part of the article.

Straipsniai / Articles

77

DALIUS JARMALAVIČIUS

According to Elke Donalies, constituents can also be described in other ways: as blocked, quasi- or pseudo-forms, as well as pleremes² (Donalies 2005: 41). Taking into account the structural and semantic peculiarities of these words, Vincas Urbutis proposes the concept of alleged formations with a residual stem for such descriptions of “formations” in word-formation theory, noting that the latter have no clear structure and do not form new formations; therefore, words with these elements should remain outside the scope of word-formation research (Urbutis 2009: 143–144). P. O. Müller takes a similar position, arguing that elements occurring in individual words are relics of earlier periods of the language, whose lexical meaning has already faded and can be explained, at least in part, only etymologically; therefore, from the perspective of synchronic word formation, formations containing these morphemes are understood as simple words (Müller 1993: 412). Representatives of transformational grammar classify even a formation such as blackberry ‘blackberry’ among lexemes that are morphologically unanalyzable, because the semantic relationship between the word and its constituents is intangible. Thus, they argue, formations of this type belong to diachronic language theory rather than to the domain of synchronic word formation (cf. Benczes 2006: 22). It would seem too bold to classify German Himbeere, Maul=beeren, Bräutigam, Birnstein and Lithuanian words as simple words (simplicia). It is also possible to explain why the words in question should not be treated as simple words. For instance, the alleged determinative compounds German Fledermaus and Lithuanian šikšnosparnis are understood by native speakers today as ‘some kind of mouse or something with wings’. Thus, one may conclude that the uniqueness of the elements in these structures, their occurrence only in isolated examples, and the fact that their meaning can be explained only etymologically are essential features that distinguish them from other lexical units included in word-formation research.

However, facts from earlier periods of a language can also be analyzed synchronically, so researchers should bear in mind that a constituent of a formation may still exist as an independent word and thus be explicable both formally and semantically, e.g.: Lex 63a Nachtgal [Nachtigal] ‘nightingale’ (Lexer: the constituent gal in Middle High German meant ‘singing, song’, while the verb galen meant ‘to sing’) or L 264 Schorn=stein [Schornstein] ‘chimney’ (the DWB lists several words with the same root, though they are rarely used: the noun Schore(n),

² German reference works offer an even wider range of descriptions for these elements, e.g. Pseudo-plem, Himbeermorphem (Glück 2005: 707). English-language literature uses the following descriptions for words with constituents that are unmotivated in word formation: cranberry-words or cranberry-compounds (cf. Wälchli 2005: 100, 126, 147, 155), cranberry morphemes (Booij 2007: 30). Nevertheless, word-formation theory should avoid terms coined on the basis of a single unique element or word. Otherwise, each unique lexical unit could be defined in its own way, for example, German *Schornsteinmorphem, *Nachtgalmorphem or Lithuanian *šikšnosparnio, *titnago morpheme, and so on.

78

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Dėl žodžių darybos teorijoje vartojamų terminų ir darbinių elementų klasifikacijos

meaning ‘a steep cliff’, and the verb schoren meaning ‘to jut out, protrude’ + Stein ‘stone’, and so on.

Kai kurie mokslininkai, kaip antai Geertas Booij (2007: 30), darbiškai nemotyvuotiems žodžiams taip pat priskiria darinius su pirmuoju dėmeniu Stief- ir Schwieger-, pvz.: Stiefvater ‘patėvis, Stiefsohn ‘posūnis’, Schwiegereltern ‘uošviai’. Supatinti anksčiau minėtų tipų žodžius, regis, nėra visiškai tikslu. Reikėtų pastebėti, kad vokiečių kalbos elementus Stief-, Schwieger- ir Schwa- ger- tyrėjai yra linkę priskirti afiksoidams³ (Stepan 2009: 102), ir konfiksams (Fleischer, Barz 1995: 122), t. y. darybos formatams⁴. Pastaruosius struktūrinius elementus reikėtų aptarti plačiau, kad būtų išvengta terminų painiojimo. Konfiksai, kaip ir unikalios morfemos, kalbos istorinėje raidoje susiformavo iš kadaise savarankiškų leksemų, dar aptinkamų tik tam tikruose žodžiuose. Pagrindinis skirtumas tarp jų yra tas, kad konfiksas, nors ir nėra produktyvus žodžių darybos elementas, egzistuoja žodžių grupėse. Tuo tarpu unikalios morfemos, pvz.: Him-, Maul-, -gam, Bern- [Bern-], aptinkamos tik pavieniuose žodžiuose (Himbeere, Maulbeere, Bräutigam ir Bernstein). Su Stief- ar Schwieger- faktiškai įmanoma sudaryti naujadarų⁵, su unikalia elementu šis procesas neįmanomas. Taigi, nors unikaliesiems dvikamių žodžių elementams ir mini- niems konfiksams būdingas savarankiškos leksinės reikšmės pradimas, tačiau pastarieji, tiesa, nepasižymintys darbiniu produktyvumu, atlieka žodžių darybos formatų funkciją.

To sum up what has been said about two-member words that V. Urbutis and P. O. Müller exclude from the scope of word-formation research, their position should be endorsed. First of all, it must be remembered that a word classified as a formation must be motivated not only formally but also semantically, and its word-forming potential must be considered. With regard to compound words, it is important to note that the meanings of their individual constituents should not be too distant from the overall meaning of the formation. In the cases discussed, the connection between the constituents of two-member words has faded, and one of them is unmotivated in word formation; consequently, there is no point in treating them as something special and distinctive from the perspective of word formation, that is, duplicating work that properly belongs to etymologists. On the other hand, if these lexical units are viewed only formally, word-formation studies will not be able to free themselves from the domain of morphology, because, conversely, by focusing exclusively on

³ Classifying the German elements Stief- and Schwieger- as affixoids is not entirely correct, because affixoids are particularly productive from the perspective of word formation, whereas the initial constituents Stief- and Schwieger- occur only in a small group of words, that is, they are not productive.

⁴ This will be discussed in greater detail in the next section of this article.

⁵ German grammars cite the neologism Stieffamilie, recorded in the 1999 publication Woche (DUDEN 4 2005: 667).

Straipsniai / Articles

79

DALIUS JARMALAVIČIUS

When analyzing the structure of compounds, one risks becoming entangled in the excessive creation of terms used alongside one another to explain individual cases. This only makes the study of diachronic word formation more difficult.

Having reviewed the characteristics of compound words whose one constituent is not derivationally motivated, the term proposed by V. Urbutis, “pseudo-compounds with residual stems,” would seem the most suitable description. However, given that these lexical units do not belong to the field of word-formation research and, in particular, cannot be considered compounds, the most appropriate label would be “complex-structure words with a derivationally unmotivated stem” or “derivationally unmotivated complex-structure words.”

2. COMPOUND OR DERIVATIVE?

In word-formation theory, there is also extensive discussion of elements that occupy an intermediate position between the constituents of compounds and affixes, also called affixoids in the scholarly literature. Affixoids are word-formation elements that occupy an intermediate position between a word (lexeme) and a derivational affix. E. Donalies calls these elements young non-words (Ger. Nicht-mehr-Wort), but not yet affixes (Ger. Noch-nicht-Affix), and notes that the formation of affixes from independent words is a typical phenomenon in German. Damaries Nübling (2010: 73) also takes a similar position, namely that word-formation affixes develop from compound constituents over the course of language history. This phenomenon, however, is not unfamiliar in other languages either. V. Urbutis has described in detail the origin of the Latvian suffix -uzis, which has the abstract categorial meaning ‘the place where the thing denoted by the base word is found’, e.g. Latv. pelūzis ‘chaff store’, sierūzis ‘cheese store’ or vārūzis ‘gate with a roof above’ (Urbutis 1993: 84 ff.). The word-formation formant in question developed from a certain type of Middle Low German compound with the second constituent -hūs (Ger. Haus ‘house’), e.g. bakūs (Latv. bakūzis) ‘small oven, building with a bread-baking oven’, mīnhūs (Latv. minūzis) ‘coin prison’, and so on. Later, as V. Urbutis notes, the formant -uzis, unlike -hūs, when it no longer has a base word alongside it, can no longer be perceived as a lexical unit, but only as a word-formation affix (Urbutis 1993: 92–95, 98).

Thus, affixoids, which have lexical meaning (albeit more or less generalized), differ from word-formation affixes, but resemble them in their functions and limited independence within a compound. For most word-formation researchers, the term “affixoid” is the most acceptable label for derivational elements occupying an intermediate position between compound constituents and derivatives. Although, as Julia Stepan notes, in Germanistik literature affixoids may also be called, for example, affixal morphemes, pseudo-affixes, compound affixes, relational affixes or

80

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Dėl žodžių darybos teorijoje vartojamų terminų ir darbinių elementų klasifikacijos

tarsi afiksais (Stepan 2009: 102). Kaip teigia P. O. Müller, keblumų kyla ir dėl afiksoidų priskyrimo žodžių darybos tipams, nes tiriant kalbą diachroniniu aspektu, ne visada lengva atskirti dūrinius ir vedinius (Müller 1993: 40).

Affixoids are usually divided into two groups: 1) prefixoids, which perform the function of prefixes; 2) suffixoids, which perform the function of suffixes and are characteristic mainly of nouns and adjectives.

In his overview of word formation in contemporary German, Hans Altmann lists the following suffixoids: -gut, -gram, -kreise, -leute, -material, -reich, -volk, -welt, -werk, -wesen, -zeug. He classifies the following as prefixoids: Alt-, Ex-, Ko-, Maxi-, Mini-, Miss-, Mit-, Nicht-, Vize- (Altmann 2011: 74–76). This list would be longer if we also included the word-formation elements that J. Stepan likewise interprets as affixoids, e.g., -frau, -mutter, -nonne, -weib, Groß-, Stief-⁶ (Stepan 2009: 101–102).

The confixes already mentioned in this article are quite close to affixes in origin. W. Fleischer divides them into two types: foreign-origin (Ger. nicht heimische) and indigenous (Ger. heimische) (Fleischer 1995: 62). The first group includes what are also called non-classical confixes, e.g., Bio-, Euro-, Mini-. The second group comprises the aforementioned Stief- and Schwieger-. The key difference between native and foreign-origin confixes lies in the derivational productivity of words containing them: many words are formed with foreign confixes, especially in contemporary German, whereas native (indigenous) confixes are rare in word formation (Elsen 2006: 138). Nevertheless, confixes should not be equated with affixes, since the latter also occur as independent words, whereas confixes exist only in certain groups of words (Schu 2006: 259). It is true that new words can be formed with Stief- and Schwieger-, but in practice these elements are entirely unproductive in German word formation.

In handwritten bilingual dictionaries of the Baltic languages from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the most commonly found suffixoids are -werk, -wesen, -zeug, -gut, along with the prefixoid Haupt-, so these should be discussed in greater detail.

The lexical meaning of the word Werk is ‘place of production’ (Ger. Produktionsort) (why not ‘work, product’, and so on?—author’s note); Wesen means ‘being, creature’ (Ger. Geschöpf), Zeug ‘material, tool’ (Ger. Stoff, Gerät), Gut ‘property’ (Ger. Vermögen), and Haupt ‘head’ (Ger. Kopf). As D. Nübling notes, new suffixes for forming collective nouns developed from Werk, Wesen, Zeug and Gut as early as the Early New High German period (Ger. Frühneuhochdeutsch) (Nübling 2010: 78). Frederic Hartweger and Klaus Peter Wegera state,

⁶ This element should be classified as an indigenous (native-origin) confix, because Stief-, unlike affixes, is not a productive word-formation formant.

Straipsniai / Articles

81

DALIUS JARMALAVIČIUS

that in the linguistic periods mentioned, these elements acquire a fairly generalized lexical meaning, which in compounds is removed from the original meaning, and become highly productive. The number of such words increases especially from the 17th century onward. The tendency to form collective nouns with the element Werk first becomes apparent from the 16th century (Hartweg, Wegera 2005: 199); according to other scholars, it goes back even earlier—to the 14th century (Soling 2012: 45). D. Nübling notes that the meanings of -werk and -wesen are usually abstracted in compounds; as a result, these suffixoids acquire a derivational meaning common to both: ‘a collection of what is denoted by the first constituent’ or ‘the totality of what belongs to the first constituent’, e.g., Laubwerk ‘foliage’, Fischereiwesen ‘fisheries’. The affixoid -zeug has a collective meaning, ‘everything used for what is denoted by the first constituent’, e.g., Nähzeug ‘sewing supplies’ (Nübling 2010: 78). The meaning of the suffixoid -gut may vary depending on the part of speech of the first constituent: in combination with a verb, this element means ‘material required for a work process or processing’; with abstract nouns, it denotes complexes of immaterial origin (Fleischer, Barz 1995: 143–144), e.g., Mahlgut ‘material to be ground’, Gedankengut ‘thoughts’.

The affixoids -werk, -wesen, -zeug, -gut are not equally productive with first constituents from different parts of speech. According to D. Nübling, all the listed elements can combine with a nominal constituent, but in compounds with a verbal constituent, -zeug is most commonly found, whereas -werk is much rarer. The affixoids -wesen and -gut most often combine with noun stems, defining the properties of nominal objects (Nübling 2010: 79).

The compound constituent Haupt- most likely acquired prefix status in the 18th century. In his survey of nominal word formation in fragmentary texts from the period in question, Ludwigs M. Eichinger mentions that the lexeme Haupt, used from the 16th century onward, meant ‘a body part—the head’ (German Kopf); increasingly, as a first constituent, it loses this meaning and acquires another, denoting ‘a central position’ or ‘the highest position in a hierarchy’, and thus this constituent performs a function characteristic of a prefix (Eichinger 2002: 350).

It should be noted that researchers of synchronic word formation do not agree on the status of the suffixoids and prefixoids described above. Jörg Meibauer (2002: 30), Michael Lohde (2006: 15, 112–113), and W. Fleischer and I. Barz (1995: 145) classify the derivational elements -werk, -wesen and Haupt-, which have lost their original lexical meaning in words, as derivational affixes. By contrast, the latter authors treat the components -gut and -zeug as second constituents in compound nouns (Fleischer, Barz 1995: 143–144). In Gisela Zifonun’s view, they belong to the category of semi-suffixes (Zifonun 2012: 131), while Johannes Erben usually regards the derivational elements -werk and -wesen as suffixoids (Erben 1975: 143); they are sometimes also called means of forming collective nouns (Erben 2001: 105).

82

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Dėl žodžių darybos teorijoje vartojamų terminų ir darbinių elementų klasifikacijos

Thus, scholars’ views on the status of -werk, -wesen, -zeug, -gut and Haupt- vary considerably. To assess whether the elements discussed can be understood as nominal constituents of compounds or already as affixoids, one should consider not only the degree of abstraction of their meaning and whether they are listed as separate entries in dictionaries, but also their position in the compound and their inherited location. For example, in 17th-century dictionaries -werk [-werk] and -zeug appear both as separate words and as constituents of compounds, in both first and second position, e.g.: Clavis IV-954 Werck ‘Darbas, Joba, Weikals, Padargai’, Clavis IV-1047 Zeug ‘Rykas’, Clavis IV-954 Werck=Tag ‘Dirbama Diena’, Clavis IV-955 Werck=Zeug ‘Rykledis, Rykas, Pripraw’, Clavis II-115 Kriegs=Zeug ‘Zalnieru Rykai’, Clavis III-464 Schmied=Werck ‘Kalwo Darbas’, Clavis IV-104 Zeug=Hauß ‘Szarwiniczia’. Compounds in which these constituents have a generalized occupational meaning also occur, e.g.: Clavis II-1162 Laubwerck ‘Lapai’; therefore, such a formation should not be classified as a compound. The element -Gut / Gutt should likewise be considered a second constituent of compound nouns in 17th–18th-century sources, where it was still used in the sense of ‘goods, property, treasure, household, or possessions’ (cf. B 612 Gut, Güter, Lex 44a Güter), e.g.: Clavis II-1043 Kauff=Gutt ‘Towars’, B 795 Kirchen Gutt ‘Baznyczios Gerbe’. Nevertheless, the second constituent of nouns -wesen should already be regarded as a derivational formant in the historical period, having acquired an abstract meaning in compounds. Although, in the manuscript dictionaries analyzed, words containing this element, insofar as they could be identified, are not translated (probably because the authors of the time could not find a suitable Lithuanian word for them. -author’s note), e.g.: Clavis II-868 Haußwesen ‘household management’ (author’s translation), Kriegs Wesen B 823 ‘warfare’ (author’s translation), the explanations of words with -wesen in DWG already reveal this element’s generalized meaning. For instance, Kriegswesen is defined in the dictionary as ‘the state of war, military relations’, and Hauswesen as ‘property’. Words with the first constituent Haupt-, which has lost its original meaning ‘head’ and, in combination with a noun, means ‘an important person or an essential object or matter’, should likewise not be classified as compounds, e.g.: Lex 46a Haupt Mann ‘Pilonis, Szmintininkas’, Haupt=Stadt Clavis II-860 ‘Wyraus Miestas’, B 644 Haupt Lute ‘Wresnej, Wyrusiej’.

To summarize what has been said about the structural elements mentioned, nouns from earlier periods with the second constituents -werk, -zeug and -gut should be classified as compounds, except for a few words in which the lexical meaning of these elements is no longer clearly expressed. Further evidence that the constituents -werk, -zeug and -gut are not affixes is that, in the 17th–18th-century dictionaries analyzed, compounds containing them are translated into Lithuanian in a way that remains close to the original language, which suggests that speakers of the time understood the elements mentioned

⁷ The translations into Lithuanian of examples from 17th–18th-century dictionaries are given in the original.

Straipsniai / Articles

83

DALIUS JARMALAVIČIUS

still perceived as separate words. Nevertheless, the structural elements of words –wesen and Haupt-, which have acquired a defined meaning or diverged from their original meaning in compounds, should be regarded as working affixes. However, regarding the status of these elements in contemporary German, we can agree with researchers who tend to treat them as affixoids.

3. CONCLUSIONS

1. We support the position of representatives of synchronic word formation that individual words whose constituents are unique but are not morphologically motivated should not be considered formations. However, it is not entirely accurate to classify them as simple words either; the most appropriate approach would be to treat these linguistic phenomena as words with a complex structure and a morphologically unmotivated stem.

2. From the perspective of word formation, words containing bound confixes (e.g., German Stief-, Schwieger-, or Latvian -uzis) should not be excluded from the scope of research, since, despite their lack of productivity, new words can in fact be formed with them.

3. When questions arise about the autonomy of a word’s constituents and it is necessary to assess whether a particular word is a formation or should be classified as a derivate, several criteria should be considered: the word-forming potential of the constituents, the degree of semantic abstraction, whether the word is recorded as a separate lexeme in dictionaries, its ability to occupy a particular position in a compound, and the base translation in older bilingual dictionaries.

A B B R E V I A T I O N S

Lith. in Lithuanian

Lat. in Latin

pl. plural

OHG Old High German

MHG Middle High German

Ger. in German

S O U R C E S

B – Lexicon Germanico-Lithvanicum et Lithvanico-Germanicum. An 18th-century manuscript dictionary. Documentary edition with facsimile, introduction, and word index, vols. 1–2, ed. Vincentas Drotvinas. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 2009.

84

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Dėl žodžių darybos teorijoje vartojamų terminų ir darbinių elementų klasifikacijos

Clavis – Clavis Germanico–Lithvana. A 17th-century manuscript German–Lithuanian dictionary 1. A–E (1995), 2. F–L, 3. M–S, 4. T–Z (1997), ed. Vincentas Drotvinas. Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing, 1995–1997.

DUDEN 7 – Herkunftswörterbuch. Etymologie der deutschen Sprache. Mannheim, Leipzig, Vienna, Zurich: Bibliographisches Institut, 2001.

DUDEN – Deutsches Universalwörterbuch. Mannheim, Leipzig, Vienna, Zurich: Dudenverlag, 1996.

DWB – Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm in 32 Teilbänden (1854–1961). Leipzig, 1972. Available online: http://woerterbuchnetz.de/DWB/ (accessed 2016 08 30).

L – Nīcas un Bārtas mācītāja Jāņa Langija 1685. gada latviski-vāciskā vārdnīca ar īsu latviešu gramatiku, red. Ernests Blese. Rīga: Latvijas universitāte, 1936.

Lex – Lexicon Lithuanicum. A 17th-century manuscript German–Lithuanian dictionary, ed. Vincentas Drotvinas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1987.

Lexer – Lexer Mathias 1872–1878: Mittelhochdeutsches Handwörterbuch in 3 Bänden. Leipzig. Prieiga internete: http://woerterbuchnetz.de/Lexer/ (žiūrėta 2016 09 06).

L I T E R A T U R E

A l t m a n n H a n s 2011: Prüfungswissen. Wortbildung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

B e n c z e s R é k a 2006: Creative Compounding in English. The Semantics of Metaphorical and Metonymical Noun–Noun Combinations. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins B. V.

B o o i j G e e r t 2007: The Grammar of Words (= Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics). New York: Oxford University Press.

D o n a l i e s E l e 2005: Die Wortbildung des Deutschen. Ein Überblick. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

DUDEN 4 – Die Grammatik. Mannheim, Leipzig, Vienna, Zurich: Dudenverlag, 2005.

E i c h e r L u d w i g M. 2002: Nominale Wortbildung in Sachtexten des 18. Jahrhunderts. – Historische Wortbildung, hrg. von Mechthild Habermann, Peter O. Müller, Horst Haider Munske (= Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 232). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 341–362.

E s e n H i k e 2006: Deutsche Konfixe – Deutsche Sprache. 33. Jahrgang 2005, 133–140.

Straipsniai / Articles

85

DALIUS JARMALAVIČIUS

Erben Johannes 1975: Einführung in die deutsche Wortbildungslehre (= Grundlagen der Germanistik 17). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.

Erben Johannes 2001: Über den Aufschlusswert älterer deutscher Wörterbücher für die historische Wortbildungslehre. – Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 120, 105–111.

Fleischer Wolfgang 1995: Konfixe. – Wort und Wortschatz. Beiträge zur Lexikologie, 61–68.

Fleischer Wolfgang, Irmhild Barz 1995: Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Glück Helmut 2005: Metzler Lexikon Sprache. Stuttgart, Weimar: J. B. Metzler Verlag.

Hartweg Frederic, Klaus-Peter Wegera 2005: Frühneuhochdeutsch. Eine Einführung in die deutsche Sprache des Spätmittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit (= Germanistische Arbeitshefte 33). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Jarmalavičius Dalius 2014: Vokiečių kalbos darinių daryba XV–XVIII a. rankraštiniuose dvikalbiuose baltų kalbų žodynuose. Humanitarinių mokslų daktaro disertacija. Vilniaus universitetas.

Lohde Michael 2006: Wortbildung des modernen Deutschen. Ein Lehr- und Übungsbuch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Meibauer Jörg, Ulrike Demske et al. 2002: Einführung in die germanistische Linguistik. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler Verlag.

Müller Peter O. 1993: Historische Wortbildung: Forschungsstand und Perspektiven. – Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 112(1), 394–419.

Nübling Damaris, Antje Dammel et al. 2010: Historische Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen. Eine Einführung in die Prinzipien des Sprachwandels. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Schu Josef 2006: Zwischen Grundmorphem und Affix – Deutsche Sprache. Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation. 33. Jahrgang 2005, 259–286.

Solling Daniel 2012: Zur Getrennt-, Zusammen- und Bindestrichschreibung von Substantivkomposita im Deutschen (1550–1710) (= Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis / Studia Germanistica Upsaliensia 57). Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.

Stepan Julia 2009: Wortbildungsmodelle für Frauen Bezeichnungen im Mittelhochdeutschen und Frühneuhochdeutschen (= Schriftenreihe Schriften zur Mediävistik 16). Hamburg: Dr. Kovač Verlag.

86

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI

Dėl žodžių darybos teorijoje vartojamų terminų ir darbinių elementų klasifikacijos

Urbutis Vincas 2009: Žodžių darybos teorija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Urbutis Vincas 1993: Darboc tipo radimas: latvių kalbos nomina loci su priesaga –uz. – Baltistica 28(2), 82–105.

Wälchli Bernhard 2005: Co-Compounds and Natural Coordination (= Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). New York: Oxford University Press.

Zifonun Gisela 2012: Komposition (oder Halbfigurierung) zum Ausdruck von Nominalaspekt: Schmuckstück, Glücksfall und Zuckerwerk. – Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreie Sprache: strukturelle Eigenschaften und systembezogene Aspekte, hr. von Livio Gaeta, Barbara Schlücker. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 101–134.

Regarding the Used Terminology and Classification of Formative Elements in the Theory of Word-Formation

SUMMARY

The analysis of the German nominal compounds in the handwritten Baltic bilingual dictionaries from the 17^th–18^th shows many problematic aspects: the lack of precise terminology which needs to be corrected in the synchronic theory of word-formation on the one hand and difficulties in the differentiation of decided word-formation patterns on the other hand.

In the scientific literature terminology used for the analogous examples of word-formation could be defined as superfluous terminology. This applies in particular to the words with unique morphemes such as in gem. Himbeere ‘raspberry’, Schornstein ‘chimney’ or lit. šiškńasparnis ‘bat’, tinagas ‘fire stone’. To define the constituents that are demotivated and only occur in individual words, different terms like pseudomorpheme, pseudo-plem, Himbeer-morpheme, cranberry-word, cranberry-compounds, cranberry-morphemes etc. are found in the theory of word-formation. It would be more exact to describe such lexical units, using the concept of quasi-compounds with remaining stems (lit. tarsi duriniai su atliekomis kamienais) suggested by V. Urbutis. However, words with demotivated constituents but with their complex word structure could not be categorized neither as compounds nor as simple (simple) words, such a definition needs concretization. Taking into account the properties mentioned in this paper, lexical units like gem. Himbeere or lit. tinagas can be defined as complex words with demotivated stems (lit. kompleksinės struktūros žodžiai su nemotyvuotais kamienais).

Straipsniai / Articles

87

DALIUS JARMALAVIČIUS

Furthermore, this article discusses the special status of words with the elements that take a position between compound-components and the derivative morphemes and are characterized in the synchronic word-formation as affixoids. It is also difficult to say, if for example, germ. Werck=Tag ‘working day’, Werck=Zeug ‘tool’, Kichen Gutt ‘churches goods’, Hauptmann ‘main person’, Kriegswesen ‘soldier ship’ are compounds or derivations, because we do not have enough clear criteria to differentiate these words. The problem mentioned above is actual in diachronic word-formation, too. In order to determine elements between composition and derivation in historical word-formation one should focus on the following criteria: productivity and their semantic degree of abstraction, their registration as a free lemma in the dictionaries, their ability to change position in words, and word-for-word translation of constituents in dictionaries.

Received on January 12, 2017

DALIUS JARMALAVIČIUS

Vilnius University

Institute of Foreign Languages

Department of German Language

5 Universiteto St., LT-01513, Vilnius, Lithuania

[email protected]

88

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXVI