The above-mentioned linguistic notions serve as linguistic framework for the positioning of creative prefixations. The cases serve double purpose: on the one hand, they exemplify the shortcomings of strict compositionality (as it has been stated, creative prefixations retain their basic compositional character), on the other, they place the topic of the semantic content of prefixes into a different perspective. Why do we create creative prefixations, what reasons ─be it semantic, cognitive or socio-pragmatic─ motivate their existence? Creative prefixations start out as nonce formations, some of them become neologisms, and ─through the process of entrenchment─ some of them might become fully lexicalized. As is the case with nonce-formations in general, attention seeking is very often a major motivation. Konieczna (2012) examines different types of attentions seeking devices, untypical, rule-breaking prefixations being one of her examples. Her analysis of depolicing and deshopping concludes that as a constituent of these prefixations, the meaning of the two nouns can only be partially privative, as neither complex lexeme stands for the complete lack of something.9This sort of rule-breaking element (e.g.
deriving privative verbs from abstract nouns instead of the more typical concrete nouns) is certainly one major aspect of creative word-formation. The prefix de- is especially prone to such non-canonical use, as some further examples might show:
de-Scottishify – ‘rebrand a product to remove its Scottish connotations’
7 All the examples of the present paper are taken from Longman Exams Dictionary and two Internet sources: www.wordspy.com; www.urbandictionary.com.
8 Therefore, in Bauer’s example of playful formations “a non-book...non-written by Andy Warhol”
(Bauer 1983) the source of humour might stem from the underlying question: What is the opposite of book? What is the reverse activity of writing?
9 Depolicing is the lack of policing with regard to petty crimes committed by certain social and ethnic groups in order to avoid accusations of racial profiling. Deshopping is buying a thing and then returning it for a refund. Source: www.wordspy.com
87
de-conflict – ‘to avoid conflict while planning a military strategy’
de-alert – ‘to separate a nuclear weapon’s warhead from its delivery system’
de-elect – ‘remove an elected official from office’
de-bachelorize – ‘the act of replacing typical bachelor decor in the home with items considered more feminine’
According to Adams (2001) and Plag (2003), the prefix de- is used to form reversative and privative verbs, but as the above examples show, the rules for forming reversative and privative verbs by means of the prefix de- have been modified or broken. The reason for this modification can be the act of attention-seeking itself. In fact, the complex lexemes created by these creative processes defy categories of reversativity or privativity: they bring into life previously nonexistent concepts, with categorisational terminology of their own.
Another reason for the creation of such prefixations might be the so-called Minimax-principle (Benczes 2006 quoting Breckle), referring to the process of expressing maximum conceptual content through minimal formal realization. This, however, could be seen as barring understanding as well: the very poignant socio-pragmatic/cultural content can render these phrases undecipherable.
Conclusions
Though far from exhaustive, our reasoning aimed at identifying a number of classificational problems concerning prefixes and prefixation in English, which proved to be closely connected to semantic considerations. In this sense we have argued against descriptive notions concerning prefixation. Creative prefixations prove that meaning cannot be excluded from considerations concerning the topic. The paper tries to identify some of the motivational forces behind such a phenomenon.
References
Adams, Valerie. 1973. An Introduction to Modern English Word-formation. London:
Longman.
Adams, Valerie. 2001. Complex Words in English. Harlow: Longman.
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Balázs, Bernadette. 2012. Creative aspects of prefixation in English. In: Sonja Kleinke-Zoltán Kövecses-Andreas Musolff-Veonika Szelid (Eds.) 2012. Cognition and Culture. The Role of Metaphor and Metonymy. ELTE Eötvös Kiadó: Budapest.
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-Formation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bauer, Laurie. 2003. English prefixation – A typological shift? Acta Linguistca Hungarica, Vol. 50 (1-2), pp. 33-40
Benczes, Réka. 2006. Creative compounding in English: the semantics of metonymical and metaphorical noun-noun compounds. John Benjamins Publishing Company:
Amsterdam/New York.
Brdar-Szabó, Rita-Brdar, Mario. 2000. Grammaticalisation and the lexicon: Core-and-periphery model vs prototype approach. In Martina Mangasser Wahl (ed.), Prototypentheorie in der Linguistik. Tübingen, S. 139-159.
88
Hamawand, Zeki. 2011. Prefixes of Degree in English: A Cognitive-Corpus Analysis. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 2011. Vol.1, No2, 13-23
Jensen, John T. 1990. Morphology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Katamba, Francis. 1993. Morphology. Macmillan: London.
Konieczna, Eva. 2012. Analogical modelling and paradigmatic word formation as attention seeking devices. In: Ralli, Angela-Booij, Geert-Scalise, Sergio-Karasimos, Athanasios (Eds.) Morphology and the Architecture of Grammar. On-line proceedings of the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting. URL:
http://morbo.lingue.unibo.it/mmm
Langacker, Ronald W.1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive Application.
Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2009: Metonymic Grammar. In: Klaus-Uwe Panther, K. – Thornburg, L. – Barcelona, A. (eds.) Metonymy and Metaphor in Grammar. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam/Philadelphia. 45-71
Lehrer, Adrienne. 1999. Prefixes in English Word Formation. Folia Linguistica XXIX/1-2 Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin.
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation.
Beck: München.
Matthews, Peter H. 1974. Morphology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Onysko, Alexander-Michel, Sascha. 2010. Introduction: unravelling the cognitive in word formation. In: Onysko, Alexander and Michel, Sascha (Eds.) 2010. Cognitive perspectives on word formation. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Quirk, Randolph-Greenbaum, Sidney-Leech, Geoffrey-Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman: London-New York.
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2011. English morphology and word-formation. Erich Schmidt Verlag GmbH: Berlin.
Spencer, Andrew. 2001. Morphology. In: M. Aronoff and J. Rees-Miller (Eds.) The Handbook of Linguistics. (pp. 213-237) Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Tolcsvai Nagy, Gábor. 2010. Kognitív szemantika. Konstantin Filozófus Egyetem: Nyitra.
Ungerer, Friedrich. 2007. Word-formation. In: Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (Eds.) 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press:
Oxford.
89 HAJBA RENÁTA
A társadalmi (területi) rétegzettség és a regionalitás összefüggései Szombathely beszélt nyelvében
1. Szociolingvisztikai axióma, hogy a nyelvhasználatot elsődlegesen társadalmi tényezők