АУТОР(И): Gordana S. Lalić Krstin
Е-АДРЕСА: gordana.lalic.krstin@ff.uns.ac.rs
DOI: 10.46793/NasKg2148.071LK
САЖЕТАК:
We are witnessing an increase in the number of formations with the verb-forming suffix -ify, the majority of which are names of websites, mobile apps or internet-based services, e.g. Androidify, Connectify or Fatify. The aim of this paper is to provide insight into the selectional behaviour of -ify in these new formations and determine whether there are any indications of some new trends.
The suffix -ify typically occurs with Latinate bases to form causative or inchoative verbs such as intensify or mummify (Bauer, Huddleston 2002; Plag 1999). The rivalry with -ize is mainly resolved by phonological constraints: -ize occurs after one or more unstressed syllables, while -ify is always preceded by a stressed syllable. This means that -ify attaches to either monosyllabic bases or polysyllabic bases stressed on the ultimate (Plag 1999, 2003). It is uncommon for neologisms with -ify to show stress shift (Plag 2003: 93). While some of the new formations are clearly compliant with these rules and tendencies, some are not. For example, there are some formations with non-Latinate bases (Dollify), some that require a shift of stress (Androidify) and some that attach to verbal bases (Distractify). By combining corpus search results (Corpus of Contemporary American English (Davies 2008-), Corpus of Global Web-Based English (Davies 2013), iWeb Corpus (Davies 2018-)), Google Play Store data and other sources (in particular Johnson 2014a), we investigate a list of 442 new words with -ify in order to ascertain whether the suffix -ify is changing as regards its selectional preferences described above.
КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ:
English word-formation, causative suffix, -ify, neologisms, mobile app names
ЛИТЕРАТУРА:
Aronoff 2016: M. Aronoff, Competition and the lexicon, in: A. Elia, C. Iacobino and Voghera (Eds.), Livelli di analisi e fenomeni di interfaccia. Atti del XLVII congresso internazionale della società di linguistica Italiana, Rome: Bulzoni Editore, 39–52.
Bauer, Huddleston 2002: L. Bauer and R. Huddleston, Lexical word formation, in: R. Huddleston and G.K. Pullum (eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Grammar, Cambridge: CUP, 1621–1721.
Bertoni 2012: S. Bertoni, Spotify’s Daniel Ek: Te most important man in music, Forbes, 4 January 2012, https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2012/01/04/spo-tifys-daniel-ek-the-most-important-man-in-music/?sh=79255bf864ca, 30 October 2020.
Biber et al. 1999: D. Biber, S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, E. Finegan, THe Long- man Grammar of Spoken and Written English, London: Longman.
Breul 2011: C. Breul, On English and German resultative and causative-resultative derived verbs, Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 47(4), 732–757.
CrunchBase: https://www.crunchbase.com. 1–31 October 2020.
Davies 2008-: M. Davies, The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. <https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/>. 24 January 2019.
Davies 2013: M. Davies, Corpus of Global Web-Based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries (GloWbE). <https://corpus.byu.edu/glowbe/>. 24 Jan- uary 2019.
Davies 2018-: M. Davies, The 14 Billion Word iWeb Corpus. <https://corpus.byu.edu/ iWeb/>. 25 January 2019.
Dixon 2008: R. M. W. Dixon, Deriving verbs in English, Language Sciences, 30, 31–52. Eriksson et al. 2019: M. Eriksson, R. Fleischer, A. Johansson, P. Snickars, P. Vonderau, Spotify Teardown: Inside the Black Box of Streaming Music, Cambridge: Massachusetts – London, England: The MIT Press.
Fabb 1988: N. Fabb, English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 527–539.
Hohenhaus 2007: P. Hohenhaus, How to do (even more) things with nonce words (other than naming), in: J. Munat (Ed.), Lexical creativity: Texts and contexts, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 15–39.
Johnson 2011: C. Johnson, A disturbifying trend in namifying, http://www. thenameinspector.com/a-disturbifying-trend-in-namifying/, 8 March 2019.
Johnson 2013: C. Johnson. Naming fad visualized: Did Spotify start it?, http://www. thenameinspector.com/naming-fad-visualized-did-spotify-start-it/, 24 January 2019.
Johnson 2014a: C. Johnson, Namifying: out of control!, http://www.thenameinspec- tor.com/wp-content/uploads/ify-names-chart-20141.pdf, 8 March 2019.
Johnson 2014b: C. Johnson, Namificationology just got serious, http://www. thenameinspector.com/namificationology-just-got-serious/, 24 January 2019. Johnson 2015: C. Johnson, Weird startup names of 2014, http://www.thenameinspector.com/weird-startup-names-of-2014/, 24 January 2019.
Kaisse 2005: E. M. Kaisse, Word-formation and phonology, in: P. Štekauer and R. Lieber, Handbook of Word-formation, Dordrecht: Springer, 25–47.
Kjellmer 2001: G. Kjellmer, Why Weaken But Not *Strongen? On Deadjectival Verbs, English Studies, 82(2), 154–171.
Konieczna 2012: E. Konieczna, Analogical modelling and paradigmatic word for- mation as attention-seeking devices, http:////lmgd.philology.upatras.gr/el/ research/downloads/MMM8_Proceedings.pdf. 166–189, 26 October 2020.
Laws, Ryder 2018: J. Laws, C. Ryder, Register variation in spoken British English: The case of verb-forming suffixation, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23(1), 1–27.
Lieber 2004: R. Lieber, Morphology and Lexical Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lieber 2005: R. Lieber, English word-formation processes, in: P. Štekauer and R. Lieber, Handbook of Word-formation, Dordrecht: Springer, 375–427.
Lindsay 2012: M. Lindsay, Rival suffixes: synonymy, competition, and the emergence of productivity, in: A. Ralli, G. Booij, S. Scalise and A. Karasimos (Eds.), Morphology and the Architecture of Grammar. Proceedings of the 8th International Morphol- ogy Meeting, Patras: University of Patras; 192–203, https://pwpl.library.upatras. gr/mmm/article/download/2431/2690, 17 January 2019.
Lindsay, Aronoff 2013: M. Lindsay, M. Aronoff, Natural selection in self-organizing morphological systems, in: F. Montermini, G. Boyé and J. Tseng (Eds.), Mor- phology in Toulouse: Selected Proceedings of Décembrettes 7, Munich: Lincom Europa, 133–153.
Marchand 1960: H. Marchand, e Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation, 2nd ed., München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Miller 2006: D. G. Miller, Latin Suffixal Derivatives in English and their Indo-Euro- pean Ancestry, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morris, Murray 2018: J. W. Morris, S. Murray (Eds.), Appified: Culture in the Age of Apps, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Plag 1999: I. Plag, Morphological Productivity. Structural Constraints in English Derivation, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Plag 2003: I. Plag, Word-Formation in English, Cambridge: CUP.
Raffelsiefen 1999: R. Raffelsiefen, Phonological constraints on English word-forma- tion, in: G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1998, Dor- drecht: Kluwer, 225–287.
Raffelsiefen 2004: R. Raffelsiefen, Absolute ill-formedness and other morphophono- logical effects, Phonology, 21, 91–142.
Siegel 1974: D.C. Siegel, Topics in English Morphology, Doctoral Dissertation, Cam- bridge, MA: MIT.