Lexicology

HANDBOOK OF WORD-FORMATION Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory VOLUME 64 Managing Editors Marcel den Dikken, City University of New York Liliane Haegeman, University of Lille Joan Maling, Brandeis University Editorial Board Guglielmo Cinque, University of Venice Carol Georgopoulos, University of Utah Jane Grimshaw, Rutgers University Michael Kenstowicz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Hilda Koopman, University of California, Los Angeles Howard Lasnik, University of Maryland Alec Marantz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology John J.McCarthy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge The titles published in this series are listed at the end of this volume. HANDBOOK OF WORD-FORMATION Edited by PAVOL STEKAUER Pre o University, Pre ov, Slovakia ov e and ROCHELLE LIEBER University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, U. S. A. A C. I. P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN-10 ISBN-13 ISBN-10 ISBN-10 ISB N-13 ISBN-13 1-4020-3597-7 (PB) 978-1-4020-3597-5 (PB) 1-4020-3595-0 (HB) 1-4020-3596-9 (e-book) 978-1-4020-3595-1 (HB) 978-1-4020-3596-8 (e-book) Published by Springer, P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. www. springeronline. com Printed on acid-free paper All Rights Reserved  © 2005 Springer No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed in the Netherlands. CONTENTS PREFACE CONTRIBUTORS vii 1 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY: BASIC TERMINOLOGY 1. The notion of the linguistic sign 1. 1 EVIDENCE FOR THE MORPHEME-AS-SIGN POSITION IN SAUSSURE’S COURS 1. 2 EVIDENCE FOR THE WORD-AS-SIGN POSITION IN SAUSSUREà ¢â‚¬â„¢S COURS Morpheme and word 2. 1 CASE STUDY: ENGLISH NOUN PLURAL FORMS (PART 1) 2. 2 CASE STUDY: THE PERFECT PARTICIPLE FORMS OF ENGLISH VERBS 2. 3 CASE STUDY: ENGLISH NOUN PLURAL FORMS (PART 2) 2. 4 COMPLEMENTARY DISTRIBUTION AND INFLECTION VERSUS DERIVATION ‘Morphemes’ since the 1960s 5 5 7 8 10 11 14 17 18 20 25 25 2. 3. ELLEN M. KAISSE: WORD-FORMATION AND PHONOLOGY 1. Introduction vi 2.CONTENTS Effects of lexical category, morphological structure, and affix type on phonology 2. 1 EFFECTS OF LEXICAL CATEGORY AND OF MORPHOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY 2. 2 COHERING AND NON-COHERING AFFIXES Morphology limited by the phonological form of the base of affixation Lexical phonology and morphology and its ills More recent developments of lexical phonology and morphology How do related words affect each other? The cycle, transderivational t effects, paradigm uniformity and the like Do the cohering affixes f rm a coherent set? Split bases, SUBCATWORD fo and phonetics in morphology C onclusion 26 26 28 32 34 38 39 41 45 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. GREGORY STUMP: WORD-FORMATION AND INFLECTIONAL MORPHOLOGY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The conceptual difference between inflection and word-formation The inflectional categories of English Practical criteria for distinguishing inflection from word-formation Practical criteria for distinguishing inflectional periphrases Some similarities between inflection and word-formation Complex interactions between inflection and word-formation Inflectional paradigms and word-formation paradigms 7. 1 PARADIGMS AND HEAD MARKING IN INFLECTION AND DERIVATION 7. 2 PARADIGMS AND BLOCKING IN INFLECTION AND DERIVATION 9 49 50 53 59 60 61 65 65 67 CONTENTS ANDREW SPENCER: WORD-FORMATION AND SYNTAX 1. 2. Introduction Lexical relatedness and syntax 2. 1 MORPHOTACTICS IN CLASSICAL US STRUCTURALISM 2. 2 MORPHOLOGY AS SYNTAX 2. 3 LEXICAL INTEGRITY Syntactic phenomena inside words Argument structure realization 4. 1 DEVERBAL MORPHOLOGY 4. 1. 1 Action nominals 4. 1. 2 Nominals denoting grammatical functions 4. 1. 3 -able adjectives 4. 2 SYNTHETIC COMPOUNDS AND NOUN INCORPORATION Theoretical approaches to word formation Summary and afterword vii 73 73 74 74 74 78 82 83 83 83 87 88 88 89 93 99 3. 4. 5. 6.DIETER KASTOVSKY: HANS MARCHAND AND THE MARCHANDEANS 1. 2. Introduction Hans Marchand 2. 1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2. 2 SYNCHRONIC APPROACH 2. 3 MOTIVATION 2. 4 MORPHONOLOGICAL ALTERNATIONS 2. 5 THE CONCEPT OF SYNTAGMA 2. 6 GENERATIVE-TRANSFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE 2. 7 ANALYSIS OF COMPOUNDS 2. 8 PRECURSOR OF LEXICALIST HYPOTHESIS 99 100 100 100 101 102 102 104 105 106 3. Klaus Hansen 107 3. 1 GENERAL 107 3. 2 WORD-FORMEDNESS VS. WORD-FORMATION 107 3. 3 WORD-FORMATION PATTERN VS. WORD-FORMATION TYPE108 3. 4 ONOMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH VS. SEMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH 109 viii 4. CONTENTS Herbert Ernst Brekle 4. GENERAL 4. 2 FRAMEWORK 4. 3 BREKLE’S MODEL 4. 4 PRODUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF COMPOUNDS Leonhard Lipka 5. 1 GENERAL 5. 2 THEORETICAL DEVEL OPMENT Dieter Kastovsky 6. 1 GENERAL 6. 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 6. 3 WORD-FORMATION AT THE CROSSROADS OF MORPHOLOGY, SYNTAX, SEMANTICS, PRAGMATICS AND THE LEXICON Gabriele Stein (Lady Quirk) Conclusion 109 109 110 110 112 112 112 113 114 114 115 116 116 118 125 125 126 127 128 130 132 133 133 134 136 138 141 142 143 143 5. 6. 7. 8. TOM ROEPER: CHOMSKY’S REMARKS AND THE TRANSFORMATIONALIST HYPOTHESIS 1. Nominalizations and Core Grammar 1. CORE CONTRAST 1. 2 TRANSFORMATIONS The Subject Enigma 2. 1 PASSIVE -ABILITY NOMINALIZATIONS 2. 2 -ING NOMINALIZATIONS Case Assignment 3. 1 COPING WITH EXCEPTIONS 3. 2 THEMATIC-BINDING Intriguing Issues: Aspectual Differentiation of Nominalization Affixes Where do Affixes Attach? Elaborated Phrase Structure and Nominalizations 6. 1 BARE NOMINALS: PREDICTABLE RESTRICTIONS 6. 2 HIGH -ING 6. 3 ACCUSATIVE AND -ING NOMINALIZATIONS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. CONTENTS 7. Conclusion ix 144 SERGIO SCALISE AND EMILIANO GUEVARA: THE LEXICALIST APPROACH TO WORD-FORM ATION AND THE NOTION OF 147 THE LEXICON 1. . 3. 4. A definition A Brief History 2. 1 LEES (1960) The Lexicon Lexicalism 4. 1 HALLE (1973) 4. 2 ARONOFF (1976) 4. 2. 1The Word-based Hypothesis 4. 2. 2 Word-Formation Rules 4. 2. 3 Productivity 4. 2. 4 Restrictions on WFRs 4. 2. 5 Stratal features 4. 2. 6 Restrictions on the output of WFRs 4. 2. 7 Conditions 4. 2. 8 Summary on Word-Formation Rules Some Major Issues 5. 1 STRONG AND WEAK LEXICALISM More on the Notion of Lexicon Lexicalism Today 7. 1 INFLECTIONAL MORPHOLOGY 7. 2 SYNTACTIC MORPHOLOGY 7. 3 THE SYNTACTIC INCORPORATION HYPOTHESIS 7. 4 WORD-FORMATION AS SYNTAX 7. DISTRIBUTED MORPHOLOGY Conclusion 147 148 150 151 153 153 157 157 158 159 159 161 162 162 166 166 170 171 173 174 176 176 178 180 181 189 5. 6. 7. 8. ROBERT BEARD AND MARK VOLPE: LEXEME -MORPHEME BASE MORPHOLOGY 1. Introduction 189 x 2. CONTENTS The Three Basic Hypotheses of LMBM 2. 1 THE SEPARATION HYPOTHESIS 2. 2 THE UNITARY GRAMMATICAL FUNCTION HYPOTHESIS 2. 3 THE B ASE RULE HYPOTHESIS Types of Lexical (L-) Derivation 3. 1 COMPETENCE: GRAMMATICAL L-DERIVATION 3. 1. 1 Feature Value Switches 3. 1. 2 Functional Lexical-Derivation 3. 1. 3 Transposition 3. 1. Expressive Derivations Conclusion 189 190 191 192 194 194 194 195 198 199 200 201 207 207 208 209 209 211 211 212 214 217 219 221 225 226 226 227 229 3. 4. Appendix PAVOL STEKAUER: ONOMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH TO WORD-FORMATION 1. 2. 3. Introduction Methods of Onomasiological Research Theoretical approaches 3. 1 MILOS DOKULIL 3. 2 JAN HORECKY 3. 3 PAVOL STEKAUER 3. 3. 1 Word-formation as an independent component 3. 3. 2 The act of naming 3. 3. 3 Onomasiological Types 3. 3. 4 Conceptual (onomasiological) recategorization 3. 3. 5 An Onomasiological Approach to Productivity 3. . 6 Headedness 3. 3. 7 Summary 3. 4 BOGDAN SZYMANEK 3. 5 ANDREAS BLANK 3. 6 PETER KOCH DAVID TUGGY: COGNITIVE APPROACH TO WORD-FORMATION 233 1. Basic notions of Cognitive grammar (CG) 1. 1 THE GRAMMAR OF A LANGUAGE UNDER CG 1. 2 LEXICON AND SYNTAX 233 233 235 CONTENTS 2. Schemas and prototypes 2. 1 SCHEMAS AND ELABORATIONS 2. 2 PARTIAL SCHEMATICITY AND THE GROWTH OF SCHEMATIC NETWORKS 2. 3 PROTOTYPICALITY AND SALIENCE 2. 4 ACCESS TO THE STORE OF CONVENTIONAL KNOWLEDGE, INCLUDING NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES 2. 5 SANCTION Schemas for word formation 3. 1 SCHEMAS FOR WORDS 3. SCHEMAS FOR CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE WORD PIECES: STEMS AND AFFIXES AND CONSTRUCTIONAL SCHEMAS M 3. 3 COMPLEX SEMANTIC AND PHONOLOGICAL POLES 3. 4 SCHEMAS FOR COMPOUNDS 3. 5 STRUCTURAL DESCRIPTIONS, CREATIVITY AND PRODUCTIVE USAGE 3. 6 SANCTION (OF VARIOUS KINDS) FROM COMPONENTS 3. 7 COMPONENTS AND PATTERNS FOR THE WHOLE; OVERLAPPING PATTERNS AND MULTIPLE ANALYSES R A 3. 8 CONSTITUENCY Overview of other issues 4. 1 VALENCE 4. 2 THE MORPHOLOGY-SYNTAX BOUNDARY 4. 3 INFLECTION VS. DERIVATION What’s special about English word formation? Conclusion: Implications of accounting for morphology by schemas i 235 235 236 238 238 239 240 240 244 246 24 8 251 254 256 257 258 258 259 260 261 262 267 267 268 268 268 270 271 272 274 274 276 3. 4. 5. 6. WOLFGANG U. DRESSLER: WORD-FORMATION IN NATURAL MORPHOLOGY 1. 2. Introduction Universal, system-independent morphological naturalness 2. 1 PREFERENCES 2. 2 PREFERENCE FOR ICONICITY 2. 3 INDEXICALITY PREFERENCES 2. 4 PREFERENCE FOR MORPHOSEMANTIC TRANSPARENCY 2. 5 PREFERENCE FOR MORPHOTACTIC TRANSPARENCY 2. 6 PREFERENCE FOR BIUNIQUENESS 2. 7 FIGURE-GROUND PREFERENCES 2. 8 PREFERENCE FOR BINARITY xii CONTENTS 2. 9 OPTIMAL SHAPE OF UNITS 2. 0 ALTERNATIVE NATURALNESS PARAMETERS 2. 11 PREDICTIONS AND CONFLICTS 276 276 277 278 279 279 280 281 285 285 285 286 287 287 290 294 298 298 301 303 304 307 311 315 315 316 317 3. 4. Typological adequacy System-dependent naturalness 4. 1 SYSTEM-ADEQUACY 4. 2 DYNAMIC VS. STATIC MORPHOLOGY 4. 3 UNIVERSAL VS. TYPOLOGICAL VS. SYSTEM-DEPENDENT NATURALNESS PETER ACKEMA AND AD NEELEMAN: WORD-FORMATION IN OPTIMALITY THEORY 1. Introduction 1. 1 OPTIMALITY THEORY 1. 2 COMPETITION IN MORPHOLOGY Competition between different morphemes 2. 1 THE BASIC CASE 2. 2 HAPLOLOGY 2. MARKEDNESS Competition between components 3. 1 ELSEWHERE CASES 3. 2 COMPETITION BETWEEN MODULES THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE THE ELSEWHERE PRINCIPLE Competition between different morpheme orders 4. 1 CONFLICTS BETWEEN LINEAR CORRESPONDENCE AND TEMPLATIC REQUIREMENTS 4. 2 CONFLICTS BETWEEN LINEAR CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE CONSTRAINTS Conclusion 2. 3. 4. 5. LAURIE BAUER: PRODUCTIVITY: THEORIES 1. 2. 3. Introduction Pre-generative theories of productivity Schultink (1961) CONTENTS 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Zimmer (1964) Aronoff Natural Morphology Kiparsky (1982) Van Marle (1985) Corbin (1987) iii 318 318 321 322 323 324 324 326 327 328 330 332 335 335 335 335 336 336 339 340 340 340 341 344 345 347 348 349 349 10. Baayen 11. Plag (1999) 12. Hay (2000) 13. Bauer (2001) 14. Some threads 15. Conclusion FRANZ RAINER: CONSTRAINTS ON PRODUCTIVITY 1. 2. Introduction Universal constrain ts 2. 1 CONSTRAINTS SUPPOSEDLY LOCATED AT UG 2. 2 PROCESSING CONSTRAINTS 2. 2. 1 Blocking 2. 2. 2 Complexity Based Ordering 2. 2. 3 Productivity, frequency and length of bases Language-specific constraints 3. 1 LEVEL ORDERING 3. 2 AFFIX-SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS 3. 2. 1 Phonology 3. 2. 2 Morphology 3. 2. 3 Syntax 3. 2. 4 Argument structure 3. 2. Semantics 3. 2. 6 Pragmatics and Sociolinguistics 3. xiv 4. Final remarks PREFACE 349 PETER HOHENHAUS: LEXICALIZATION AND I INSTITUTIONALIZATION TITUTIONALIZATION 1. 2. Introduction Lexicalization 2. 1 LEXICALIZATION IN A DIACHRONIC SENSE 2. 2 LEXICALIZATION IN A SYNCHRONIC SENSE: LISTING/LISTEDNESS 2. 3 THE LEXICON AND THEORIES OF WORD-FORMATION Institutionalization 3. 1 TERMINOLOGY 3. 2 IDEAL AND REAL SPEAKERS AND THE SPEECH COMMUNITY 3. 3 DE-INSTITUTIONALIZATION: THE END OF A WORD’S LIFE Problems 4. 1 NONCE-FORMATIONS AND NEOLOGISMS 4. 2 (NON-)LEXICALIZABILITY 4. 3 WHAT IS IN THE (MENTAL) LEXICON AND HOW DOES IT GET THERE? . 4 UNPREDIC TABLE & PLAYFUL FORMATIONS, ANALOGY, FADS, AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS 4. 5 LEXICALIZATION BEYOND WORDS 353 353 353 353 356 357 359 359 360 362 363 363 365 367 369 370 375 375 375 376 378 379 379 383 390 391 393 400 402 3. 4. ROCHELLE LIEBER: ENGLISH WORD-FORMATION PROCESSES 1. 2. Introduction Compounding 2. 1 DETERMINING WHAT COUNTS AS A COMPOUND 2. 2 ROOT COMPOUNDING 2. 3 SYNTHETIC COMPOUNDING 2. 4 STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION Derivation 3. 1 PREFIXATION 3. 1. 1 Negative prefixes (un-, in-, non-, de-, dis-) 3. 1. 2 Locational prefixes 3. 1. 3 Temporal and aspectual prefixes 3. 1. Quantitative prefixes 3. CONTENTS 3. 1. 5 Verbal prefixes 3. 2 SUFFIXATION 3. 2. 1 Personal nouns 3. 2. 2 Abstract nouns 3. 2. 3 Verb-forming suffixes 3. 2. 4 Adjective-forming suffixes 3. 2. 5 Collectives 3. 3 CONCLUSION 4. 5. Conversion Conclusion xv 402 403 403 406 410 413 417 418 418 422 429 429 430 431 BOGDAN SZYMANEK: THE LATEST TRENDS IN ENGLISH WORD-FORMATION 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Introduction Deriv ational neologisms Analogical formations, local analogies Changes in the relative significance of types of word-formation processes 431 Secretion of new affixes ‘Lexicalisation’ of affixes 435 436Changes in the productivity, relative productivity and scope of individual 436 affixes Semantics: changes in formative functions 438 Trends in the form of complex words 441 9. 1 CHOICE OF RIVAL AFFIXES – MORPHOLOGICAL DOUBLETS 441 9. 2 PHONOLOGICAL FORM – STRESS 443 449 459 465 SUBJECT INDEX NAME INDEX LANGUAGE INDEX PREFACE Following years of complete or partial neglect of issues concerning word formation (by which we mean primarily derivation, compounding, and conversion), the year 1960 marked a revival – some might even say a resurrection – of this important field of linguistic study.While written in completely different theoretical frameworks (structuralist vs. transformationalist), from completely different perspectives, and with different objec tives, both Marchand’s Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation in Europe and Lees’ Grammar of English Nominalizations instigated systematic research in the field. As a result, a large number of seminal works emerged over the next decades, making the scope of wordt formation research broader and deeper, thus contributing to better understanding of this exciting area of human language.Parts of this development have been captured in texts or ‘review’ books (e. g. P. H. Matthews’ Morphology: An Introduction to the Theory of Word-Structure (1974), Andrew Spencer’s Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar (1991), Francis Katamba’s Morphology (1993), r Spencer and Zwicky’s Handbook of Morphology (1998)), but these books tend to discuss both inflectional and derivational morphology, and to do so mostly from the generative point of view.What seemed lacking to us was a volume intende d for advanced students and other researchers in linguistics which would trace the many strands of study – both generative and non-generative – that have developed from Marchand’s and Lees’ seminal works, on both sides of the Atlantic. The ambitions of this Handbook of Word-formation are four-fold: 1. To map the state of the art in the field of word-formation. 2. To avoid a biased approach to word-formation by presenting different, mutually complementary, frameworks within which research into wordformation has taken place. vii xviii 3. 4. PREFACE To present the specific topics from the perspective of experts who have significantly contributed to the respective topics discussed. To look specifically at individual English word formation processes and review some of the developments that have taken place since Marchand’s comprehensive treatment forty five years ago. Thus, the Handbook provides the reader with the state of the art in the study of k wor d formation (with a special view to English word formation) at the eginning of the third millennium. The Handbook is intended to give the reader a clear idea of the k large number of issues examined within word-formation, the different methods and approaches used, and an ever-growing number of tasks to be disposed of in future research. At the same time, it gives evidence of the great theoretical achievements and the vitality of this field that has become a full-fledged linguistic discipline. We wish to express our gratitude to all the contributors to the Handbook. The editors CONTRIBUTORSPeter Ackema is lecturer in linguistics at the University of Edinburgh. He has worked extensively on issues regarding the morphology-syntax interface, on which he has published two books, Issues in Morphosyntax (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999), and Beyond Morphology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, co-authored with Ad Neeleman). He has also published on a wide range of syntaxinternal and mo rphology-internal topics. Laurie Bauer holds a personal chair in Linguistics at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.He has published widely on international varieties of English, especially New Zealand English, and on aspects of morphology, including English Word-formation (Cambridge University Press, 1983), Morphological Productivity (Cambridge University Press, 2001), Introducing Linguistic Morphology (Edinburgh University Press, 2nd edn, 2003), A Glossary of Morphology (Edinburgh University Press, 2004). Robert Beard received his PhD in Slavic linguistics from the University of Michigan and taught for 35 years at Bucknell University.In 2000 he retired as the Ruth Everett Sierzega Professor of Linguistics at Bucknell to found the web-based company of language products and services, yourDictionary. com, where he is currently CEO. He is the author of The Indo-European Lexicon (Amsterdam: NorthHolland, 1981) and Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology (New York: SUNY Press, 1995). Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy is Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He is the author of Allomorphy in Inflexion (London: Croom Helm, 1987), Current Morphology (London and New York: Routledge, 1992) and An Introduction to English Morphology (Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press, 2002). He is also interested in language evolution, and has published The Origins of Complex Language: An Inquiry into the Evolutionary Beginnings of Sentences, Syllables and Truth (Oxford: OUP, 1999). 1 2 CONTRIBUTORS Wolfgang Dressler is Professor of linguistics, Head of the Department of r Linguisics at the University of Vienna and of the Commission for Linguistics of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. He is the author of Morphonology (Ann Arbor: Karoma Press, 1985) and Morphopragmatics (with Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi) (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1994).Emiliano Guevara is lecturer of General Linguistics at the University of Bologna and is member of the Mor- Bo reserach group at the Department of Foreign languages in Bologna. His publications include â€Å"V-Compounding in Dutch and Italian† (Cuadernos de Linguistica, Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset, 1-21 (with S. Scalise) and â€Å"Selection in compounding and derivation† (to appear) (with S. m Scalise and A. Bisetto). Peter Hohenhaus is lecturer in modern linguistics at the University of Nottingham (UK).He received his PhD in English Linguistics from the University of Hamburg and has published on standardization and purism, humorology, computer-mediated communication as well as English and German word-formation, in particular nonce word-formation, including the volume Ad-hoc-Wortbildung – Terminologie, Typologie und Theorie kreativer Wortbildung im Englischen (Frankfurt, Bern etc. : Lang, 1996). Ellen M. Kaisse is Professor of Linguistics, University of Washington, Seattle. Her main fields of research include morphology-phonology and syntaxphonology interf aces, intonation, historical phonology, and Spanish phonology.She is an author of Connected speech: the interaction of syntax and phonology (Orlando: t Academic Press, 1985), Studies in Lexical Phonology (ed. with S. Hargus, Orlando: y Academic Press, 1993), â€Å"Palatal vowels, glides, and consonants in Argentinian Spanish† (with J. Harris) (Phonology 16, 1999, 117-190), â€Å"The long fall: an intonational melody of Argentinian Spanish† (In: Features and interfaces in Romance, ed. by Herschensohn, Mallen and Zagona, 2001, 147-160), and â€Å"Sympathy meets Argentinian Spanish† (In: The nature of the word: essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky, ed. by K. Hanson and S. Inkelas, MIT Press, in press).Dieter Kastovsky is Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Vienna and Director of the Center for Translation Studies. His main fields of interest include English morphology and word-formation (synchronic and diachronic), semantics, history of linguistics, a nd language typology. He is the author of Old English Deverbal Substantives Derived by Means of a Zero Morpheme (Esslingen/N. : Langer, 1968), Wortbildung und Semantik (Tubingen/Dusseldorf: k Francke/Bagel, 1982), and more than 80 articles on English morphology and wordformation (synchronic and diachronic), semantics, history of linguistics, and language typology.Rochelle Lieber is Professor of English at the University of New Hampshire. Her publications include: Morphology and Lexical Semantics HANDBOOK OF WORD-FORMATION 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004), Deconstructing Morphology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1992), and An Integrated Theory of Autosegmental Processes (New York: SUNY Press 1987), as well as numerous articles on various aspects of word formation and the interfaces between morphology and syntax, and morphology and phonology. Ad Neeleman is Reader in Linguistics at University College London.His main research interests are case theory, the syntacti c encoding of thematic dependencies, and the interaction between syntax and syntax-external systems. His main publications include Complex Predicates (1993), Flexible Syntax (1999, with Fred Weerman), Beyond Morphology (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004, with Peter Ackema), as well as articles in Linguistic Inquiry, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, and Yearbook of Morphology. Franz Rainer is Professor of Romance languages at the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration.He is the author of Spanische Wortbildungslehre (Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1993) and co-editor (with Maria Grossmann) of La formazione delle parole in italiano (Tubingen: Niemeyer, 2004), both of these publications being comprehensive treatments of the word-formation in the respective languages. Tom Roeper, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Massachusetts, has written widely on morphology and language acquisiton, including compounds, nominalizations, implicit arguments, and derivationi al morphology.In the field of language aquisition, he is also Managing Editor of Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics (Kluwer), a Founding editor of Language Acquisition (Erlbaum), and also the author of Understanding and Producing Speech (London: Fontana, g 1983, co-authored with Ed Matthei), Parameter Setting (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1987, with E. Williams), Theoretical Issues in Language Acquisition (Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1992, with H. Goodluck and J. Weissenborn), and the forthcoming The Prism of Grammar (MIT Press). Sergio Scalise is Professor of General Linguistics at the University of Bologna. He is the editor of the journal Lingue e Linguaggio.His pulications include Generative Morphology (Dordrecht: Foris, 1984), Morfologia (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1994), and Le lingue e il Linguaggio (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2001 (with Giorgio Graffi)). Andrew Spencer is Professor of Linguistics in the Department of Language and Linguistics at the University of Essex. He has worked on various problem s of phonological and morphological theory. In addition to English, his major language area is Slavic. He is the author of Morphological Theory (Oxford: Blackwells, 1991) and co-editor (with Arnold Zwicky) of the Handbook of Morphology (Oxford: Blackwells, 1998). CONTRIBUTORS Pavol Stekauer is Professor of English linguistics in the Department of British and American Studies, Presov University, Slovakia. His research has focused on an onomasiological approach to word-formation and on the history of research into word-formation. He is the author of A Theory of Conversion in English (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1996), An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-Formation (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998)), and English Word-Formation. A History of Research (1960-1995).Tubingen: Gunter Narr, 2000), and the forthcoming Meaning Predictability in Word-Formation (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins) Gregory T. Stump is Professor of English and Linguistics at the University of Kentucky. His research has focused on the development of Paradigm Function Morphology. He is the author of The Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985), Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure (Cambridge: CUP, 2001). He is currently serving as an Associate Editor of Language and as a Consulting Editor for Yearbook of Morphology.Bogdan Szymanek is Professor of English linguistics, Head of the Department of Modern English, Catholic University of Lublin, Poland. His major research interests include morphology and its interfaces with other grammatical components, lexicology, English and Slavic languages. He is the author of Categories and categorization in morphology (RW KUL Lublin, 1988) and d Introduction to morphological analysis (PWN Warsaw, 1998 (3rd ed. )). David Tuggy has worked in Mexico with the Summer Institute of Linguistics since 1970.His main areas of interest include Nahuatl, Cognitive f grammar, translation, lexicography, and inadvertent blends and other bloopers. He is an author of The transitivity-related morphology of Tetelcingo Nahuatl; An exploration in Space grammar (UCSD Doctoral dissertation, 1981), â€Å"The affix-stem r distinction; A Cognitive grammar analysis of data from Orizaba Nahuatl† (Cognitive Linguistics 3/3, 237-300), â€Å"The thing is is that people talk that way. The question is is why? † (In: E. Casad (ed. ). 1995.Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods; the expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 713-752. ), and â€Å" â€Å"Abrelatas and scarecrow nouns: Exocentric verb-noun compounds as illustrations of basic principles of Cognitive grammar† ( (International Journal of English Studies (2004) III, 25-61). Mark Volpe is a Ph. D candidate at SUNY at Stony Brook expecting to defend his dissertation on Japanese morphology in early spring 2005. He is currently a visiting lecturer in the Department of Humanities at Mie National U niversity in Tsu, Japan.He has published independently in Lingua and Snippets and has coauthored with Paolo Acquaviva, Mark Aronoff and Robert Beard. BASIC TERMINOLOGY ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY 1. THE NOTION OF THE LINGUISTIC SIGN In this introductory chapter I will discuss the notions ‘morpheme’ and ‘sign’ in relation to word-formation. The starting-point will be Ferdinand de Saussure’s notion ‘sign’ (signe) (Saussure 1973), which since the early twentieth century has influenced enormously how linguists have analysed words and parts of words as grammatical units.There will be no tidy conclusion, partly because Saussure himself was vague on crucial points, and partly because among contemporary linguistic theorists there is little agreement about even the most fundamental aspects of how word-formation should be analysed and what terminology should be used in describing it. But I hope that this chapter will alert readers to some of the mai n risks of misunderstanding that they are sure to encounter later. 1 A handbook of English syntax in the twenty-first century would not be likely to begin with a discussion of Saussure. Why then does it make sense for a handbook on word-formation to do so?There are two reasons. The first is that syntax is centrally concerned not with individual signs in Saussure’s sense but with combinations of signs. That makes it sound as if word-formation, by contrast, is concerned not with combinations of signs but only with individual signs. As to whether that implication is attractive or not, readers can in due course form their own opinions. For the present, it is enough to say that, in the opinion of most but not all linguists, the way in which meaningful elements are combined in syntax is different from how they are combined in complex words.The second reason has to do with Saussure’s distinction between language as social convention (langue) and language as ( utterance (parol e). Each language as langue belongs to a community of speakers and, because it is a social convention, individuals have no control over it. On the other hand, language as parole is something that individual speakers have control over; it consists of the use that individuals freely make of their langue in the sentences and phrases that they utter.Hence, because syntax is concerned with the structure of sentences and phrases, Saussure seems to have considered the study of syntax as belonging to the study of parole, not langue (the exception being those sentences or phrases that are idioms or cliches and which therefore belong to langue because they are conventional rather than freely constructed). So, because his focus was on langue rather than parole, Saussure had little to say about syntax. 1 I will use ‘Saussure’ in this chapter as shorthand for ‘Saussure’s view as presented in the Cours de linguistique generale’.The Cours is a posthumous compilatio n based on notes of various series of lectures that Saussure delivered over a number of years. Apparent inconsistencies in the Cours may be due to developments in Saussure’s thinking over time or faulty note-taking on the part of the compilers or both. Nevertheless, it is the Cours as a whole that has influenced subsequent linguists, and on that basis it is fair to discuss it as if it were created by one author as a single coherent work. 5 Stekauer P. and R. Lieber (eds. ), Handbook of Word-Formation, 5—23. 2005 Springer. Printed in the Netherlands. 6 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY Saussure introduced his notion ‘sign’ with a famous example: a diagram consisting of an ellipse, the upper half containing a picture of a tree and the lower half containing the Latin word arbor ‘tree’ (Saussure Cours, part 1, chapter 1; 99; r 67). 2 The upper half of the diagram is meant to represent a concept, or what the sign signifies (its signifie), while the lower h alf represents the unit of expression in Latin that signifies it (the signifiant).As Saussure acknowledges, the term ‘sign’ in its normal usage seems closer to the signifiant than the signifie, and at first one is t inclined to ask what the point is in distinguishing the signifiant from the sign as a t whole. Saussure’s answer lies largely in his view of how signs are related to each other. Signs (he says) do not function in isolation but rather have a ‘value’ (valeur) as part of a system (part 2, chapter 4; 155-69; 110-20). Concepts (signifies) do not exist in the world indepently of language but only as components of the signs to which they belong.By this Saussure does not mean that (for example) trees have no real existence apart from language, but rather that the term for the concept ‘tree’ will differ in valeur from one language to another depending on whether or not that r language has, for example, contrasting terms for the concep t ‘bush’ (a small tree) or the concept ‘timber’ (wood from trees for use in building or furniture-making). 3 Each signifie has a wider or narrower scope, according to how few or how many are the related signs that its sign contrasts with.And with signifiants, too, what matters most is not the sounds or letters that compose them but their role in distinguishing one sign from another. Thus the Attic Greek verb forms ephe:n ‘I was saying’ and este:n ‘I stood’ both have the same structure (a prefix e-, a root, and a suffix -n), but their valeur within their respective verbal paradigms is different: ephe:n is an r ‘imperfect’ tense form while este:n is ‘aorist’. So far, so good, perhaps.The Latin word arbor and the English word tree are r simple words, not analysable into smaller meaningful parts, and each is in Saussure’s terms a sign. But consider the word unhelpfulness, which seems clearly to consist of four elements, un-, help, -ful and -ness, each of which contributes in a l transparent way to the meaning of the whole. Consider also the words Londoner, Muscovite, Parisian, Roman, and Viennese, all meaning ‘inhabitant of †¦ ’, and all consisting of a stem followed by a suffix. What things count as signs here: the whole words, or the elements composing them, or both?It is at this point that Saussure’s exposition becomes frustratingly unclear, as I will demonstrate presently. Let us call these elements ‘morphemes’. This is consistent with the usage of Baudouin de Courtenay, the inventor of the term, who speaks of ‘the unification of the concepts of root, affix, prefix, ending, and the like under the common term, morpheme’ (Baudouin de Courtenay 1972: 151) and defines it as ‘that part of a word which is endowed with psychological autonomy and is for the very same reason not 2Because readers are likely to have access to Sauss ure’s Cours in various different editions and translations, I will give first a reference to the relevant part and chapter, then a page reference to the 1973 edition by Tullio de Mauro, and finally a page reference to the 1983 translation by Roy Harris. I quote passages from the Cours in the translation by Harris. I use Saussure’s original technical terms langue, parole, signifiant and signifie, for which no consistent English equivalents have become t established. 3 This illustration is mine, not Saussure’s, but is in the spirit ofSaussure’s discussion of how two English words sheep and mutton correspond to one French word mouton. BASIC TERMINOLOGY 7 further divisible’ (1972: 153). It is also consistent with rough-and-ready definitions of the kind offered in introductory linguistics courses, where morphemes are characterised as individually meaningful units which are minimal in the sense that they are not divisible into smaller meaningful units. 4 The question just posed now becomes: Do morphemes count as signs, or do only words count, or both?Much of the divergence in how the term ‘morpheme’ is used can be seen as due to implicit or explicit attempts to treat morphemes as signs, despite the difficulties that quickly arise when one does so. These are difficulties that Saussure never confronts, because the term ‘morpheme’ never appears in the Cours. In Saussure’s defence, one can fairly plead that he could not be expected to cover every aspect of his notion of the sign in introductory lectures. Yet the question that I have just posed about morphemes is one that naturally arises almost as soon as the notion of the sign is introduced.A case can be made for attributing to Saussure two diametrically opposed positions relating to the role of signs in word-formation. I will call these the morpheme-as-sign position and the word-as-sign position. I will first present evidence from the Cours for morphe mes as signs, then present evidence for words as signs. 1. 1 Evidence for the morpheme-as-sign position in Saussure’s Cours The distinction between langue and parole is far from the only important binary distinction introduced by Saussure in his Cours.Another is the distinction between syntagmatic relationships (involving elements in linear succession) and associative relationships (involving elements that contrast on a dimension of choice). 5 Elements that can be related syntagmatically include signs, and in particular the signifiants of signs, which are ‘presented one after another’ so as to ‘form a chain’ (part 1, chapter 1, section 3; 103; 70). Chains of items that form syntagmatically related combinations are called syntagmas (syntagmes) (part 2, chapter 5; 170-5; 121-5). Some syntagmas have meanings that are conventionalised or idiomatic.This conventionalisation renders them part of langue. An example is the phrase prendre la mouche (literally ‘to take the fly’), which means ‘to take offence’ (part 2, chapter 5, section 2; 172; 123). However, the great majority of phrases and sentences have meanings that are transparent, not idiomatic. As such, they belong to parole, not to langue. As examples of syntagmas that belong to parole, Saussure cites contre tous ‘against all’, la vie humaine ‘human life’, Dieu est bon ‘God is good’, and s’il fait beau temps, nous sortirons ‘if it’s fine, we’ll go out’ (part 2, chapter 5, section 1; 170; 121).These phrases and sentences do not constitute signs as wholes; rather, t 4 5 This resembles Bloomfield’s classic definition: ‘a linguistic form which bears no partial phoneticsemantic resemblance to any other form’ (1933: 161). One implication of the specification ‘partial’ is that two morphemes may display total phonetic identity (so as to be homonyms) or total semantic identity (so as to be synonyms). In the technical terminology of linguistics, the term ‘paradigmatic’, promoted by Louis Hjelmslev (1961), has come to replace ‘associative’ as the counterpart of ‘syntagmatic’.But I will stick to Saussure’s term in this chapter. 8 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY they are made up of smaller signs, namely the words or idiomatic expressions that they contain. On this basis, the question ‘Do morphemes count as signs? ’ can be refined as ‘Can morphemes as such compose syntagmas that belong to parole rather than to langue? ’ At first sight, the answer is yes. In the very same passage where Saussure gives the examples just quoted, he cites the word re-lire ‘to read again’.Saussure uses the hyphen to draw attention to the divisibility of this word into two elements, re- ‘again’ and lire ‘to read’. The word relire thus has a meaning that is as tr ansparent as that of unhelpfulness. Here, at least, it seems clear that Saussure intends us to analyse the morpheme re- as a sign, forming part of a syntagma that belongs to parole rather than to langue. Further evidence for this ‘morpheme-as-sign’ position seems to be supplied by Saussure’s discussion of suffixes such as -ment and -eux, and of zero signs.The t words enseignement ‘instruction’, enseigner ‘to teach’ and enseignons ‘we teach’ t r clearly share what Saussure calls a ‘common element’. Similarly, the suffixes -ment and -eux are ‘common elements’ in the set of words enseignement, armement ‘armament’ and changement ‘change (noun)’, and in the set desir-eux ‘desirous’ t (from desir ‘desire’), chaleur-eux ‘warm’ (from chaleur ‘warmth’), and peur-eux r r ‘fearful’ (from peur ‘fear’) (part 2 , chapter 5, section 3; 173-5; 123-5). 6 These r common elements are morphemes, in terms of our rough-and-ready definition.Are they also signs, in Saussure’s sense? Saussure hints at the answer ‘yes’ when he discusses a set of instances where overt suffixes contrast with zero. In Czech, the noun zena ‘woman’ illustrates a widespread pattern in which the genitive plural form zen is differentiated from the other case-number forms, such as the accusative singular zenu and the nominative plural zeny, simply by the absence of a suffix. Here the genitive plural has as its exponent ‘zero’ or ‘the sign zero’ (part 1, chapter 3, section 3; 123-4; 86).Surely then (one is inclined to think) the accusative singular suffix -u and the nominative plural suffix -y, both being morphemes in our sense, must have at least as much right as zero has to count as signs. It is tempting to conclude that, in complex words, Saussure recognises individu al morphemes as signs provided that the complex word is regularly formed and semantically transparent. A reader of the Cours who looks for explicit confirmation of this tempting conclusion will be frustrated, however.Many complex words other than re-lire and forms of zena are discussed, but always it is in contexts that emphasise the associative relationships of the word as a whole, rather than the syntagmatic relationship between the morphemes that compose it. These discussions point away from morphemes as signs and towards words as signs, therefore. 1. 2 Evidence for the word-as-sign position in Saussure’s Cours Closely parallel in structure to relire is the verb de-faire ‘to undo’, also discussed by Saussure (part 2, chapter 6, section 2; 177-8; 127-8). Again he uses a hyphen to draw attention to its internal structure.The meaning of defaire, at least in many 6 The inconsistency in the use of hyphens here is Saussure’s. BASIC TERMINOLOGY 9 contexts, see ms just as transparent as that of relire, on the basis of the meanings of faire ‘to do’ and de- implying reversal. Indeed, Saussure draws our attention to this transparency by citing the parallel formations decoller ‘to unstick’, deplacer ‘to r r remove’ (literally ‘to un-place’) and decoudre ‘to unsew’. However, comparing the discussion of relire, we find an important difference in emphasis here. With relire, the emphasis was on syntagmatic relationships.With defaire, however, the emphasis is on the associative relationships that it enters into: not just with decoller, deplacer and decoudre but also with faire itself, refaire ‘to redo’, and contrefaire ‘to caricature’. Now, it is clear that contrefaire is something of an outsider in this list, because its meaning cannot be predicted from that of its elements faire and contre ‘against’. One might therefore have expected Saussure t o say something like this: â€Å"Because of its unpredictable meaning, the syntagma contrefaire is conventionalised and belongs as a unitary sign to langue, so that contre and faire do not count as signs in this context.However, the meanings of the other complex words I have cited are predictable, so they are examples of syntagmas that belong to parole, and in them the morphemes re- and de-, as well as the verb stems that accompany them, are signs. † But what Saussure actually says is almost the opposite of that. The word defaire is decomposable into ‘smaller units’, he says, only to the extent that is ‘surrounded by’ those other forms (decoller, refaire and so on) on the axis of association. Moreover, a word such as desireux is ‘a product, a combination of interdependent elements, their value [i. . valeur] deriving solely from their mutual contributions within a larger unit’ (part 2, chapter 6, section 1; 176; 126). Recall that valeur i s a property of signs, dependent on their place within the sign system as a r whole. Saussure’s words here imply, therefore, that in desireux, the ‘smaller unit’ or ‘element’ -eux, though clearly identifiable, is not a sign. Saussure hints that even the root desir, in the context of this word, does not count as a sign either, although it clearly does so when it appears as a word on its own. We are thus left with a contradiction.The word relire is cited in a context that invites us to treat it as a unit of parole, not langue, composed of signs, just like the sentence If it’s fine, we’ll go out. On the other hand, the discussion surrounding defaire insists on its status as a unit of langue, a sign as a whole, composed of ‘elements’ or ‘smaller units’ that are not signs. On the basis of my presentation so far, the evidence for the two positions (morpheme-as-sign and word-as-sign) may seem fairly evenly balanced. B ut there are solid reasons to think that the word-as-sign position more closely reflects Saussure’s true view.Consider the French number word dix-neuf ‘nineteen’ (literally f ‘ten-nine’). In such a transparent compound as this, the two morphemes dix and neuf, being words (and hence signs) on their own, must surely still count as signs f (one may think). But no, says Saussure: dix-neuf does not contain parts that are signs f any more than vingt ‘twenty’ does (part 2, chapter 6, section 3; 181; 130). The t difference between dix-neuf and vingt, as he presents it, involves a new distinction: f t between signs that are motivated and signs that are unmotivated.The sign vingt is unmotivated in that it is purely arbitrary: the sounds (or letters) that make it up give f no clue to its meaning. The sign dix-neuf however, contains subunits which give clues to its meaning that could hardly be stronger. Even so, according to Saussure, 10 ANDREW CARS TAIRS-MCCARTHY dix-neuf is still a single sign on the same plane as vingt or neuf or soixante-dix f t f ‘seventy’ (literally ‘sixty-ten’). It is the valeur of dix-neuf in the system of French r f number words that imposes on it the status of a unitary sign, despite its semantic transparency. Saussure might also have added that this transparency, real though it is, depends on a convention that belongs to French langue, not parole: the convention that concatenation of dix and neuf means ‘ten plus nine’, not ‘ten times f nine’ or ‘ten to the ninth power’, for example. His neglect of this point reflects his general neglect of syntactic and syntagmatic convention. 7 Similarly, the English plural form ships is motivated because it ‘recall[s] a whole series like flags, birds, books, etc. ’, while men and sheep are unmotivated because they ‘recall no parallel cases’.The plural suffix -(e)s is, in the English-speaking world, among the first halfdozen ‘morphemes’ that every beginning student of linguistics is introduced to. Yet for Saussure it does not count as sign; it is merely a reason for classifying the words that it appears in (ships, flags etc. ) as relatively motivated signs rather than purely d arbitrary ones. There is thus a striking discrepancy between the word-centred approach to complex words, predominant in the work of the pioneer structuralist Saussure, and the morpheme-centred approach that (as we shall see) predominated among his structuralist successors.In section 2 I will outline the attractions and pitfalls of morpheme-centred approaches. 2. MORPHEME AND WORD Saussure recognised some of the difficulties inherent in using ‘word’ as a technical term (part 2, chapter 2, section 3). Nevertheless, when illustrating his notion ‘sign’, he chose linguistic units that in ordinary usage would be classified as r r words, such as Lati n arbor ‘tree’ and French juger ‘to judge’ (part 1, chapter 1, section 1; part 2, chapter 4, section 2).This may be largely because the languages from which he drew his examples were nearly all well-studied European languages with a long written history and a tradition of grammatical and lexical analysis in f terms of which the identification of words (in some sense) was uncontroversial. However, accompanying the theoretical developments in linguistics in the early twentieth century was an explosion in fieldwork on non-Indo-European languages, particularly in the Americas and Africa. In these languages, lacking a European-style tradition of grammatical description, identifying words as linguistic units often seemed problematic.In fact, there was a strong current of opinion according to which the word deserves no special status in linguistic description, and in particular no special status warranting a distinction between the internal structure of words (â⠂¬Ëœmorphology’) and the internal structure of phrases and sentences (‘syntax’). As Malinowski put it, ‘isolated words are in fact only linguistic figments, the products of an advanced linguistic analysis’ (Malinowski 1935: 11, cited by Robins 1990: 154). So what units are appropriate as tools for a preliminary linguistic analysis?It seemed natural to answer: those units that are clearly indivisible grammatically and t 7 I owe this point to Harris (1987: 132). BASIC TERMINOLOGY 11 lexically, or, in other words, units of the kind that we provisionally labelled ‘morphemes’ in section 1. Thus, despite Saussure’s leaning towards the word-assign position, the experience of fieldwork on languages unfamiliar to most European and American scholars imposed a preference for a version of the morpheme-as-sign position. Where, then, does the morpheme-as-sign position leads us?Let us recall first the Saussurean norm of what constitutes a signif iant: a sequentially ordered string of sounds, such as Latin [arbor] (spelled arbor) or French [ y e] (spelled juger), such that every unit of parole is analysable exhaustively as a string of signifiants (part 1, chapter 1, section 3). What we will observe is a temptation towards signs with signifiants that deviate progressively further from this norm. The analyses that I will discuss are based on an approach to morphemes that was expounded in particular by Zellig S. Harris (1942), Charles F.Hockett (1947), Bernard Bloch (1947) and Eugene A. Nida (1948). None of these explicitly espouses the morpheme-as-sign position, because none of them cites Saussure. However, the issues that they discuss can all be seen as prima facie difficulties for that position. The fact that all these references are clustered more than half a century ago reflects the replacement of f morphology by syntax at the centre of grammatical theory-construction. Nevertheless, I will comment in section 3 on uses of t he term ‘morpheme’ since about 1960. 2. Case study: English noun plural forms (part 1) f For Saussure, as we have seen, the -s suffix of flags and ships is not a sign but an element that renders those words relatively motivated, by contrast with men and sheep. Let us say instead that this -s suffix is indeed a sign, with the signifie ‘plural’. What is its signifiant? So far as English spelling is concerned, the answer is simple. When we turn to phonology, however, we encounter our first stumbling-block. In a conventional phonemic transcription for these two words, the suffix will appear in two different shapes, /z/ and /s/, (/fl? , ps/), and there is yet a third shape, either / z/ or / z/, according to dialect, found in words such as roses, horses, churches and judges. 8 Must we then recognise three different signs with the same signifie? Such an analysis would place these three signs on a par with sets of synonyms such as courgettes and zucchini, or nearly and almost. That is hardly satisfactory, because it neglects the role of phonology in determining the complementary distribution of the three shapes: / z/ appears after strident coronal sounds, while elsewhere /z/ appears after voiced sounds and /s/after voiceless ones.It was in relation to patterns such as this that the term ‘allomorph’ was first introduced in morphology. The intended parallel with the notions ‘phoneme’ and ‘allophone’ is evident. Just as sounds that are phonetically similar and in 8 In my dialect, the third shape is / z/, so that taxes sounds the same as taxis, but roses sounds different from Rosa’s. For many speakers of other dialects, the homophony pattern is the other way round. The examples that I will discuss fit my own dialect, but similar examples can easily be constructed to t make the same point for speakers with the other homophony pattern. 2 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY complementary distribution count as allo phones of one phoneme, so individually meaningful units that are not divisible into smaller meaningful units, provided that they are synonymous and in complementary distribution, count as allomorphs of one morpheme. And just as it is the allophones of a phoneme that get pronounced, rather than the phoneme itself, a morpheme is likewise not pronounced directly, but represented in the speech chain by whichever of its allomorphs is appropriate for the context.This applies even to morphemes that have the same shape in all contexts, because there is no reason in principle why a morpheme should not have only one allomorph, just as a phoneme may have only one allophone. Notice, however, that that phrase ‘individually meaningful units that are not divisible into smaller meaningful units’ is lifted from my provisional definition of ‘morpheme’ in section 1. It seems, then, that our exploration of the morpheme-assign position has led us already to a dilemma.If the uni ts / z/, /z/ and /s/ are l Saussurean signs, just like the units / n/ (un-), /help/ (help), /f l/ (-ful) and /n s/ (-ness) that served to introduce the ‘morpheme’ notion in section 1, then we must concede that the units that deserve ‘sign’ status, as an alternative to words, are not after all morphemes but allomorphs of morphemes. 9 Furthermore, if / z/, /z/ and /s/ are all signifiants of signs whose signifie is ‘plural’, the morpheme that they all belong to seems somehow superfluous from the point of view of the Saussurean t sign, constituting neither a signifiant nor a signifie.On the other hand, if we wish to continue to say that it is morphemes that are signs, rather than allomorphs, we must depart from the Saussurean doctrine that a signifiant is a linearly ordered string t within the speech chain (/ z/, for example), and say instead that it is, or may be, a set d of linearly ordered strings in complementary distribution (/ z/, /z/ and /s/ , in this instance). The fact that the distribution of these allomorphs is phonologically conditioned may suggest an escape from this dilemma.If the choice between the three allomorphs is determined purely by constraints of English phonology, then perhaps we can say that, in phonological terms at least (although not phonetic), we really are dealing with only one string within the speech chain, not three. If so, the problem of multiple signifiants disappears, and the plural -s suffix conforms to the norm for a Saussurean sign. The stumbling-block is not quite so easily surmounted, however. English phonological constraints do not supply a conclusive verdict on which allomorph is appropriate in all contexts.There are many contexts where more than one of the three allomorphs is phonologically admissible, and some contexts where all three are. Consider the noun pen /pen/. Its plural form is /penz/, complying with the generalisation that the voiced form of the suffix appears after voiced sounds (other than coronal stridents). But this is not because the alternative suffix shapes yield bad phonotactic combinations. Both /pens/ and / pen z/ are phonologically wellformed, and indeed both exist as words (pence and pennies). So something more than pure ( phonotactics is at work in the choice between the three allomorphs.Only in terms of a phonological theory more sophisticated than any available in Saussure’s time (for 9 This is the view defended by Me uk (1993-2000). BASIC TERMINOLOGY 13 example, contemporary Optimality Theory) can we motivate a single phonological underlier for all three. Around the middle of the twentieth century, problems such as the one we have just encountered were typically handled by positing a level of analysis in some degree distinct from both phonology and morphology, called morphophonology (sometimes abbreviated to morphonology) or morphophonemics.The terms ‘morphophonology’ and ‘morphophonological’ are someti mes used to mean simply ‘(pertaining to) the interface between morphology and phonology’. However, morphophonemics has a more specific sense, implying a unit called a morphophoneme. In this instance, one might posit a morphophoneme /Z/ (say), realised phonologically as / z/, /z/ or /s/, according to the context. 10 This allows us to posit a single signifiant underlying / z/, /z/ and /s/, but at the cost (again) of t recognising a signifiant which departs from Saussure’s norm in that it is not t pronounceable directly.The morphophoneme /Z/, as just described, is realised by allomorphs that are distributed on a phonological basis. But complementary distribution may be based on grammar rather than phonology. English nouns such as wife, loaf and bath supply f f f an illustration of this. In the singular, they end in a voiceless fricative: /waif/, /louf/, / /ba /. In the plural, however, their stems end in a voiced fricative (/waiv/, /louv/, /ba /). (This difference b etween the singular and plural stems is reflected orthographically in wives and loaves, though not in paths. The allomorph of the plural suffix that accompanies them is therefore, as expected, the one that appears after voiced sounds: /z/. Do the singular and plural stems therefore belong to distinct morphemes? To say so would be consistent with Baudouin de Courtenay’s usage. However, more recent linguists, influenced by the identity in meaning and the nearcomplete identity in sound in pairs such as has wife and wive-, have always treated them as allomorphs of one morpheme.Yet there is nothing phonological about the plural suffix that enforces the selection of the voiced-fricative allomorph. The noun wife itself can carry the possessive marker -’s to yield a form wife’s /waifs/ with a voiceless fricative in a phonologically wellformed cluster. Moreover, not all nouns whose stems end in voiceless fricatives exhibit this voicing in the plural; for example, it does not occur in the plural forms fifes, oafs or breaths.So the voicing is restricted both lexically (it occurs in some nouns only) and grammatically (it occurs only when the plural suffix /Z/ follows). Some morphologists have handled this by positing morphophonemes such as /F/ and / /, units that are realised as a voiced phoneme in the plural and a voiceless one in the singular (Harris 1942). These nouns 10 The convention of using capital letters to represent morphophonemes was quite widespread in the mid twentieth century (see e. g. Harris 1942). But capital letters were also used to represent a purely phonological notion, the archiphoneme.An archiphoneme is a unit that replaces two or more phonemes in a context where the contrast between them is unavailable, as for example in German the m contrast between /t/ and /d/ is unavailable in syllable codas. The [t] that appears in codas in German was often said to realise not /t/, which would imply a contrast with /d/, but an archiphoneme /T/, t d implying no such contrast. It is important not to be misled by notation into confusing t morphophonemes with archiphonemes. 14 ANDREW CARSTAIRS-MCCARTHY an then be represented morphophonologically (rather than phonologically) as /waiF/, /louF/ and /ba /. The morphophoneme can be seen as a device which enables a morpheme to be t analysed as having a single signifiant (and thus as constituting a single Saussurean sign) even when in terms of its phonology it seems necessary to recognise multiple allomorphs and hence multiple signifiants – a possibility that Saussure does not allow for. But is the morphophoneme device capable of handling all multipleallomorph patterns satisfactorily? The answer is no, as I will demonstrate in the next subsections. . 2 Case study: the perfect participle forms of English verbs I use ‘perfect participle’ to refer to the form in which the lexical verb appears when accompanied by the auxiliary have, as in I have waited, I have pl ayed, I have swum. The regular English perfect participle suffix -(e)d has three shapes, /t/, /d/ and d 11 / d/. These are distributed in a fashion closely parallel to the allomorphs of the noun plural suffix: / d/ appears after coronal plosives, while elsewhere /d/ appears after voiced sounds and /t/ after voiceless ones.But, just as with the noun plural suffix, phonology alone does not always guarantee the correct choice of suffix. For d t example, /’k? n d/, /k? nd/ and /k? nt/ are all phonologically possible words and indeed actual words: canid ‘member of the subgroup of mammals to which wolves d and dogs belong’, canned ‘contained in a can’ and cant ‘hypocrisy’. These suffix d t shapes therefore illustrate the same stumbling-block and the same dilemma as the three shapes of the plural suffix.One way of handling this, as with the plural suffix, is to posit a morphophoneme (say, /D/), realised as /t/, /d/ or / d/, according to the pho nological context. However, the perfect participle exhibits complications, one of which is not paralleled in noun plurals. Some verbs have a perfect participle form with the suffix t d /t/ (orthographically -t rather than -ed) which appears even where /d/ would be expected, because the last sound of the verb stem is voiced, or where / d/ would be expected, because what precedes is a coronal plosive.Examples of these ‘orthographic-t’ verbs are build (perfect participle built), bend (bent), feel (felt), keep d t d t l t (kept), spell (spelt), lose (lost), teach (taught), and buy (bought). Corresponding to t l t t t each of these it is possible to find a verb with a similar stem shape but whose perfect participle is formed with /t/, /d/ or / d/ according to the regular pattern: (1) Orthographic-t verbs Base Perfect participle build built bend bent feel felt Regular verbs Base gild tend peel Perfect participle gilded tended eeled 11 In many dialects other than mine, the thi rd allomorph is not / d/ but / d/. This does not affect my d d argument, however. BASIC TERMINOLOGY 15 seeped heaved felled oozed bleached lied keep leave spell lose teach buy kept left spelt lost taught bought seep heave fell ooze bleach lie As is clear, a further characteristic of orthographic-t verbs is that they nearly t always display a stem form that differs from the base or present-tense stem. What immediately concerns us is the suffix, however.Is it or is it not a distinct morpheme from the regular /t/ (spelt -ed) which is in complementary distribution with / d/ and d /d/? If we answer ‘yes’, we implicitly claim that the fact that /t/ is a common allomorph of the -ed morpheme as well as the sole allomorph of the -t morpheme is d t a mere coincidence. But, just as with wife and wive-, it goes against the grain to posit two distinct morphemes with the same meaning and such similar shapes. Thus the consensus in analyses of English verb morphology is that ‘ort hographic-t’ in an allomorph of the same morpheme that regular /t/, /d/ and / d/ belon

Why did war break out in Europe in 1939?

When Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933 he promised to reverse the Treaty of Versailles, like many Germans Hitler believed that the treaty of Versailles was unjust and blamed Germany’s problems on the peace settlement. He also hate it so much he called the German leaders who signed it ‘The November criminals ‘this shows his hatred towards the treaty, but this wasn’t the only reason why he dislike the treaty so much, the treaty was a constant remainder to Germans of their loss in First World War and the treaty was also a symbol of Germanys defeat and disgrace that came with it, it humiliated the Germany. Hitler thought it would be necessary to destroy the Treaty of Versailles in order to further his aims, also when Hitler came to power, reparations had been reduced and eventually cancelled in 1932 but most of the points were still in place. Hitler’s aims were to change the territorial settlement of Treaty of Versailles by regaining lands which had been taken from Germany at Versailles, including the Saar and Danzig and bring the seven million German-speaking people in Austria, and the four million in Czechoslovakia and Poland, into his empire this again involved destroying the peace settlement of 1919. He also wants to build up his army to prove Germany was still the Great power and to expand in east, probably against communist USSR- Hitler hated Communist. This aim was probably intended for future confirmed as the greatest power in Europe. The first stage of Germans struggle would be to strengthen its lands in Europe. He couldn’t do it alone; Hitler felt the main enemies will be France and USSR, so his aim was to get friendship with Italy and Britain against them. In the 1930s there were two incidents that really tested the League of Nations. The Manchurian Crisis was caused when Japan had been dissatisfied with the peace settlement at the end of the First World War, Many thought the answer would be the expansion of Japan into Manchuria; this would make room for growing population and markets for Japanese good. In September 1931 the Japanese claimed that there had been an explosion on railway line at Mukden, which they said was sabotage by the Chinese, there was no certainty that there had been an explosion but this gave an excuse for the Japanese army to invade. The Japanese army quickly defeated the Chinese at Mukden, they hadn’t got permission from the government but success was so popular in Japan that army was now in control of Japanese policy. China claimed Japan had committed an act of aggression, Japan claimed that it had gone into Manchuria to restore order in the end Japan had done wrong but it had already reorganised Manchuria and called it Manchukuo, and Japan walk out the League. The Abyssinian Crisis was caused when Italy launch an attack on Abyssinia , it was one of few places Africa which had not been taken by the European countries and it was easy to attack because it was next to Italian colonies of Eritrea and Somaliland . The Italians had tried to do this in 1896 but had been defeated at the battle of Adowa; Mussolini planned gain revenge for this defeat and wants to benefit the Italian economy. Italy, like Japan in 1931, was in permanent member of council of the League. The Manchurian Crisis had given Mussolini the impression that the league would not resist an act of aggression by a major power. In these sources you can see the League of Nations non-action in Abyssinian Crisis and Manchurian Crisis showed other nations like Germany that the League are powerless and irrelevant, giving Hitler the impression that he can do what he wants because the league didn’t do anything with the other Crisis’s. In 1936 Hitler began his policy of reclaiming lost German territory and Neville Chamberlain who become prime minister in 1937, he believed in taking an active role in solving Hitler’s grievances , he felt that Germans had good reasons to be upset at many of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles . What he wanted to do was to find what Hitler want and show him that reasonable claims could be met by negotiation instead of by force, so this way the problems of treaty could be solved, Germany could be satisfied and there would be no war, so he made an appeasement and Hitler could get what he wants, little did Chamberlain know of the risks of appeasement. After 1937 Frances supported appeasement because of the increased of security it had with the building of the Maginot line and Britain already agreed because they didn’t want a war and they felt sorry for Germany because of the treaty. Hitler got what he wants with the appeasement. In 1939 Hitler made an agreement with Stalin called the Nazi-Soviet pact, the pact was strange because Fascism and communism were sworn enemies and Hitler never hidden his opposition to communism as expressed in Mein the Kampf. The Nazi-Soviet pact went against the Anti-Comintern pact that Hitler signed with Italy and Japan in 1937, which was in opposed to communism. In the pact the USSR and Germany agreed not interfere against other power in event of war, secret clauses divide Poland between them, the USSR took the land it lost at the end of First World War and Germany receiving the west of Poland including Danzig and the Polish Corridor. This pact benefited both Hitler and Stalin because it meant that Hitler attack on Poland was inevitable and he was prevented two danger of wars on two fronts and in the end they both got bits of Poland. When Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, Britain and France keep their pledge and on 2 September they declared war on Germany , much to Hitler’s surprise, Britain warned him that it would join the war if Germany invade Poland . THERE WAS NO HOPE OF OTHER Munich. Hitler had gone too far. The collapse of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 proved to be last straw for the appeasers. Public opinion in Britain’s was in favour of opposing Hitler. On 1 septemberb1939 German troops invade Poland. On 3 September Britain declared war on Germany. So that’s how invasion of Poland led to war in Europe, Hitler went too far and Britain was not just going to watch!!!. Although it was Hitler’s actions which led to war, many other factors were important in making the war happen like the way the League of Nations handled the Manchurian Crisis and Abyssinian Crisis, it gave a green light to dictators and other country which were trying to bend the rules which the league had set. Hitler took advantage of Crisis’s to put his plans forward to reversed the treaty of Versailles and to get Germany out of there depression, make Germans proud again and make there empire powerful again. There were many other factors that led to war like great depression , it hit USA first and spread like shockwave a cross the world and it was a vicious circle because none of the country could afford to paid its loan or to traded, so no money was coming in and no one was getting paid and there was no money and the people suffered, they just want a way out and Hitler saw a way to get his people out of this by getting out of treaty and getting back his land and others that wasn’t his in first place and by doing this he caused what we know as the second world war. There are hundreds of reason that led towards the war and some are just the timing but most are the fault of Hitler and his malicious planning , he saw an opportunity and he took it , causing country to turn against country ,friends against friends, father against sons ., causing a war we still haven’t recover from emotionally may never do so Why Did War Break Out in Europe in 1939 When Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933; he had a lot of frustration against the Treaty which he thought was unfair. For example the enormous amount of reparation, it literally got Germany bankrupt. The restriction of army had also caused a lot of anger; Hitler and the Germans felt humiliated as the army used to be Germany’s pride and symbol before the First World War. Moreover, Germany was not allowed self-determination and joining of the League of Nations. These further made the Germans feel humiliated and dishonoured. The loss of colonies and territories had not only made Germany lost human resources, they were also important industrial areas which provide resources and markets. Therefore when Hitler came to power in 1933, he pledged that he would abolish the treaty to recover the Germany economy brings back German’s pride. Hitler also felt a strong necessity of increasing German territory, which came from the idea of ‘Lebensraum’, a German word for living space. His aimed was clearly to bring Germany back to where it was before the war, a proud and strong nation. In the 1930s there were two incidents that really tested the League of Nations; they were the invasion of Manchuria and the Abyssinia crisis. During the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the league had done a bad job by delaying to solve their own local problems- it took them a year to produce a report to condemn the Japanese in1933 (when Hitler came to power). However, Japan intended to invade more of China to ‘defend their selves’, thus the powerless League voted to approve it when only Japanese voted against as an insult. Witnessing the incident, Hitler could be almost certain that League was too useless and weak to stop his future actions. In 1936 he took a huge risk by sending German troops to remilitarise Rhineland; however he was confident due to the incident happened in Manchuria, as well as the Abyssinian crisis which was happening at the exact same time. The league was too weak by then as they were distracted by the Abyssinian crisis; they only condemned Hitler’s action but had no power to do anything else. Thus Hitler won; the remilitarisation of Rhineland as well as a huge gain in confidence. In 1936 Hitler began his policy of reclaiming lost German territory. He wanted an â€Å"Anschluss with Austria†, that is to bring the two nations together even though they were banned to ally under the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler started to manipulate the Nazis to stir up trouble, to call for democratic plebiscite and eventually he sent his own troops into Austria to â€Å"defend democracy†, when the real intention was probably to make sure people vote for Anschluss under the watchful eyes of the army. British Prime Minister, Chamberlin, had also supported the idea of uniting Austrian with the Germans. Britain and France had both followed the policy of Appeasement in the 1930s. Britain’s leaders may have felt they had no option but to appease Hitler, even when there were obvious risks to such a policy such as it would encourage Hitler to be aggressive, allowed Germany to grow too strong, etc. France was invaded by Germany a several times and thus feeling a need to make peace. However, the main reason could be that they felt too vulnerable to go on war that they were perhaps in denial of Hitler’s potential and danger with or without their own acknowledgement. In 1938, Hitler had successfully took over Sudetenland very much due to the leaders of Britain and France’s naivety of trusting Hitler as well as their reluctance to go on war to stop Hitler’s action. In 1939 Hitler made an agreement with Stalin not to attack one another. They signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact and announced the terms to the world. While privately they also agreed to divide Poland between them. Stalin was very worried as Hitler had openly stated his interest in conquering the Russian land. He signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact because he was not convinced that Britain and France would be strong and reliable enough as allies against Hitler. Another advantage was that he had planned to take over the Baltic states of eastern Poland, which had been part of Russia in the Tsar’s day. Although he did not believe Hitler would keep his word anymore, but he hoped the alliance with Germany could buy him time to build up his forces against the attack he knew would come. To Hitler’s advantage, he saw Russia as a good geographical ally in a sense hat he would have helpers up in the north if a war breaks out in the west. Hitler and the Soviet forces invaded Poland in 1939; one right after another. Poland was soon taken over by the two nations. However, it was not satisfying for Hitler, he demanded even more. He was certain that Britain and France would be weak as they always had been and would not risk going on war over Poland, and thus he planned an attack on his temporary al ly, the USSR. However, this time the Britain and France kept their pledge and stood up for France, declaring a war against Germany. Hitler was caught by surprise, the war broke out sooner than he had expected and it was against the wrong opponents. Hitler would have never predicted that the invasion of Poland would lead to war in Europe and eventually turned into a World War again. Despite the fact that it was Hitler’s actions which led to war, many other factors were important in making the war happen. As I have mentioned it was the League’s incapability in settling peace that had led to frustration of the Germans to tear up the treaty. It was Britain and France’s weakness that had gained Hitler’s confidence and encouraged him to gamble more the next time. It was the various countries’ fear and reluctance to go on war to stop Hitler that had allowed him to take a bigger step each time. After all, Hitler was just taking advantage in every situation before the war and was responding to people’s weakness and naivety by demanding for more. When Britain and France finally stood up to declare war on Germany, Hitler was already stronger than before and it in the end it turned out to be another World War.

What is a Capstone Project in High School?

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a capstone as a â€Å"high point: crowning achievement† which, in many ways, defines a capstone project for high schoolers. Capstone projects require students to use all of the skills they’ve built over the course of their schooling to complete a substantial project that highlights their educational and intellectual experience.    A high school capstone project is a way for students to demonstrate the culmination of skills and knowledge gained through their academic career by completing a long-term, multi-faceted project. Typically performed at the end of a student’s high school career, students commonly choose a topic, profession, or social problem to explore and work with a mentor in that field of interest. The mentor guides the student through the project—sharing their knowledge of the field, teaching new skills, ensuring the student stays on task, and fostering a professional, real-world experience. Over the course of the project, students conduct research, maintain a portfolio detailing the steps taken, and create a final paper, product, or presentation that demonstrates what they’ve learned. Often times, a final presentation is given to a panel of teachers, experts in the field, and community members. One of the primary benefits of a capstone project to a high school student is that it highlights their educational accomplishments. Capstone projects provide students with the opportunity to exhibit their capacity for learning and allow them to show off the critical thinking skills they’ve built. Colleges search for well-rounded students and the multi-faceted nature of a capstone project allows students to display a wide range of skills to prospective schools—writing, research, teamwork, planning, self-sufficiency and public speaking are just a sampling of the many skills used by a student to complete such a rigorous project. Capstone projects are a great way to indicate to potential colleges that a student is prepared for the demands of higher education. Capstone projects also benefit high school students by creating self-confidence and building a sense of preparedness for college. A student who has successfully completed a thorough study of a subject and collaborated with an older, experienced mentor is likely to feel ready to take the next step academically. Capstone projects can also add a sense of purpose to a time where interest in education often wanes—consider it a cure for senioritis.    Lastly, capstone projects let students immerse themselves in a field of interest. For some students, it solidifies their interest in a field and clarifies a degree path; others may learn through their capstone project that the field they chose isn’t as interesting as they thought. Either way, it helps create a sense of certainty before taking expensive college courses. Our Early Advising Program helps students in 9th and 10th grade discover their passions and build strong academic and extracurricular profiles to succeed in high school. Though there are numerous benefits to undertaking a capstone project, the question remains: should your child complete one? The simple answer is yes. Completing a capstone project can be a feather in the cap of any prospective college student, so long as the project doesn’t interfere with any of the student’s other activities or interests that may be attractive to colleges and universities. Colleges are always searching for students who maintain a high grade point average (GPA) while challenging themselves academically. The long-term, intense study of a subject will certainly make a student’s academic prowess evident to prospective schools, but this is only valuable if it doesn’t interfere with their studies and negatively affect their GPA. Students challenging themselves with a capstone project should be careful not to undertake the project at the expense of their other intellectual pursuits. Colleges also seek out well-rounded students and you can make the argument that the focused study of one subject is out of line with what colleges and universities hope to see in a student. It’s true that capstone projects highlight the possession of a diverse skill set in a student, but colleges look for students with a wide range of interests in addition to skills. Students should not take up a capstone project if it means sacrificing extracurricular activities and other interests. On a more personal level, students should ask themselves what they want to accomplish via a capstone project. The best projects are often the ones where the student is most passionate. If a student has a sincere interest in the deeper exploration of a field, it should be encouraged and their excitement and enthusiasm for the field can be felt in their work. If a student is solely tackling a capstone project to wow colleges, there is most likely a better way to impress schools more in line with the student’s interest. Looking to get a better sense of what a capstone project is or looking for an idea to get started on your own capstone project? Here are some examples: Business: Study digital marketing and create a digital marketing plan for a local business to help increase awareness and drive sales. STEM: Learn about video game or app development and conceptualize, design, and build a working game or app. Athletics: Research training and nutrition, build a training plan and diet, and perform in an athletic competition (a triathlon or marathon, for example). Community Service: Learn about the work non-profits do, get first-hand experience volunteering with a local non-profit, and build a plan to create an organization that serves your community. Film: Research what makes an effective public service announcement (PSA) and write, direct, and film a PSA that addresses a concern in your community. A capstone project is just one way that high schoolers can boost their college profile. Our Early Advising Program is aimed at 9th and 10th graders—helping them get a jump start on building a resume that will impress college admissions officers with great grades, stellar standardized test scores, and awesome extracurricular activities. In architecture, a capstone is the final stone placed on a bridge or arch, securing all the other stones in place. In combination with our Early Advising Program, a capstone project is a great way to tie together all of the work a student has done during their high school career to complete an inspiring college profile.

The Impact of Divorce Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

The Impact of Divorce - Research Paper Example The status of marriage and the cohabitation of couples, in general, has changed substantially over the past 80 years or so (Saluter & Lugaila, 1996). In 1920, the divorce rate stood at about 12 percent. In 1960, about a quarter of marriages failed and by 1974, the number jumped to a full third of all marriages ending in divorce (Gutierrez, 1988). In 1996, it was reported that almost half (43 percent) of first marriages ended in either divorce or separation by the15th year of the relationship, according to a study conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (Saluter & Lugaila, 1996). Men responded that inattentiveness of the children and home, mental cruelty, sexual incompatibility, and infidelity were the main reasons for filing divorce papers. Women cited mental and physical cruelty, alcohol abuse and financial difficulties. In general, persons in the economic middle class are concerned with emotional and psychological satisfaction. Lower-class couples are concerned more with physical actions of their husbands and financial difficulties within the relationship. Numerous background elements are associated with higher rates of divorce. For instance, couples who are better educated have a lower risk of divorce than do those who are less well educated. Accordingly, â€Å"divorce is more common among lower socioeconomic groups than among professional groups† (Gutierrez, 1988). A divorce encompasses many variables, all or some may play a role in contributing to difficulties for children. The loss of daily contact with one parent from the family situation, usually the father, results in the children losing the amount of affection they were receiving when both parents were in the same house. The life-skills, knowledge, and financial resources formerly supplied by the missing parent, whether they are out of their lives on a part or full-time basis is forever lost to the children. Divorce usually means that the children are living with one parent now earning just one salary which creates hardships beyond the emotional crisis of the divorce itself. The stress involved in divorce goes beyond the emotions involved as well. Many children are forced to move to a new, usually less desirable neighborhood, possibly put into a daycare for the first time and must make new friends in an unfamiliar environment. Some are moved father away from the familiarity of the extende d family, uncles, aunts, grandmothers, etc. One, some or all of these life-changing events can cause great and lasting amounts of stress for children of all ages. Whether or not the divorce is amicable and the general stability of the parents plays a role in how the children will adjust to the divorce. â€Å"Much of what happens to children in general is related to the skill of parents in helping them develop. The competence of parents following divorce is likely to have considerable influence on how the children are doing† (Kelly and Emery, 2003) Unfortunately for all concerned, conflict between divorcing parents is frequently the rule rather than the exception. The extent to which parents expose their children to

Hyperinflation in Argentina Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Hyperinflation in Argentina - Essay Example This is explained with relevant data and pictorial graphs in order to bring out a clear understanding of the concept. Hyperinflation in any country is the result of careless monetary policies and the balance of imports and exports, and the mismatch of demand and supply factors. A country that slips into a period of hyperinflation experiences a rough economy in addition to heavy economic downturn and in the end resulting in currency devaluation. According to the banking dictionary Hyperinflation is explained as an "Economic condition characterized by rapidly rising prices of freely traded goods, and declining purchasing power, threatening economic stability and ability to repay External Debt the term usually is applied when consumer prices are rising at rates in excess of 50% per month, particularly in developing countries. While we do have many definitions and perceptions about hyperinflation let us first understand the term Inflation. In an article published by the department of Economics Wilfred Laurier University of Canada, "Inflation is generally defined as a sustained increase in the cost of living. While there exist a myriad of indicators of the cost of living in most countries, inflation is usually thought of in terms of a consumer price index (CPI)." Moreover is further explains inflation as "An understanding of inflation and its causes is vital since continuous increases in some indicator of the cost of living imp lies a concomitant fall in the purchasing power of money. In other words, a given quantity of currency is able to command fewer quantities of goods and services as prices rise."(Pierre 2000) Finally inflation is the rise in the consumer prices and the percentage of this rise if exceeds over 50% a month is hyperinflation. Most of the hyperinflationary conditions have risen across the Globe after the Second World War. Brazil and Argentina had an average monthly increase of 68.6% and 66% respectively. However, economists commonly agree that Germany's economy was the worst affected due to Hyperinflationary conditions during the Second World War. The recent Global financial meltdown has given rise to many questions about hyperinflation across the Globe and how long it would last and whether this would give rise to another Great Depression 2. In an article by Global Research, the International forecaster of Bob Chapman predicted Inflation rates; US at 12.5% ,China 8.5% The Gulf an average of 12% ,Russia at 14%, India at 8%, Indonesia 12%, Brazil at 5%, Chile 8.3%, and Argentina at 23%.(Lendman 2008) The figures are just a global forecast of which Argentina the highest note that Brazil has managed to emerge out of its hyperinflationary condition and is well on the road to recovery. History of Argentina's Inflation: Just to give glimpse of the Argentine Inflation picture. Hyperinflation picture rather news from the Argentine post the average annual inflation rate in Argentina between 1965 and 1989 was 284%, according to a 1992 research paper archived by the National Bureau of Economic Research. According to this

No title Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

No title - Assignment Example Additionally, the negotiation of the best care for the patient might be extremely difficult in my community. A nurse working at home or community setting should have a master’s or doctoral degrees. Similarly, postmaster’s certificate in nursing from an accredited program is acceptable for a nurse to function in a community or home setting. In many states, the nurse must have a certification from the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC). The nurses should have completed clinical work, as well as courses in pharmacology, health assessment, health promotion, disease diagnosis, and prevention (American Nurses Credentialing Center, 2014). The nurses should have approximately two years’ post-qualifying experience. The nurses should possess expert knowledge, as well as clinical judgment in order to be certified to work in the community and home setting. Additionally, the nurses should have demonstrated unmatched dedication to the patient care. In effect, competence is a key element that informs certification of the nurses (2014). The nursing experience has prepared me adequately to function as a home health nurse or community health nurse. Notably, I have honed the skills of providing nursing care to patients through employing problem-solving approaches in accordance with guidelines and standards of holistic care delivery. Additionally, I have developed the capability to implement and facilitate patient, as well as a patient educational program that captures the needs of the communities. In essence, I am ready to work in the community and home setting as a

Teaching ESL Adults Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Teaching ESL Adults - Essay Example However, good times are not always why people seek overseas settlement (Yen, 2012). According to the United States 2010 Population Census, of the 26.4 million immigrants in the United States, almost 80% are adults (Yen, 2012). English as a Second Language (ESL), as a result, has turned into the fastest growing and developing segment in government financed adult education program. A majority of the adult ESL students do not have much education in their home country, and hence, lack proper study skills vital for academic success and accomplishment. They tend to face great financial distress, as well as family responsibilities, which oftentimes avert them from focusing on their education, as well. Educating them can be a vital challenge for both the curriculum developer and the teacher (Yen, 2012). Therefore, a proper lesson plan should be devised, which seeks to incorporate all adult ESL students in the classroom. The title of the lesson will be "Finding a Job: An Introduction to Apply ing for Entry Level Positions". The plan will incorporate 15 adult students of varying ages, origins and language proficiency who are concerned in discovering what it takes to find employment. The course will run for two-hours, twice a week for eight weeks. The three main goals of the lesson plan will include enabling to listen actively, speak so others can understand and also enable adult ESL learners to read with understanding. In Colorado state, the capability of listening and understand English incorporates goals, which mainly revolve around survival and personal safety (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 2008). A case of a survival skill at an indispensable stage is understanding when a person asks for your name. Also, in Colorado, understanding someone can be positively influenced by education. Not being understood is annoying for a non-native English speaker. An easy goal is the ability to inquire the price of an item in the market especially a crowded one (Starr, 2013). A higher goal is the ability to hold a discussion with your child's teacher at school, or to give details about a book adequately, which a librarian can assist in locating the title. Understanding and interpreting the written English language is also vital. The skill to understand and interpret road signs or pick a meal from a menu is a recessed skill, while a high-level skill is the capacity to select suitable classes from a college course catalog (Starr, 2013). This talent permits the adult language learner to feel more contented and happy in a language, which is not his or her own. Many adult ESL learners find this the most natural place to begin their English language acquirement. Benchmark standards of the adult ESL students with regards to Colorado state standards include: All ESLs have to take state educational achievement tests in language arts, apart from ESLs who have been in the United States for less than one year. If available from the state, ESLs students can seat for these language a rts tests in their native languages so as to understand how the vocabularies are used in language. Adult ESLs students who have been in United States for three successive years should be tested in language arts/reading using an examination written in English, even though on a case-by-case basis, this phase can be prolonged up to five years. Adult ESLs students as a group should meet annual targets of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). States, districts, and

Research paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 5000 words

Research paper - Essay Example The value and importance of IT field in any economy is also brought forward in this paper. The UAE, United Arabs Emirates, lies on the South-eastern side of Arabian Gulf. It occupies eighty three thousand six hundred square kilometers in the East of Arabian Peninsula. Some of the countries it shares boarders with include Qatar (north-western side), Saudi Arabia (Western and Southern sides) and Oman (Eastern and North-Eastern sides). The United Arabs Emirates, which is a federation of 7 emirates which were known as Trucial States, was established in 1971. The name â€Å"Trucial States† traces its roots from a perpetual Treaty of Maritime Truce signed by their rulers and the British In the eighteen fifties with its main aim being to keep and maintain peace at the sea especially during the pearling season. There was some uniqueness with the treaties they signed in that the British undertook their foreign affairs responsibilities and external defense while agreeing not to intervene in their internal affairs. There were some disputes and differences between the rulers o f the emirates. In 1971 British terminated the treaty having not treated the Trucial States like its other colonies and aiding nothing to the economic development of the country. UAE was therefore as a result of the rulers of the emirates realizing they could accomplish more united rather than divided hence they formed a federal state. Thirty years ago, there were very few tarmac roads. High rising buildings were virtually unknown. The larger part of the country was under developed. In the education sector, those living in major town were the only one accessing education. The illiteracy level was so high to an extent that out of a UAE population of about 180000, only 46 nationals had a University degree (Kirkwood, 1995), most of which had been acquired in

Capital punishment in the United States and around the world Term Paper

Capital punishment in the United States and around the world - Term Paper Example Some of those being the Supreme Court ruling against racial discrimination in jury selection, the provision of protection against coerced confessions, and those people that had religious scruples against capital punishment could not be excluded from capital juries (Rankin, 196). This paper will discuss the sociological struggles that have occurred over this method of punishment. Its interesting to note that with all the interest that there in the death penalty, there are no statistical studies that have isolated the social and political forces that may account for the legality or illegality of this punishment. Studies do, however show that the death penalty is more often used in areas where the largest part of the population is black or Hispanic. No other contemporary punishment in this world has been more severe, however, when one searches the literature there are few good articles on the social and political influences that affect the legality of this punishment. Many of the original case studies were done in the 1990s (Ellis, 338). If we focus on the last 25 years as the time of debate, we do find many changes. There was actually a monumental decision in 1972 by the US Supreme Court, in which they determined that the death penalty statutes in the United States were unconstitutional. This was determined in the Furman versus Georgia case. At that time there were 630 inmates awaiting death. All of those inmates were transferred to a life sentence. However in Greg versus Georgia the Supreme Court again leaned towards the death penalty. At that time there were 3500 men and 50 women, including, 65 juveniles whose capital offenses predated their 18th birthdays sitting on death row in this country. Another 550 death row inmates had been executed. There are of course arguments for and against this happening at all, especially when related to children. (Radelet & Borg, 42). Unfortunately, public opinion in the United States and the rest of