The Open-Endedness of the Lexicon Productivity and Creativity in Morphology

In the study of morphology, the concepts of productivity and creativity refer to the ways in
which language users can generate new words and expressions. These processes are
categorized into two distinct types: rule-governed creativity and rule-bending creativity.

1. Rule-Governed Creativity

This form of creativity operates within the established rules and structures of a language.
Speakers typically rely on learned patterns and conventions to create new words. For
example:

 Adding the suffix -ly to the adjective quick results in the adverb quickly.
 The prefix post- can be attached to the noun war to form the adjective post-war,
meaning 'after the war.'

These processes are systematic and can be generalized across many words, reflecting the
underlying rules of English morphology that speakers have internalized.

2. Rule-Bending Creativity

In contrast, rule-bending creativity allows speakers to generate words in a more spontaneous

and less predictable manner, often deviating from established morphological norms. This can
lead to the creation of compounds or phrases that do not follow standard rules but still
convey meaning:

 Stool pigeon (meaning a police informer) is a compound whose meaning cannot be

derived from the individual words "stool" and "pigeon." Its origins might relate to a
historical context where the term had a more literal meaning.
 Deadline originally referred to a literal boundary during the American Civil War.
Over time, its meaning shifted to refer to a due date, showing how historical context
can influence the semantic evolution of words.
 Redlegs, referring to a specific group of poor laborers in Tobago, also exemplifies a
semantically opaque compound, where the meaning isn't immediately apparent from
its components.

Similarly, modern examples like walkman (a portable stereo) and tallboy (a type of
furniture) illustrate how language users can create new terms that defy conventional
interpretation based on their constituent parts.

Focus on Synchronic Rule-Governed Word-Formation

This book primarily examines synchronic rule-governed word-formation, which

encompasses how words are constructed in the present-day language. One key issue in this
study is the inconsistency in how word-formation processes apply. While many bases seem
eligible for certain morphological rules, not all follow through consistently. For instance, the

1
suffixes or prefixes may attach to some words but not others, even when they appear equally
suitable.

This variability highlights the complexity of morphological productivity and underscores the
need for a nuanced understanding of how language evolves and adapts over time, balancing
between established rules and the creative impulses of speakers.

The concept of the lexicon in linguistic morphology encompasses not just established words
but also the potential for creating new words, or nonce-words. This section discusses the
dynamic nature of the lexicon and how it relates to the understanding and formation of both
'real' words and newly coined terms.

Morphology and Word Formation

Morphology focuses on the structure and formation of words. While many words are
memorized and listed in dictionaries (like "pear" and "pair"), speakers frequently create new
words in spontaneous conversation. This creative aspect of language illustrates the flexibility
of the lexicon, which is not simply a static repository of words.

Real Words vs. Neologisms

Real words, those commonly accepted and used within a language, often require
memorization due to their meanings not being derivable from their sounds or morphology.
For example, understanding "pair" and "pear" involves specific knowledge that cannot be
inferred just from their structure. In contrast, neologisms (e.g., "snail-mail") demonstrate the
ability of speakers to innovate within the language, forming new terms as needed.

Lexicon vs. Syntax

A key distinction between lexicon and syntax is that while the lexicon can be seen as listable,
syntax is inherently generative. Sentences can be constructed infinitely, meaning that no
comprehensive list could capture all possible sentences in a language. Speakers do not just
rely on memorized sentences; they create new ones tailored to the context. Conversely, the
lexicon must accommodate the limitations of listing words, as it cannot encompass every
possible word in the language.

The Dynamic Nature of the Lexicon

The lexicon is dynamic and open-ended, reflecting the evolving nature of language. While
speakers don’t invent new words with every utterance, the lexicon is not fixed. Even
extensive dictionaries, like the Oxford English Dictionary, cannot account for all words,
particularly new ones that arise through creative use. This suggests that language is always in
flux, with the lexicon adapting to include new terms and concepts.

Word-Formation Rules

2
Historically, word-formation rules were seen as passive tools for analyzing existing words
rather than actively creating new ones. However, the existence of nonce-words (e.g.,
"uncomplicatedness") demonstrates that speakers can generate new forms. The question of
whether the lexicon comprises a closed list of words depends on how we perceive the role of
these nonce-words and the creativity inherent in language use.

1. Open-Ended Lexicon

The lexicon of a language can grow indefinitely as speakers recognize and accept new
words. This includes not only established words but also compound words—terms formed
by combining two or more existing words (e.g., "lakeside" and "grammar school"). The more
combinations we recognize as part of the lexicon, the more expansive it becomes.

2. Compounds vs. Phrases

A significant challenge is determining whether a combination of words should be classified

as a compound or a syntactic phrase.

 Example: "Lakeside Grammar School Former Pupils" includes:

o Compound Nouns: "lakeside" and "grammar school."
o The entire string could be seen as a compound noun or a syntactic phrase,
depending on context. If "Lakeside Grammar School Former Pupils" refers to a
specific entity (like a rugby team), it might be considered a compound noun.
This illustrates that context and usage play crucial roles in classification.

3. Productivity of Morphology

Morphology is inherently productive, meaning that while individual words have a finite
length, there is theoretically no limit to how many new words can be formed. This is
because:

 Length of Words: There is no upper limit to how long a word can be, as languages
can continuously add affixes or repeat existing ones to create new forms.
 Examples of Length: In many languages, words can grow longer as needed,
demonstrating flexibility in word formation.

4. Borrowing vs. Internal Word Creation

The passage also touches on another way languages expand their lexicons: borrowing from
other languages (e.g., "port" from Latin, "omelette" from French). However, the focus of this
discussion is on productive word creation using a language's internal resources rather than
external influences.

5. Implications for Lexical Lists

The conclusion emphasizes that a lexicon attempting to merely catalog all existing words
would be insufficient. Given the productivity of morphology and the fluidity of language, it
3
is impractical to have a definitive list of words. Instead, understanding the processes of word
formation and the potential for creating new terms is essential for a comprehensive
understanding of a language's lexicon.

nderstanding Productivity in Word Formation

Productivity in linguistics refers to the ability of a word-formation process to generate new

words. This concept is often assessed in terms of generality—the broader a process can
apply, the more productive it is considered.

1. Productivity as a Matter of Degree:

o Productivity is not a binary condition (productive vs. unproductive). Instead, it
exists on a spectrum.
o Some processes are more widely applicable than others. For instance, the suffix
-er (as in "teacher" from "teach") is highly productive because it can attach to
many verbs to form nouns. In contrast, a less commonly used suffix may
produce fewer new words.
2. Temporal Dimension:
o Productivity can change over time. A word-formation process that is widely
used in one era may become less common in another.
o Conversely, a new word-formation process may start out with limited
applications but gain broader usage as it becomes established in the language.
For example, newly coined terms (like "selfie") may initially be rare but can
gain traction and become widely accepted over time.

Implications

 Linguistic Change: The fluid nature of productivity reflects how languages evolve.
New societal influences, technological advancements, and cultural shifts can lead to
the emergence of new productive processes.
 Word Creation: Understanding productivity helps linguists and language learners
grasp how new words are formed and how existing ones can change, providing insight
into the creative capacity of language users.

a. Divide the above words into their constituent morphs.

1. chartist: chart + -ist

2. communist: commun(e) + -ist
3. racist: rac(e) + -ist
4. pianist: pian(o) + -ist
5. anarchist: anarch(y) + -ist
6. morbid: morbid (single morpheme)
7. tepid: tepid (single morpheme)
8. timid: timid (single morpheme)
9. splendid: splendid (single morpheme)
10.horrid: horr- + -id
11.worker: work + -er
4
 12.painter: paint + -er
13.swimmer: swim + -mer
14.dancer: danc(e) + -er
15.jogger: jog + -ger

b. List all the suffixes.

1. -ist
2. -id
3. -er

c. State the meaning of the morphemes represented in the data.

1. chart: related to a diagram or representation.

2. commun(e): related to community or commonality.
3. rac(e): related to race or ethnicity.
4. pian(o): related to the piano.
5. anarch(y): related to a lack of government or authority.
6. morb-: related to illness.
7. tep-: related to mildness or warmth.
8. tim-: related to fear.
9. splend-: related to beauty or brilliance.
10.horr-: related to horror or dread.
11.work: related to labor or activity.
12.paint: related to applying color.
13.swim: related to moving through water.
14.danc(e): related to rhythmical movement.
15.jog: related to running at a steady pace.

d. Find five more words which are formed using each of the suffixes that you have
identified.

1. -ist:
o artist
o scientist
o dentist
o journalist
o environmentalist
2. -id:
o humid
o frigid
o liquid
o arid
o rapid
3. -er:
o teacher
o baker
5
 o runner
o player
o driver

e. State the word-class of the base to which each suffix is added.

1. -ist: Base is typically a noun (e.g., chart → chartist).

2. -id: Base is usually an adjective (e.g., horr → horrid).
3. -er: Base is typically a verb (e.g., work → worker).

f. To what class does the resulting new word belong?

1. -ist: Noun (e.g., chartist)

2. -id: Adjective (e.g., horrid)
3. -er: Noun (e.g., worker)

he exploration of suffixes like -ist, -id, and -er illustrates the complexities of word formation
in English, particularly concerning productivity and usage patterns.

Suffix Analysis

1. -ist:
o Function: This suffix is highly versatile and can form nouns indicating a person
who advocates, practices, or follows a certain ideology or profession.
o Types:
 Noun to Noun: "anarchist" (advocate of anarchism).
 Noun to Noun: "pianist" (practitioner of piano playing).
 Noun to Adjective: "racist" (advocate of racism).
o Productivity: While it can create many new nouns, it is not universally
applicable. Some gaps exist—like "Mohammedist" is not standard, whereas
"Buddhist" is accepted. This suggests that cultural, historical, or semantic
factors influence usage.
2. -id:
o Function: This suffix is used to create adjectives from bound bases, typically
with a meaning of possessing a certain quality.
o Examples: "timid" (having the quality of being afraid) and "tepid" (having the
quality of being warm).
o Productivity: This suffix is largely unproductive in modern English; new
formations are rare. Instead, existing words are catalogued rather than
generated, marking it as a "frozen" morpheme.
3. -er:
o Function: This suffix forms agentive nouns, meaning it designates someone
who performs the action of the verb.
o Examples: "teacher" (one who teaches), "runner" (one who runs).
o Productivity: Highly productive, as it can be applied to a vast number of verbs
to create corresponding nouns. The process is so general that it’s impractical to

6
 list every instance in a dictionary; rather, a rule can be established for its
application.

The Grey Area of Productivity

 Productivity Spectrum: The suffixes illustrate a spectrum of productivity:

o Highly Productive: The -er suffix can create new words indefinitely.
o Less Productive: The -id suffix rarely produces new words and is mostly
preserved in existing forms.
o Moderately Productive: The -ist suffix is productive but with notable
exceptions, suggesting a nuanced relationship with the noun bases it can attach
to.

The discussion of productivity in morphological processes highlights the complexity of

how suffixes operate in language. Let's break down the key points related to the suffix -itis
and its comparison to other suffixes like -er, -ist, and -id.

Meaning of -itis

 The suffix -itis originates from Greek, where it was used to form feminine adjectives.
In modern usage, particularly in medical terminology, -itis specifically refers to
inflammatory conditions. For example, "arthritis" denotes inflammation of the joints,
while "bronchitis" indicates inflammation of the bronchial tubes.

Productivity Comparison

1. General Definition of Productivity:

o Productivity can be viewed in two ways:
 Generality: How many different bases a suffix can apply to and how
many new words it can create.
 Proportion: The ratio of eligible bases that actually undergo the
morphological process.
2. Comparing -itis to Other Suffixes:
o -er: Highly productive because it can be added to a vast majority of verbs (e.g.,
"writer" from "write," "teacher" from "teach"). This suffix can create numerous
new nouns, indicating a high degree of generality.
o -ist: Moderately productive. While it can create many nouns indicating someone
who advocates or practices a certain idea or profession, its application is more
selective (e.g., "pianist," "communist"), leading to some exceptions.
o -id: Unproductive. This suffix does not actively generate new words in
contemporary English; its usage is mostly limited to established terms (e.g.,
"timid," "tepid").
3. -itis:
o Productivity: The -itis suffix has a specific domain (medical terminology) and
is relatively productive within that context. It applies to various root words that
denote inflammatory conditions. However, its productivity is limited to medical
contexts and does not extend to general word formation like -er or -ist.
7
 o In contrast to -er or -ist, -itis does not create new words from a wide variety of
bases; instead, it is used in a more restricted set of circumstances, primarily for
medical terminology. Therefore, while it can generate new terms within that
field, it lacks the broader applicability seen with more productive morphemes.

productivity in word formation highlights how both the current use and historical
context of morphological processes influence their effectiveness and application. Let's break
down the key ideas:

Time Dimension in Productivity

4. Current Use vs. Frozen Processes:

o A word-formation process is considered productive if it is actively used in the
language today. For example, the suffix -er (as in "worker," "teacher") is highly
productive because it can be freely added to a wide range of verbs.
o Conversely, processes that are no longer actively generating new words—like
the suffix -id in "tepid" or "frigid"—are deemed virtually unproductive. These
words are largely fixed in the lexicon and do not lend themselves to the creation
of new terms.
5. Fashion and Trends:
o Productivity can be influenced by trends and linguistic fashion. Certain word-
formation methods may be popular for a time but then fall out of favor or be
abandoned altogether.
o For instance, the colloquial prefix loads-a- emerged in the late 1980s in
informal British English, exemplified by the term "loadsamoney." Initially, it
was attached to a limited number of bases, reflecting a temporary linguistic
trend.
6. Evolving Affix Use:
o When an affix first enters a language, it may only apply to a small number of
bases, as seen with loads-a- when it was first used. Over time, if it gains
acceptance, it may start being attached to more words, but it can still remain
limited compared to more established suffixes.
o Conversely, affixes that were once widely used can become less common or
cease to be productive altogether. This atrophy can happen for various reasons,
including shifts in cultural or linguistic preferences.

In examining the forms of the verb "take" in Early Modern English (prior to 1800), we
can identify specific inflectional endings that have fallen out of general use in contemporary
English. Here's a breakdown:

Inflectional Endings in Early Modern English

1. Singular Forms:
o First Person: "I take"
o Second Person: "thou takest"
o Third Person: "he, she taketh"
2. Plural Forms:
8
 o First Person: "we take"
o Second Person: "you take"
o Third Person: "they take"

Analysis of Inflectional Endings

 Second Person Singular -est:

o The ending -est is used in the second person singular present tense form, as seen
in "thou takest." This form was common in Early Modern English but has since
become archaic. In contemporary English, we simply use "you take" for both
singular and plural forms without distinguishing between second-person
singular and plural.
 Third Person Singular -th:
o The ending -th appears in the third person singular present tense form, as in "he,
she taketh." Like the -est suffix, this form is no longer productive in modern
English. We now use "he/she takes."

Current Usage

These inflectional endings (-est and -th) have largely disappeared from everyday language.
They survive only in specific contexts, such as:

 Religious Language: Some prayers and hymns may still use these forms to maintain
traditional language.
 Theatrical Performances: When performing plays from the Early Modern period,
actors may use these archaic forms to remain faithful to the text.

Semi-productivity of the Suffix -ant

The suffix -ant is characterized by its semi-productive nature, meaning it selectively attaches
to certain bases and produces words with unpredictable meanings. This can be observed in
two main aspects:

(i) Selection of Bases

The suffix -ant primarily attaches to specific latinate or French-derived bases, as

demonstrated in the following examples:

Acceptable Bases:

 communicant
 defendant
 applicant
 assailant
 servant
 entrant
 contestant
9
  participant
 claimant
 accountant
 assistant
 inhabitant
 consultant

These words derive from Latin or French roots and are acceptable for the suffix -ant.

Unacceptable Bases:

 writ(e)ant
 buildant
 shoutant

The above forms are disallowed, even though "write," "build," and "shout" could seem like
viable candidates for affixation. The exclusion of these Germanic bases illustrates the
suffix’s strict adherence to historical linguistic patterns.

Historical Context

The suffix -ant is derived from the Latin present participle endings -antem/-entem, which
restricts its application to certain linguistic families. Thus, the semi-productivity is partially
historical, as -ant attaches primarily to Latinate bases.

(ii) Meaning of Resulting Words

The meanings of words formed with -ant can be unpredictable and often specific:

 defendant: A person sued in a court, not just anyone defending themselves.

 accountant: A professional who prepares and manages financial accounts, not simply
anyone who accounts for something.

This specificity and unpredictability mean that the semantic effect of adding -ant can diverge
significantly from the root meaning of the base verb. the suffix -ant exemplifies semi-
productivity through its selective attachment to certain bases and its inconsistent semantic
effects. While it is clear that some bases can accept -ant, the arbitrary nature of which bases
are accepted and the meanings of the resulting words complicates the classification of this
affix. Instead of a rigid categorization into productive, semi-productive, and unproductive
processes, there exists a continuum of productivity in morphological processes.

Constraints on Productivity: Blocking

While languages are capable of generating an infinite number of words, not all theoretically
possible combinations are permissible. One significant factor that limits word formation is
blocking. This occurs when certain conditions for word-formation are met, yet the formation
is prevented by the existence of other, usually synonymous or related terms.
11
General Concept of Blocking

Blocking can be understood as the phenomenon where the presence of an existing word
prevents the formation of a new word that would otherwise fit the morphological rules of the
language. For instance, the verb steal can theoretically take the agentive suffix -er to create
stealer, but this formation is blocked by the existence of the word thief.

Productive vs. Less Productive Morphemes

Interestingly, when two semantically similar morphemes exist, the more productive one is
less likely to be blocked. For example, the suffix -ness is more productive than -ity. When an
adjective base ends in -ous, if there is already a noun derived from that adjective, the -ity
suffix cannot create a new noun. However, using the more productive -ness is still possible:

 Acromonous → acrimony (blocks acrimonyity but allows acromonousness)

 Glorious → glory (blocks gloriosity but allows gloriousness)
 Fallacious → fallacy (blocks fallacity but allows fallaciousness)

Factors Influencing Blocking

Blocking can be influenced by several factors:

1. Phonological Factors: Certain sounds or structures might be less favorable in word

formation, leading to blocking. For example, phonotactic constraints may prevent the
acceptance of certain combinations.
2. Morphological Factors: The morphological structure of existing words can impact
new formations. If a derived word already exists with a similar base, it may block the
creation of another derived form, especially if the meanings are closely aligned.
3. Semantic Factors: The meanings of words can also influence blocking. If a new
formation would convey a meaning too similar to an existing term, it is likely to be
blocked to avoid redundancy.

Phonological Factors in Blocking

Blocking in word formation can often be attributed to phonological considerations, which

dictate whether certain morphemes can be added to a base word. This involves the phonetic
properties of the base and the resulting forms, which may lead to dispreferred sound
combinations.

Inchoative Verbs and Suffixation of -en

As noted by Siegel and Halle, the suffix -en can be added to monosyllabic adjectives that
end in an obstruent (a consonant that obstructs airflow, such as stops, fricatives, or
affricates). The phonological constraints for forming inchoative verbs include:

1. The base must be monosyllabic.

2. The base must end in an obstruent, optionally preceded by a sonorant.
11
Examples of successful formations:

 Bold → bolden
 Sweet → sweeten

However, if a base does not meet these phonological criteria, the formation will be blocked.

The Suffix -ly and Phonological Restrictions

The suffix -ly is typically added to adjectives to create adverbs (e.g., kind → kindly).
However, certain adjectives that end in -ly cannot be converted into adverbs using this
suffix:

 Silly → sillily (blocked)

 Miserly → miserlily (blocked)

The phonological reason for this restriction is that adding -ly to an adjective already ending
in -ly would result in an undesirable sequence of sounds, specifically the l-l sound cluster,
which is less favored in English phonology. Thus, the -ly suffix tends to avoid creating a
dispreferred 1-lrhl sequence, illustrating a preference for euphony in phonological structures.

Diminutive Suffix -et/-ette in French

In French, the diminutive suffixes -et (masculine) and -ette (feminine) can be freely added to
nouns to indicate a smaller or affectionate version. For example:

 Fille → fillette ('little girl')

 Livre → livret ('booklet')

However, certain nouns are blocked from receiving these suffixes:

 Contrefort → contrefortet (blocked)

 Bastide → bastidette (blocked)

The blocking occurs particularly when the last consonant of the base is an alveolar plosive
like /t/ or /d/. This results in a less favorable phonological combination that mirrors the
English restriction against certain sound sequences when forming adverbs with -ly.

Euphony in Word Formation

Both English and French illustrate a general principle of euphony, where certain sound
combinations are avoided to maintain phonetic harmony. This notion of pleasant sound
patterns influences which morphemes can be added to particular bases, highlighting the
interplay between phonological rules and morphological productivity. Thus, blocking serves
not only as a constraint on word formation but also as a reflection of the phonological
preferences inherent in a language.

Morphological Factors in Blocking

12
Morphological factors can significantly influence whether a certain affix can be added to a
base. These factors include the native versus foreign origin of the morphemes and the
morphological properties associated with specific paradigms.

The Suffix -hood

a. Meaning of -hood

The suffix -hood denotes a state, condition, or quality, often indicating a specific social or
familial rank. Examples include:

 boyhood (the state of being a boy)

 childhood (the state of being a child)
 sisterhood (the quality or condition of being sisters)

b. Native vs. Foreign Bases

The suffix -hood typically attaches to native English roots, as demonstrated by the examples
in [4.16a]. For instance, words like boyhood, girlhood, and brotherhood are all derived
from native English words.

Conversely, -hood does not co-occur with many Latinate or borrowed roots, as seen in the
examples in [4.16b]. Words like judge, director, and governor are of foreign origin and
cannot take the suffix -hood to form judgehood or directorhood.

This distinction underscores the morphological behavior that native and borrowed
morphemes exhibit. While borrowed terms may have been assimilated into English over
time, they often retain certain restrictions regarding the affixes they can take.

Interestingly, some borrowed terms can accept the suffix -hood after becoming fully
nativized, as seen with:

 parenthood
 statehood
 nationhood

These examples illustrate how certain borrowed terms can transition to behave like native
roots over time, allowing them to adopt native morphological processes.

Paradigmatic Considerations

In addition to the native versus foreign distinction, morphological factors can also involve
paradigms—categories of related words that share similar morphological properties. For
instance, in French, verbs are categorized into different morphological classes (or
paradigms):

 -er verbs (e.g., donn-er 'to give')

 -ir verbs (e.g., fin-ir 'to finish')
13
  -re verbs (e.g., vend-re 'to sell')

Each class has its own set of inflectional suffixes, which means the selection of affixes
depends on the specific paradigm a verb belongs to. This classification impacts how the
verbs conjugate in various tenses, highlighting that morphological properties can dictate affix
selection.

Semantic Factors in Word Formation

Semantic considerations play a crucial role in whether a certain word-formation process can
be applied. These factors can restrict the formation of compounds or the application of
affixes based on the meanings and relationships of the words involved.

Compounding and Semantic Relationships

The examples provided highlight how compounds formed from an adjective plus a past
participle (V-ed) are typically permitted when the past participle indicates an inalienable
possession related to the head noun. For instance, terms like short-sleeved and blue-eyed
are acceptable because they describe features that are intrinsically part of the nouns they
modify (e.g., sleeves are part of a shirt, and eyes are part of a person).

Conversely, compounds like two-carred or big-Alsatianed are not allowed because cars and
dogs are not inherently possessed or integral parts of a person in the same way. The semantic
relationship dictates whether the compound is natural and acceptable.

Prefixation with "un-"

The use of the prefix un- further illustrates semantic restrictions. This prefix typically
attaches to positive adjectives to create their negative counterparts. For example:

 unhappy (not happy)

 unloved (not loved)

However, the reverse is often awkward or ungrammatical:

 unsad (incorrect)
 unill (incorrect)

The preference for using un- with positive adjectives stems from a linguistic tendency to
treat the positive as the default or unmarked form. Thus, it feels more natural to negate a
positive quality rather than apply negation to a negative one.

In the provided dialogue, replacing the awkward usages with their more appropriate
counterparts reflects this semantic hierarchy:

 Instead of unill, one would say "better" or "well."

 Instead of unsad, "happy" is preferred.

14
Aesthetic Factors in Word Adoption

In addition to semantic considerations, aesthetic factors can influence the adoption of new
words. Some words may be linguistically well-formed but fail to gain traction due to their
perceived "ugliness."

For example, the term stagflation, which emerged in the 1970s to describe a combination of
stagnation and inflation, did not become widely accepted, possibly because it was deemed
unattractive. Similarly, words like talkathon, swimathon, and knitathon have faced
resistance. Critics often point out their awkwardness, arising from the misanalysis of the
suffix -athon as a meaningful component rather than recognizing its origins in Greek.

Productivity and the Distinction Between Inflection and Derivation

Productivity is often used as a key criterion to distinguish between inflection and

derivation in morphology. Here’s a concise breakdown of the differences:

Inflection

1. General Applicability: Inflectional processes are generally applicable to all eligible

forms within a particular class, leading to predictable patterns. For instance, English
verbs typically form their inflections (e.g., walk → walks, walked, walking) in a
regular manner.
2. Predictable Meanings: The meanings of words resulting from inflectional affixes are
regular and predictable. The addition of these affixes alters the word form but
maintains a consistent meaning related to tense, number, or case.
3. Lexemic Paradigms: Inflection displays clear paradigms, which are sets of related
forms that share morphological characteristics. This is evident in regular verb
conjugations.

Derivation

1. Less Predictable: Derivational processes are less predictable and often have arbitrary
exclusions. For example, while some verbs can be transformed into nouns with
specific suffixes (e.g., communicate → communication), there are many gaps and
exceptions.
2. Lack of Consistent Paradigms: Derivational morphology does not typically exhibit
paradigms in the same systematic way as inflectional morphology. While some
derivational patterns may seem regular, they are often full of exceptions.

Limitations of the Paradigm Distinction

Although recognizing paradigms can be a useful rule of thumb for distinguishing between
inflection and derivation, it is not foolproof.

1. Exceptions in Inflection: Some inflectional forms do not fit neatly into paradigms,
such as noncount nouns (e.g., "milk," which lacks a plural form).
15
 2. Regularity in Derivation: Certain derivational processes can be nearly exceptionless,
such as forming adverbs from adjectives with the suffix -ly (e.g., kind → kindly).

The Nature of the Lexicon

The lexicon serves as a fundamental component of language, encompassing not just a list of
words, but also the rules and constraints governing word formation and usage.

4.4.1 Potential Words

 Open-Endedness: The lexicon is open-ended, meaning it doesn't contain every

possible word but allows for the creation and recognition of new words.
 Phonotactic Constraints: These constraints filter which combinations of sounds are
permissible in a language. For example, sequences like *ltarpment and *mpandy are
rejected due to violating English phonotactics.
 Foreign Words: Non-nativised foreign words can sometimes bypass these constraints
but may be adapted to fit English phonology (e.g., inserting a schwa in Zgusta).

4.4.2 Knowledge of Language and the Role of the Lexicon

 Capturing Regularities: The lexicon captures broad regularities that help speakers
distinguish between possible and impossible words. For instance, while grestifier
might be recognized as a potential word, *ltarpment is immediately ruled out.
 Traditional View vs. Modern Understanding: Historically, the lexicon was seen as a
mere repository of irregularities (as noted by Bloomfield), containing only exceptions
to grammatical rules. However, contemporary linguists recognize it as a more dynamic
structure that encompasses both regularities and exceptions.

Lexical Information

The lexicon must include various types of information about words, such as:

1. Meaning: The semantic definition of a word.

2. Phonological Properties: How the word is pronounced (e.g., /a:dva

/ for aardvark).

3. Grammatical Properties: Information about the word's grammatical category, such

as whether it's a count noun.

Regularities and Arbitrary Relationships

 Arbitrary Nature: Most relationships between a word's form and meaning are
arbitrary. However, there are regularities in phonological and syntactic behavior that
can be captured in the lexicon.
 Lexical Regularities: The lexicon is not just a collection of irregularities; it reflects
general principles that govern how words behave within a language.

16
 So,the lexicon is a complex structure that not only catalogs words but also embodies the
rules and regularities of a language. It enables speakers to create and understand new words
while providing essential information about established ones. The ongoing exploration of the
lexicon's organization, particularly concerning phonological, syntactic, and semantic
properties, underscores its integral role in linguistic knowledge.

17