See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344943534

Word Formation in English: Derivation and Compounding

Article · January 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 2,292

1 author:

Sanel Hadziahmetovic Jurida

University of Tuzla
13 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sanel Hadziahmetovic Jurida on 28 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Sanel Hadžiahmetović Jurida Word Formation in English:
Derivation and Compounding
DHS 2 (5) (2018), 157-170

UDK 811.111'373.611

Pregledni rad
Review paper

Sanel Hadžiahmetović Jurida

Word Formation in EngliSH:

dErivation and Compounding

Within the broad field of word formation in English, the paper outlines particular available
means for production of new meanings in established forms of words in the English language.
More specifically, the paper presents two major types of production of complex forms (derivation
and compounding), with accompanying definitions and generalisations which are substantiated
with relevant examples which are further discussed and analysed.

Key words: English word formation, derivation, compounding

1. introduCtion

English appears to abound in mechanisms that help enlarge its lexis. This paper aims
at outlining a number of different available means of getting new meanings of words
in established forms in English by discussing possible ways to get new meanings.
The purpose of this paper, however, is not to provide an exhaustive survey of
English word formation, as this has already been done by many authors. The intention,
in fact, is to provide an outline of particular types of word formation in English,
focusing on derivation and compounding, which closely relate to new meanings of
words in the forms that have already been established. More particularly, the paper
presents derivation and compounding as two major types of production of complex
forms (Bauer, 1983).

157
 Sanel Hadžiahmetović Jurida Word Formation in English:
Derivation and Compounding
DHS 2 (5) (2018), 157-170

Most examples representing the corpus in this study have been taken from Hudson
(2000). Crystal (2002), Adams (1973), KÖvecses (2002) and Bauer (1983) have also
proven invaluable as sources of a significant portion of examples in the study.
The paper provides an overview of the theoretical preliminaries in the field of
word formation, including the definition, and it continues with the problems suggested
by various authors, as there are several problems suggested by leading researchers in
the field: the status and definition of word, establishment of rules, the morphology
and the lexicon, the process of lexicalization, which are followed by the analysis and
discussion on examples selected for the corpus in this study in the Analysis and
Discussion section of the paper, with the focus on derivation and compounding.

2. tHEorEtiCal prEliminariES

Word formation is nowadays perceived to be such a confused area of study that it

would not be possible to write an uncontroversial introduction to the subject. Bauer
(1983) recognises that much of the confusion in word formation studies is
terminological.
He further acknowledges that, given the confusion that reigns at the moment, it
should be borne in mind that virtually any theoretical statement about word formation
is controversial.
The ways in which new words are formed, and the factors which govern their
acceptance in the language, are generally taken very much for granted by the average
speaker. To understand a word, it is not necessary to be aware of how it is constructed,
or whether it is simple or complex, that is, whether or not it can be broken down into
two or more constituents. Human beings are only able to use a word which they find
new if they learn the new word together with objects or concepts it denotes. On the
other hand, when new coinages are met, like shutup-ness, talkathon etc, our reactions
to them may not be readily explained. We may find them acceptable and in line with
our own feelings about how words should be built up, or they may seem in some way
contrary to the rules.
According to Crystal (2002), English vocabulary has a “remarkable range,
flexibility, and adaptability”. Owing to the periods of contact with foreign languages
and its readiness to coin new words out of old elements, English seems to have far
more words in its core vocabulary than other languages. For example, alongside
kingly (from Anglo-Saxon) we find royal (from French) and regal (from Latin).

158
 Sanel Hadžiahmetović Jurida Word Formation in English:
Derivation and Compounding
DHS 2 (5) (2018), 157-170

2.1 On word Formation in English

Bauer (1983: 1) claims that there is no single “theory of word formation”.

“Interest in word-formation has probably always gone hand-in-hand with

interest in language in general, and there are scattered comments and works
on the subject of word-formation from the time of Panini, who provided a
detailed description of Sanskrit word-formation, right up to the present day.”

Questions that still cause difficulties have been asked by scholars for centuries.
Furthermore, word formation has been considered by various linguists from different points
of view: from a phonological point of view (Halle, 1973); from a syntactic point of view
(Jackendoff, 1975); and from a semantic point of view (Leech, 1974; Lyons, 1977).
According to Bauer, there appears to be no doctrine on the subject which attracts
many new researchers precisely because of the nature of word formation.

Bauer (1983: 30) gives the following definition of the term word formation:

“Word formation can be defined as the production of complex forms.

‘Complex’ is used by other scholars to mean ‘produced by derivation’. Thus,
word formation can be divided, in the first instance, into derivation and
compounding (although there are other categories which do not fit neatly under
either of these headings.”

Therefore, word formation can be understood to mean a collection of different

processes (compounding, affixation, back-formation, blending, and so on) about
which, as a whole, it is slightly difficult to make a general statement.
Obviously, any discussion of word formation makes two assumptions: that there
are such things as words, and that at least some of them are formed. Bauer (1983)
argues that the definition of the word has been, for a long time, a major problem for
linguistic theory because, however the term “word” is defined, there are some items
in some languages which speakers of those languages call ‘words’ but which are not
covered by the definition.
Adams (1973: 7) agrees that there is a failure of general linguists to provide a
consistent definition of the word across languages, which has shown that it can only
be defined with respect to a particular language.

159
 Sanel Hadžiahmetović Jurida Word Formation in English:
Derivation and Compounding
DHS 2 (5) (2018), 157-170

Both Adams (1973: 7) and Bauer (1983: 8) agree that, regardless of the difficulties
the notion word may carry, it has a certain psychological validity, and that there are
good reasons for operating with such a notion. To illustrate this, they claim that
speakers of a language, even illiterate speakers, (must) have a feeling for what is, or
is not, a word. Sapir (1921: 34) reports that speakers of languages that have never
been written have no difficulty whatsoever in determining words, although they have
some difficulty in learning to break up a word into its constituent sounds. Repeating
the sentences, “word for word”, therefore, is not a problem for such speakers. As an
exception to this rule, there are words in English that divide English speakers into
those who claim that they should write all right as opposed to those who opt for
alright, but in general terms this holds true.
Bauer concludes that, obviously, the rules that must be established for forming
words depend on what counts as a word in any given language. There are words that
are formed by rules of syntax, whereas formation of words may be considered as
being explained not by syntactic rules but by rules that depend on syntactic factors.
‘Word-formation’ is a traditional label, and one which is useful, but it does not
generally cover all possible ways of forming everything that can be called a ‘word’.

2.2 Lexicalisation

There are several stages a lexeme goes through, ranging from the so-called nonce
formation, through institutionalisation to, finally, lexicalisation. On its path, a lexeme
may start as a new complex word-form designed by a speaker simply to meet some
immediate need, the next stage emerging when the nonce formation starts to be
accepted by other speakers as a known lexical item. Quite typical of this stage, Bauer
argues (1983: 48), is

“…that the potential ambiguity is ignored, and only some of the possible
meanings of the form are used (sometimes only one). Thus, for example, there
is nothing in the form telephone box to prevent it from meaning a box shaped
like a telephone, a box which is located at/by a telephone, a box which
functions as a telephone, and so on.”

160
 Sanel Hadžiahmetović Jurida Word Formation in English:
Derivation and Compounding
DHS 2 (5) (2018), 157-170

As it appears, it is only because the item is familiar that the speaker-listener knows
that it is synonymous with telephone kiosk, in the usual meaning of telephone kiosk
(institutionalisation).
Bauer (1983: 48) concludes that the lexeme enters its final stage when it takes on
a form which it could not have if it had arisen by the application of productive rules.
This is the stage when the lexeme is lexicalised.

2.4 Morphology and the Lexicon

Both morphology and the lexicon are considered equally important ways of providing
words in a language. Aronoff and Anshen (1998) give arguments to substantiate this
claim:

“In fact, the two systems, i.e. morphology and the lexicon, do have a great a
great deal to do with one another, for two simple reasons…they both provide
words, and…they are independent…”

The morphology of a language, they argue, as part of grammar, trades in structural

matters, dealing primarily with the internal make-up of the potential complex words
of a language. The lexicon, on the other hand, of any language, is a simple listing of
items that exist in that language – the items that a speaker must know, as they are
arbitrary signs, hence, unpredictable in a particular way.
According to Aronoff and Anshen (1998), there is an apparent rivalry between the
two, as with any two entities sharing a task. The rivalry obviously plays an important
role within the larger system of the language as it gives added value to the total
number of words in a language, regardless of the fact that words may be provided by
the morphological rules, including the morphologically well-formed complex
potential words, or merely as words listed within the lexicon of a language by being
simply stored into an individual’s mental lexicon. According to Aronoff and Anshen,
the interaction between morphology, being the system that creates regular words, and
the lexicon, the system that stores irregular words, can only be observed where both
are capable of being invoked.
A good illustration of the interaction includes a simple case of the plural noun in
English. It is generally known that some plural forms come from the lexicon, whereas
some originate from the morphology. In case of the former, plurals are said to be

161
 Sanel Hadžiahmetović Jurida Word Formation in English:
Derivation and Compounding
DHS 2 (5) (2018), 157-170

originating from the lexicon simply on account on their irregularity, and stored
accordingly into the individual’s mental lexicon, such as men or mice. The latter, on
the other hand, encompasses plural forms coming from the morphology in case they
are regular, like cups. A question arises here – how do speakers know not to say mans
but men? Why is it the case that if a word has an irregular plural stored in the lexicon,
there is no regular plural, the one coming from the morphology? There must be a
blocking power that prevents the morphology from producing a regular plural just in
case an irregular plural for the same word is in the lexicon already. The only possible
conclusion we can arrive at here is that both lexicon and morphology appear to
interact in making sure that only one form will be used.
Aronoff and Anshen (1998) explain this phenomenon by the centuries-long
linguistic tradition of languages having the tendency of avoiding synonyms. They
argue that most speakers will use a word from their lexicon (men) rather than resort
to morphological rules of producing a new word with the same meaning – the
phenomenon called blocking, i.e. “the non-occurrence of one form due to the simple
existence of another” (Aronoff 1976: 43).
In conclusion, morphology is clearly distinct from the lexicon, and depends on it,
bearing in mind that the production of morphologically complex words is done largely
by applying morphological rules to normally lexical entries which are stored in a
speaker’s mental lexicon.

3. diSCuSSion and analySiS: dErivation

and Compounding

3.1 Derivation

Hudson (2000: 255) defines derivation as the creation of new words by the use of
derivational affixes. Unlike inflectional affixes, which there are typically said to be
eight in English (all are suffixes), and have very customary use, the use of derivational
affixes is not obligatory. They tend to form words the meaning of which is somewhat
narrower than that of their parts. A good illustration in English are result nouns, such
as those ending in –ment, e.g. government, the result of governing.
An important aspect to look at when discussing derivational affixing is certainly
heads and modifiers. According to Hudson (2000: 256), “…some derivational affixes
seem to bring about changes of part of speech…”. One understanding that can be

162
 Sanel Hadžiahmetović Jurida Word Formation in English:
Derivation and Compounding
DHS 2 (5) (2018), 157-170

given here is that derivational affixes are the heads of their words. However, prefixes,
which are also derivational affixes, do not function as heads, and are in fact hardly
ever word-class changing. It should be recalled that in a noun phrase, the head is a
noun, and in a verb phrase the head is the verb – the head is the essential element of
a phrase, towards which other elements are modifiers. Having said that, retirement
would have the structure at the left, and summarise would have the structure at the
right, below.

N V

retire (V) -ment (N) summary (N) -ise (V)

Here, -ment is clearly a sort of N, which obligatorily combines with verbs, and as
the head of its phrase naturally yields a noun. If –ise is a verb, as head of its
construction with a noun the result is a verb.
Some English examples include (Hudson: 256):
a. geosynchronous (geo + syn + chron + ous) ‘ in time with the orbit of the earth’
(of communications satellites which stay over one point on the surface of the
earth). Geo- ‘earth’, -syn- ‘alike’, -chron- ‘time, -ous ‘suffix forming adjectives
from nouns’. Like typical derivations of new words in the technical fields, all
the morphemes have Greek or Latin origins.
b. Cabledom (cable + dom) ‘the cable television business and its sphere of
influence’. The suffix –dom is quite rare, probably most encountered in the
word kingdom.
c. Energiser (energ(y) + is + er) ‘which causes to have energy’. The suffix –ise
is added to nouns to form verbs with the meaning ‘cause to have the quality of
the noun’. –Er is added to verbs to make noun instruments or agents, causers
of the verb, as in walker ‘instrument to help walking’.

Hudson (2000: 257) concludes that derivation is perhaps the most common way
to express new meanings in English, especially when it comes to technical fields such
as computer science, medicine, and the physical and natural sciences, where new

163
 Sanel Hadžiahmetović Jurida Word Formation in English:
Derivation and Compounding
DHS 2 (5) (2018), 157-170

discoveries, new technology, and new ways of thinking are regular occurrences which
necessitate a ready means of expression.
According to Beard (1998), unlike inflectional morphology, derivational
morphology or word formation is so named because it usually results in the derivation
of a new word with new meaning. They argue that derivation is purely lexical, as
opposed to inflection, which, on the other hand, is considered to be relevant only to
syntax. Therefore, the output of a derivation rule is inevitably a new word, to be
incorporated into the lexicon. Lexemes, or lexical entries, upon which derivational
rules operate, are considered to comprise three types of features: a phonological
matrix, a grammatical subcategorisation frame, and a semantic interpretation, all of
which mutually imply each other.
In addition to suffixation, prefixation in English offers a vast number of options
for derivation of new words. According to Bauer, most prefixes in English are class-
maintaining. However, the majority of prefixes can be added to bases of more than
one form class. Some examples (Bauer, 1983: pp. 217-9) are:
a. arch-, used exclusively with a noun base, added particularly to human nouns
to denote an extreme or pre-eminent person, e.g. archmonetarist
b. de-, used exclusively with a verb base, not so frequent partly due to its being
in competition with dis- and un-, e.g. decapacitate, deboost
c. fore-, added to nouns and verbs, e.g. foretell, foreground, forelock
d. in-, added to nouns and adjectives, has a number of forms depending on the
initial segment of the base, e.g. inoperable, improbable, illegal

Of the class-changing prefixes, it may be worth mentioning here the following

ones:
a. a-, forms adjectives from forms mainly ambiguous between nouns and verbs,
e.g. asleep, aglaze
b. be-, forms transitive verbs from adjectives, verbs or nouns, e.g. becalm,
befriend, bewitch
c. en-, forms transitive verbs mainly from nouns, e.g. enslave, entomb

As it has been said, in its broadest sense, derivation refers to any process which
results in the creation of a new word. Beard argues argue that backformation could
also be discussed here, given that some types of derivation do not fit into derivational
lexical paradigms holding for many other bases, like the following:

164
 Sanel Hadžiahmetović Jurida Word Formation in English:
Derivation and Compounding
DHS 2 (5) (2018), 157-170

re-laser, out-laser, over-laser, …

laser-er, → laser-er-s, laser-er-‘s
LASER laser-ing → laser-ing-s, laser-ing-‘s
(un)laser-able → (un)laser-abil-ity

They argue that the result of misanalysis of words when a phonological sequence
identical with that of an affix is misperceived as that particular affix is that a
previously non-existent underlying base is extracted and stored in the lexicon via
backformation (see section 3.7).

3.2 Zero-Derivation

Zero-derivation is also known as ‘functional shift’ or ‘conversion’ (Hudson: 2000:

257). This is the principle of using a word as another part of speech, without any affix
or change of form at all. Nouns can thus become verbs, and vice versa. The
phenomenon is becoming quite common in English. Verb-to-noun and noun-to-verb
cases are common; others are seldom. All zero-derivation has recently been analysed
as involving metonymic shifts. Some Hudson’s examples include:
a. swim, basically a verb (as in ‘Can you swim?’), may be used as a noun, as in
‘have a swim’
b. fun, essentially a noun (as in ‘Are we having fun yet?’), may be used as
adjective, as in ‘That would be a fun thing to do.’
c. trail, basically a noun (as in ‘a trail through the woods’), may be used as a verb
in sports-talk, as in ‘The Pistons trailed until the second period.’
d. laugh, basically a verb (as in ‘They seem to laugh a lot.’), may also be used as
a noun, as in ’We had such a laugh then.’
e. ring, essentially a verb (as in ‘The phone’s been ringing for minute snow.’),
may also be used as a noun, as in ‘I’ll give you a ring later today, ok?’

3.3 Compounding

In simple terms, compounding is combining two or more words as a word, with

the meaning of the resulting word not predictable as the simple combination of the
meanings of the two combined words.

165
 Sanel Hadžiahmetović Jurida Word Formation in English:
Derivation and Compounding
DHS 2 (5) (2018), 157-170

3.3 Some Hudson’s examples include:

a. greenhouse (green + house, adjective (or noun) + noun) ‘a building for

nurturing plants’ (noun)
b. soccer-mom (soccer + mom, noun + noun) ‘a mother whose time is occupied
with children who play soccer’ (the American Dialect Society’s Word of the
Year for 1996)
c. dry-clean or dryclean (dry + clean, adjective + verb) ‘clean by a dry process’
(verb)

As shown above, examples a. and b. clearly illustrate the unpredictability of the

meanings of the resulting words, given that a greenhouse is not green, and soccer-
moms do not play soccer. Hudson (2000: 258) concludes that “Compounds really
yield new meanings, even though the words they are made of are old and familiar.”
The lack of predictability, Fabb argues, arises from two characteristics of
compounds (1998: Chapter 3):
“(a) compounds are subject to processes of semantic drift, which can include
metonymy, so that a redhead is a person who has red hair;
b) there are many possible semantic relations between the parts in a compound,
as between the parts in a sentence, but unlike a sentence, in a compound,
case, prepositions and structural position are not available to clarify the
semantic relation”.

There are endocentric and exocentric compounds. The former category

encompasses those compounds that have a head, which, in turn, has similar
characteristics to the head of a phrase thus representing the core meaning of the
constituent. It is also of the same word class. For example, in head-chef, chef is the
head, while a head-chef is a kind of chef, and both words are nouns.
Compounds with no head are called exocentric compounds. A clear line between
the two types of compounds is not always present, as it is subject to interpretation,
for example, greenhouse, whether we think it is endo- or exocentric depends on
whether we think it is a kind of house. English has endocentric compounds that tend
to have heads systematically on the right.
The third kind of compound, where there is reason to think of both words as
equally sharing head-like features, as in student-prince (Fabb) is called co-ordinate
or appositional compounds.

166
 Sanel Hadžiahmetović Jurida Word Formation in English:
Derivation and Compounding
DHS 2 (5) (2018), 157-170

There are also other types of compounds found, such as synthetic (verbal)
compounds. In these, particular formal characteristics co-occur with particular
restrictions on interpretation. Fabb (1998) argues that the formal characteristic is that
a synthetic compound has as its head a derived word consisting of a verb plus one of
a set of affixes. Therefore, the following may be formally characterised as synthetic
compounds (Fabb):
• expert-test-ed
• checker-play-ing (as an adjective: a checker-playing king)
• window-clean-ing (as a noun)
• meat-eat-er

Some English examples of the so-called repetition compounds include words such
as higgledy-piggledy and hotchpotch, where there is reduplication of whole words.

Where compounds are composed of three (or more words), the compound can
sometimes be interpreted by breaking it down into subconstituents. According to Fabb
(1998), this is particularly true, for example, of chicken-leg-dinner, which is
interpreted by taking chicken-leg as a subcompound within the larger compound. On
the other hand, there my be ambiguity in some cases, for example, American history
teacher (a teacher of American history or a history teacher who is American).

This raises the question of whether such compounds might have a subconstituent
structure like a phrase [(b) or (c) below], rather than the flat structure (a):

(a)

American history teacher

(b)
American history teacher

167
 Sanel Hadžiahmetović Jurida Word Formation in English:
Derivation and Compounding
DHS 2 (5) (2018), 157-170

(c)
American history teacher

Many languages are said to disfavour compounding as a means of deriving new

words. German for example, is a language that exploits compounding more than
English, with examples like (Hudson):
a. Erdkarte ‘map of the earth (Erd ‘earth’ + Karte ‘map’)
b. Lastkraftwagen ‘truck’ (Last ‘load’ + Kraft ‘ power’ + Wagen ‘vehicle’)
c. Bundesausbildungsfoerderungsgesetz ‘National Law for the Advancement of
Education’ (Bundes ‘national’, Ausbildung ‘ education’, Foerderung ‘advan-
cement’, Gesetz ‘law’)

An important aspect to look at in English compounds is stress. Some compounds

are written as a single word, with no space between the combining words (football,
dryclean); others have a hyphen (time-consuming, drip-dry), and some are written
with a space between (rugby ball, spot clean). The main (primary) stress is usually
placed on the left-hand word and secondary stress on the right-hand word.
Fabb (1998) argues that compounds are subject to both phonological and
morphological processes, “which may be specific to compounds or may be shared
with other structures”. The words in a compound are said to retain a meaning similar
to their meaning as isolated words, but with certain restrictions. For example, as
quoted in Fabb (Downing: 1977), not every man who takes out the garbage is a
garbage man.

4. ConCluSion

The preceding sections of this paper provide an outline of particular available means
for production of new meanings in established forms of words in the English
language. In order to present two major types of production of complex forms
(derivation and compounding), it was prerequisite to provide some definitions and

168
 Sanel Hadžiahmetović Jurida Word Formation in English:
Derivation and Compounding
DHS 2 (5) (2018), 157-170

generalisations. In the focus of the theoretical part were word formation and related
topics as viewed by different authors. Following are the conclusions that can be
drawn:
Concerning the theoretical part of the paper, generally speaking, word formation
is a largely explored area. Many authors agree on the basic principles that motivate
and govern the process of word formation.
However, on the particular processes of word formation outlined in the paper, it
can be said that there are areas that are relatively productive (such as compounding)
given all the constraints the process of an established form of a word obtaining a new
meaning can pose. Not only is each particular type discussed in this paper present in
casual speech, rather it is employed quite frequently.
Overall, it can be concluded that there is definitely reason for studying language
and its lexis, as Chomsky puts it (1976: 4), “it is tempting to regard language, in the
traditional phrase, as a ‘mirror of mind’”, simply because language with its lexis is a
never-ending process, governed by principles that are universal by biological necessity.
The variety of mechanisms that English offers for the production of new words,
which have been presented in the paper, as well as the numerous corresponding
examples, have shown what qualifies English as a language medium which is
universally intelligible. English thus continues to occupy the position of the world’s
first language.

5. rEFErEnCES

1. Adams, V. (1973), An Introduction to Modern English Word-formation. Eighth

impression. Longman Group, London and New York
2. Anshen, F. and Aronoff, M. (1998), “Morphology and the Lexicon: Lexi-
calisation and Productivity”, In Spencer, A. and Zwicky, A. (eds), The
Handbook of Morphology, Blackwell, Oxford, 238-247
3. Aronoff, M. (1976), Word formation in generative grammar, Mass.: MIT
Press, Cambridge
4. Bauer, L. (1983), English Word-formation. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
5. Chomsky, N. (1976), Reflections on Language. Fontana/Collins, Glasgow
6. Collins English Dictionary (1999), Millennium edition. HarperCollins
Publishers, Glasgow

169
 Sanel Hadžiahmetović Jurida Word Formation in English:
Derivation and Compounding
DHS 2 (5) (2018), 157-170

7. Crystal, D. (2002), The English Language. Second Edition. Penguin Books,

London
8. Crystal, D. (2001), Language and the Internet. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
9. Fabb, N. (1998), Compounding. In A. Spencer, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), The Han-
dbook of Morphology (pp. 66-83), Oxford
10. Halle, M. (1973), Prolegomena to word formation. Linguistic Inquiry, 4/1,3-16
11. Hudson, G. (2000), Essential Introductory Linguistics, Blackwell Publishers
Ltd, Oxford
12. Jackendoff, R. S. (1972), Semantic interpretation in generative grammar.
Mass.: MIT Press, Cambridge
13. Kövecses, Z. (2002), Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, Oxford University
Press, New York
14. Lyons, J. (1968), Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge
15. Marchand, H. (1969), The categories and types of English word-formation,
2nd edn, C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Munich
16. Sapir, E. (1921), Language, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York

tvorba riJEči u EnglESKom JEziKu:

izvEdEniCE i SložEniCE

Sažetak:
U okviru tvrobe riječi u engleskom jeziku, u ovom radu se daje pregled određenih mogućnosti za
stvaranje novih značenja već postojećih oblika riječi. Preciznije, u radu se predstavljaju dva glavna tipa
proizvodnje složenih oblika (izvedenice i složenice), uz prateće definicije i opća razmatranja
potkrijepljena relevantnim primjerima koji su dalje u radu analizirani i diskutirani.

Ključne riječi: tvorba riječi u engleskom jeziku, izvedenice, složenice

Adresa autora
Authors’ address
Sanel Hadžiahmetović Jurida
Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Tuzli
[email protected]

170

View publication stats