Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: van der Auwera, Johan


IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 0.763
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.872
Rank 78 out of 179 in category Linguistics in the 2015 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Social Sciences Edition

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.496
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 1.099
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 0.689

99,00 € / $149.00 / £75.00*

Online
ISSN
1613-396X
See all formats and pricing
Select Volume and Issue

Issues

30,00 € / $42.00 / £23.00

Get Access to Full Text

The creation of new words

John Haiman1

1Macalester College

Correspondence address: Linguistics Program, Macalester College, 1600 Grand Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55105 USA. E-mail:

Citation Information: Linguistics. Volume 48, Issue 3, Pages 547–572, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: 10.1515/ling.2010.017, June 2010

Publication History

Received:
2008-03-18
Revised:
2009-02-12
Published Online:
2010-06-17

Abstract

Exaptation (Lass, Journal of Linguistics 26: 79–102, 1990) is the recycling of meaningless linguistic “junk”, which may be recycled to create entirely new words. Two cases are examined here:

  • There are two auxiliary verbs do in modern English. The first (Chomskyan do) has the distribution that is famously outlined in Syntactic structures. The second, a homophonous auxiliary, occurs in (negative) imperatives, and was completely indistinguishable from the other periphrastic auxiliary in Elizabethan English. It is subject to very different constraints. The result is that English now has a prohibitive, as well as a declarative negative.

  • Khmer has an enormous number of alliterating near-synonyms which differ only in one or two segments (the coda, or the entire rhyme) of the stressed final syllable. It is possible that many of these arose as (nearly?) meaningless “servant words” that accompanied an original root in symmetrical compounds.

Examples of this sort may call into question two dogmas of functional linguistics: that grammaticalization is irreversible, and the widely shared view that erosion is the only productive process of linguistic change.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.