英语论文网

uctively to words that make-up in poetry, then, the number of such processes is countable. Suffix -ment is productive with bases especially contain the -en prefix. As the prefix is no longer productive, the number of conceivable -ment formed words will be also limited. If we apply the notion of uncountablity, the combines of -ment with such bases would be referred as unproductive. This is not the case.

After examined the obstacles briefly of the above analysis, we will find some reasons. Suffix -ness may attach all adjectives under such a rule. Although the number of adjectives of a speaker gets in a given time may be limited, it is in principle uncountable for -ness is an open class which new items can be easily attached to. 'If the class of possible input words is open, so must be the class of possible derivatives of productive rules' (Plag, 2003, p.16). This is the center of unaccountability notion.

The most problematic point about the present qualitative notion of productivity is probably the concept of word formation itself. Schultink takes it as 'a morphological process which is the base of the form-meaning correspondence of some words they know' (Bauer, 2001, p.17). The essential factor of this point is the base which one can assume such a morphological process exists. This definition involves rule-based and analogical formations, which are two different things. Therefore, form-meaning correspondences of individual items are the basis for all kinds of analogies, despite the fact that we do not always consider such processes are productive. The crucial difference between rules and analogies is productivity. Analogical formation is operated on the base of existing words. Existing words could not only play a role as a model for analogy when they are little, but do play a role when they are voluminous. Rules must be acquired on the basis of existing words. Therefore, the only remaining difference between the traditional word formation rules and analogy is a quantitative notion; rules produce more forms than analogies. Thus, Becker suggests equating rules with analogy as 'rule redundant' because everything can be taken into consideration due to the proportional formula of analogy. Although this assumption is a scalar conception of productivity, it still has a number of disadvantages.

First is the definition of a rule. Actually, there two levels of the meaning of the rul e. The primary meaning of the rule is in principle a synonymy with 'regularity'. The secondary notion of rule is basically equal to 'a procedural operation', which knew as a rewrite rule.

The rule-based formula supposes that new words are formed by operating a certain adoption on a particular input, and therefore producing some well-specified output. This is the aim of Becker's argument. Rule is a procedural or derivational device.

However, this rule formula has problems in empirical study. It cannot 'transform underlying strings into surface representations by subjecting them to an ordered set of manipulating procedures, but making crucial use of representations and conditions that constrain the form of such representation' (Plag, 1999, p.18). Therefore, the only possibility of rules equating with analogy are rules conceived as operations.

本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。