Standaard Boekhandel gebruikt cookies en gelijkaardige technologieën om de website goed te laten werken en je een betere surfervaring te bezorgen.
Hieronder kan je kiezen welke cookies je wilt inschakelen:
Technische en functionele cookies
Deze cookies zijn essentieel om de website goed te laten functioneren, en laten je toe om bijvoorbeeld in te loggen. Je kan deze cookies niet uitschakelen.
Analytische cookies
Deze cookies verzamelen anonieme informatie over het gebruik van onze website. Op die manier kunnen we de website beter afstemmen op de behoeften van de gebruikers.
Marketingcookies
Deze cookies delen je gedrag op onze website met externe partijen, zodat je op externe platformen relevantere advertenties van Standaard Boekhandel te zien krijgt.
Je kan maximaal 250 producten tegelijk aan je winkelmandje toevoegen. Verwijdere enkele producten uit je winkelmandje, of splits je bestelling op in meerdere bestellingen.
This book presents the onomasiological approach to word formation and applies it to neoclassical formations, using data taken from English and Russian medical terminology. The phenomenon of neoclassical formations is challenging for morphological theory because it raises questions about determining its boundaries as a distinct category. The difficulties of differentiating between compounding and affixation, between blending and compounding, and between word formation and borrowing represent key problematic areas here. The basic underlying hypothesis considered in this book is that the position of neoclassical formations in English and Russian is different. It will be argued that, whereas in English, neoclassical word formation is a system of word formation, Russian has only individual borrowings. This hypothesis and the theoretical problems it entails are viewed from the perspective of Stekauer's onomasiological theory of word formation. Stekauer's theory takes the needs of the speech community as its starting point in explaining word formation. In this theory, the different analyses of neoclassical formations in English and Russian can be accounted for in an intuitively appealing and theoretically elegant way. As naming needs are central, word formation and borrowing can be analysed as alternative responses activating different components of the language system.