UIDC 811.1(5;? .(5'3(6)6
Nataša Logar
Faculty of Social Sciences, Ljubljana
STYLISTICALLY MARKED NEW DERIVATIVES - A TYPOLOGY1
Word formation enables the formation of stylistically marked derivatives on two levels: on the level of the transformational-generative processes described and predicted in linguistics; on the level of unpredictable transformational-generative processes. This paper presents, with examples, the most productive sub-types from both groups, and is an attempt to investigate the reasons for the markedness of derivatives in the syntactic base within the context of transformational-generative word formation, in the relationship between formant and word base, and in the relationship between formation and non-formation. At the level of unpredictable transformational-generative processes, one can define nine different groups of derivatives, some of which are crossing the border of word formation.
Besedotvorje omogo~a tvorbo stilno zaznamovanih tvorjenk na dveh ravneh: na ravni v jezikoslovju opisanih in predvidljivih tvorbeno-pretvorbenih postopkov in na ravni tvorbeno-pretvorbeno nepredvidljivih postopkov. V prispevku so s primeri prikazani najproduktivnej{i podtipi obeh skupin. V okviru tvorbeno-pretvorbenega besedotvorja smo razloge za zaznamo-vanost tvorjenk iskali v skladenjski podstavi, v razmerju med obrazilom in besedotvorno pod-stavo in v razmerju tvorjenosti do netvorjenosti; na ravni tvorbeno-pretvorbeno nepredvidljivih postopkov pa smo opredelili devet različnih skupin tvorjenk, od katerih nekatere že prestopajo mejo besedotvorja.
Key words: word formation, stylistics, neologism
Ključne besede: besedotvorje, stilistika, neologizem
0 Introduction
There is no segment of language as variable and dynamic, with such a high turnover of individual units constantly falling out of use and new units being formed, as the lexical domain. This variability is closely connected to changes in the life of the language speaker, i.e. to changes in the reality that surrounds him/her, new ideologies and political systems, innovations resulting from contacts with different cultures, religious beliefs and values, etc. These changes are constant, rapid and inevitable in today's world. Every language that wishes to stay (or that we wish to keep) alive, topical and fully functional follows these changes rapidly, simultaneously adopting or assimilating them, i.e. mainly by giving them its own expression or the expression that conforms to its features.
Changing the linguistic image of the world - which in this context chiefly means the formation of a new lexicon - is not conditioned merely by the extra-linguistic reality in which the speakers of a certain language live, but also by the relationship
1 The paper is an amended and revised part of Besedotvorna stilistika (Master's thesis, 2003). Supervisor: Professor A. Vidovič Muha.
between speakers and their (first) language and, in this context, with what already exists in language as well. At the lexical level the latter is demonstrated in the formation of new expressions for existing designations. In relation to the »old« formations, these new formations can be ironic, funny, vulgar, endearing or colloquial, or else they might simply be abbreviations of an old formation, formations characteristic of a single author or, over time, the only neutral formation. In lexicon, it is also possible to observe the changes in the otherwise stable, systemic, core of the language, brought about by the influence of other languages.
Changes, including the systemic changes, may simply be current innovations, short-lived specialisms or areas of popular interest that disappear from the language as suddenly as they entered it. But they can also be set firm, stay in the language, perhaps in one of its sub-systems. As a rule, this occurs only when they play a role in language that another language device cannot or does not know how to play well enough or as well. New formations are indispensable for a fully functional language. After a while (although this can happen quite quickly), these words, regular word phrases and patterns of word formation lose their newness and become a formative part of the language, part of those who live within that language, and part of their outlook on the world.
0.1 In linguistics, stylistics is the »science of alternative possibilities in language (lexical, syntactic, morphological, phonetic), according to the role or purpose of a text« (Enciklopedija Slovenije/Encyclopedia of Slovenia 1998: 317). The narrowing of the concept of stylistics to linguistic-systemic stylistics brings us to the following definition: »/C/ertain morphological categories, accent variants or syntactic phenomena /.../ already contain /.../ stylistic markedness in relation to the other in themselves, i.e., without regard to the text« (Koro{ec 1998: 13). Vidovi~ Muha (2000: 159), using the example pis-ec, pis-ar, pis-un, which shows synonymy of morphemes -ec, -ar, -un, illustrates her finding that »morphemes are basic bearers of linguistic-systemic stylistics«. Koro{ec (1998: 8) defines language style from a number of aspects, though only two of the more important ones are quoted here for the purpose of this discussion, i.e., »style, as a complex of attributes of language communication, is achieved by selecting from the given linguistic devices of language as a system« (processual aspect); and »selection is an element of linguistic activity whose purpose is communication; selection therefore depends on an entirely defined goal of the former's communica-tion« (teleological aspect). This can be summarised as »where there is an alternative, there is style« (Topori{i~ 1974: 245).
0.2 This paper will address two areas of word-formative stylistics (see Figure 1):
A The first will proceed from the characteristics of the definitional and expressive parts of derivatives, i.e. from the word base, formant or formant morpheme, and from the word phrase from which the derivatives arise (the syntactic base).2 One finds in the
2 The word-formative theoretical basis of this paper is syntactic word formation, as established in Slovenian linguistics by A. Vidovic Muha (1988).
literature (Toporišič (1973), Vidovič Muha (1972, 2000), Filipec (1961), Ohnheiser (1979), etc.) that some word-formative morphemes always have a certain connotative meaning in themselves, while others have that meaning only in the word base upon which a certain other formant can be placed so that the derivative can be marked (though not necessarily) if its base already contains such an auto-semantic word, etc. All these examples involve derivatives that arose according to linguistically-systemi-cally stable and predictable word-formation processes, already defined in linguistics. They will therefore be discussed within the framework of the stylistics of predictable transformational-generative processes.
B Word-formative stylistics also has to take into account all of the unpredictable transformational-generative patterns of word formation such as the formation of juxtaposed compounds, abbreviations, clippings, word-phrased alternations, etc. New (as a rule, borrowed) word-formative patterns (in Slovenian, these include the compounding of two nouns encountered at the end of the 19*^ century, e.g. živinozdravnik, and ordinary noun derivatives by prefixation, e.g. podkuhar, from the first half of the 20th century (Vidovič Muha 1991: 319)) are also (at some point) part of word-formative stylistics; in contemporary Slovenian, this pattern is evident in such words as e-posta, e-sporocilo and m-poslovanje, which can be called e-derivatives.3 Abbreviations, juxtaposed compounds, clippings and the like are systematically indefinite or »elusive«, and therefore outside the system, and are also always at least to some extent left to the choice of the (first) former. With these words it is possible to identify only some of most
Word-formative stylistics
Transformational-generative word formation
Syntactic / base different marks
ormation: non-formation
Unpredictable transformational-generative word formation
.Combination of written
Formant + word base mark
Clippings
Blends into a word
Word-phrase alternations
Insei^on of punctuation
into a word Insertion of hyphen
Omission of internal part of a word
Figure 1: Typology of style-marked new derivatives.
3 A more detailed discussion of e-derivatives is omitted here. For more, see Logar 2003: 181-188 or Logar 2004: 122-126.
frequent manifestations. Moreover, as will be shown, although these are derivatives, one can no longer refer to basic notions of systemic word formation (i.e. to syntactic base, word base and formant). All the examples listed here will therefore be dealt with in relation to unpredictable transformational-generative word-formation processes.
1 Analysis
The purpose of this paper is to support the typology of word-formative stylistics with material; the focus has therefore been on gathering as many typologically diverse examples of new or newer derivatives as possible. The following sources were selected: journalism (Delo, Mladina), two popular science periodicals (Mobinet, Joker) and a science-fiction novel by Miha Remec, Iksia ali slovo zivostrojnega clovega (for more about sources, see the end of this paper and Logar 2003: 6-12). All new common-named derivatives and parts of one-word newly formed proper names were written out according to the Dictionary of Standard Slovenian (SSKJ). A set of abbreviated terms was also taken from Slavistična revija, Medicinski razgledi and Elektrotehni{ki vestnik, and a review made of the Slovarček mini sloven{čine (www.pinkponk.com/ smskratice.asp), 15 columns of Informacijska tehnologija from the Delo newspaper, the 3rd edition of Leksikon imen by Janez Keber, and the International Country Codes (www.iol.ie/~taeger/tables/tab9.htm), a collection of international vehicle codes. The material was also partly gathered from the Korpus slovenskega jezika FIDA (www. fida.net). The entire selection covered over 3,800 new derivatives according to the SSKJ. It should be pointed out that examples will be cited unchanged in the paper; furthermore, because of the extensive nature of the issue at hand, only the most productive and most interesting groups will be examined.
1.1 Stylistics of transformational-generative word formation
The starting points for the stylistics of transformational-generative word formation are, as mentioned above, the defining attributes of the derivative (their definition is given after Vidovič Muha 1988: 183):
1.	Syntactic base (non-clausal subordinate word phrase /.../ whose auto- and grammatical-semantic elements can be transformed into derivatives);
2.	Formant (part of a derivative from one or more morphemes as a transformation of the grammatical meaning of the syntactic base, but it can also be its core or develop ing segment);
3.	Word base (part of a derivative from non-formed root-morpheme words in the syntactic base).
1.1.1 Syntactic base A Derivatives from marked words
Vidovič Muha (2000: 99) has proposed »the connotativity of words from the syntactic base« as one of the reasons for the markedness of derivatives, and also pointed
out that a connotative word from the base does not necessarily also mean that the derivative is marked. Ohnheiser's conclusion (1979: 86) is similar: if a marked word is the base and the formant is not marked, then the derivative can also be neutral, but only in rare case.
The material contains a group of stylistically special derivatives which are, because of the marked word from the syntactic base, fairly extensive. The markedness of syntactic-base words has been checked in the SSKJ and every derivative classified that has, at one of its formation stages, a word that contains, within the meaning relevant for the derivative, any style, genre or temporal qualifier. The normative value of the semicolon in synonyms was also considered.4
The examples are as follows (only a few are listed here, from the most extensive groups):
-	expressive: pozer,^ crkozer, cunjarnica, blefiranje, frcalnica, nazigalnica, rigajoč, pojodlati, izviseti, odkrizariti,
-	vulgar: zajebancija, jebivetrsko, kurčiti se, pizdarija, vukojebina, presranost, sla-boritnez, popizditi,
-	lower colloquial: zajfast, strikarija, nucnik, sopanje, fusač, preklofan, znucan, krepavanje, presvercan, frocovje,
-	colloquial: hohstaplerija, frajerizem, pobezljava, brkljalnik, zafrknjen, blondinski, bajturina,
-	jargon: zurer, prezuran, prezurati, zazicati, vazenje, pavzer, tenisačina, brzinec,
-	pejorative: kracanje, čvekalstvo, pokruliti, pisunjenje, čistunski, pofrfuliti,
-	journalistic: scenosled, spotnička, tinejdzerski, lobiranje, lobist, lobizem.
One can ascertain that almost all derivatives from marked words are also marked themselves; however, additional checks would have to be made to see whether the type of markedness of the base word is preserved in the derivative. In general one can conclude that this is mostly the case (but it should be pointed out that qualifiers from the SSKJ of some of the base words no longer correspond to contemporary usage and connotative value, e.g. the journalistic lobi).
B Derivatives from new derivatives
Many such derivatives were encountered in the material. However, only those with the base word marked only as new, i.e. as neologism (its existence might be attested in this derivative alone, i.e. in a higher-degree derivative), but without a marked form-
4	The value of the semicolon with synonyms in the SSKJ is as follows (§ 48): »A less-used synonym with a single meaning has an explanation and, after the semicolon, a superior (stronger in use) /.../ synonym.« One group of qualifiers that could still be relevant to this discussion (the so-called »special normative qualifiers« (SSKJ I, 1970: § 156, 157)) has not been attested in the material.
5	It should be mentioned at this point that examples from the material in comparison with an already established (neutral) synonym (not necessarily derivative) can also be generically marked or marked for several wordformation reasons at the same time - such examples were classified only in one of these groups, i.e. the one to which, in this author's opinion, they most obviously belonged. At the same time it has to be said that material from Iksia has not been included under point 1.1 because of its connection with the poetics of a single author.
ant or base word etc., were included; they cannot be included in any other group of derivatives that are connotative, for (other) word-formative reasons. Some examples:
menedzeriranje, nenavadnjenje, grafitanje, presernovanje, direktorovanje, granati-ranje, kitarjevanje, uglasbljevanje, bunkabrcanje, razdihovalec, zakajevalec, pred-nastavljen, pre~esnan, za~esnan, sfotokopiran, samozgodovinjenje, sokolarjenje, pli-narjenje, avtopobijavs~ina, burekovalnica, lastnoustni~no.
If the base words of such derivatives were in frequent use and became unmarked, derivatives would, as a rule, also lose markedness (probably the opposite is true as well).
1.1.2 Formant and word base
A Derivatives with a marked combination of word base and formant Typical of this group is that markedness arises from the fact that the combination of a certain word base and a formant is different compared to the set synonym of the derivative. In this group, neither the word base nor the formant is marked; only the combination of the two is marked, different, special, and new. There are two groups of such marked derivatives:
A1 In the first group are those new derivatives that have, at the last formation stage, a different formant than the synonym in the SSKJ (this synonym is also not necessarily unmarked); these derivatives are of the same word-formative type, but they might differ in the degree of formation (in that case the difference between them is also in the word base of the last formation stage).
Some examples: starinec (: starina), znanski (: znan), plovilec (: plovilo), uboz~en (: ubog), posipalec (: posipalnik), stoletka (: stoletnica), me~kator (: me~ka~), podo-zivitev (: podoživetje), bera~evski (: beraski), prelesnovit (: prelesten), zogobrcanje (: žogobrc), mison (: misjak), komunistica (: komunistka), trendovski (: trendni), vam-pirizem (: vampirstvo), filmi~en (: filmski), podkulturni (: nekulturni), podpostenjak (: nepostenjak).
A2 In the second group are the new derivatives which have the same formant in the last formation stage and are of the same word-formative type as the set synonym (again, this synonym is not necessarily unmarked), but they have a different word base (at least) in the last formation stage; this can at the same time mean that they also differ in the degree of formation. Some examples:
-	the new derivative is of higher degree of formation: uzivantski (: uživaški), tenisaski (: teniški), kriticisti~ni (: kriti~ni), dogajalis~e (: prizoriš~e), zakajevalnica (: kadilnica), zahodnjakarski (: zahodnjaški), te~nobnez (: te~než);
-	the new derivative is of lower degree of formation: /;
-	the new derivative is of the same degree of formation: tiholazenje (: tihotapljenje), zdajsnjik (: sedanjik), zdruzek (: skupek), o~igledno (: o~itno), intelegibilno (: inteligentno), programabilnost (: programskost), zabavnjastvo (: zabavništvo), peval-ka (: pevka), ~itavec (: bralec), fr~oplan (: aeroplan).
The formers of these derivatives have, for effectiveness of style, selected a word that is semantically close to the base word of the set synonym, which makes the meaning of the new derivative recognizable.
B Derivatives with a systemically new formant
This type of formant is attested in the following examples: seksualija, tehnika-lija, sekvencarijada, flesijada, transijada, aparatus, rezultatus, ~lankoidni, bruhoidni, plo{~koid, ex-minister, iberpomanjkanje, animateka. These formants in Slovenian are not (yet) set or identified as morphemes. They are all borrowed and used precisely because of the connotation that has been inserted into the derivative by its foreignness.
1.1.3 Formation with respect to non-formation
The choice of formation with respect to non-formation has already been proposed by Vidovič Muha (2000: 99) as a reason for the connotativity of the derivative. She gives the following examples: bosonog, bosopet : bos, kopec : hrib, hromonog : hrom, lenokrven : len, dobrosr~en : dober. Filipec (1961) drew similar conclusions regarding Czech (e.g. ~inohra : hra).
Our material also contained a few new derivatives that have a synonym in a nonderivative: dvanajstmese~je (: leto), slikosuk (: projektor), redilnica (: hlev), mukica (: krava), nizek (: dno), oblepek (: obliž), svatbar (: svat).
This is clearly a less productive option for word-formative stylistics. All of the examples except the last one are lexical rather than word-formative synonyms, i.e. the pairs of synonyms do not have the same root (compare the examples dogajalis~e : prizoris~e and zdruzek : skupek in 1.1.2A2 - for more about this, see Ohnheiser 1979: 15-17, 62, 111, 112, summarised in Logar 2003: 27-29).
The remaining groups of systemic new derivatives are less productive in relation to the examples from the material. A few of them are listed here: derivatives which are of another word-formative type in comparison with the synonym, e.g. oblastidrzec (: oblastnik) = compound : ordinary derivative by suffixation; further modificational derivatives by suffixation (e.g. spotni~ka, jugoslovanar); duplication of formants (e.g. predpredogrevalni); derivatives from non-dictionary interjections (e.g. muuuuuuuki-ca), etc. These examples are omitted because they are fewer in number. The discussion now moves on to the second group of new derivatives.
1.2 Stylistics of unpredictable transformational-generative word formation
What classifies the derivatives to be presented here outside the linguistic-systemic word formation is the following: the base of these derivatives can be single- or multiword; it can be a set phrase; the grammatical relationship between the words within the base can be arbitrary. The base of this derivative is therefore not the syntactic base. The elements of the base are then truncated, integrated or blended in an unpredictable way, which makes it impossible to determine which part of the base was replaced by a formant or, in the newly-formed word, where the boundaries of the formant are. In unpredictable transformational-generative derivatives, there is no basic division into two parts, i.e. word base : formant.
However, from the synchronic point of view, the words presented below are nevertheless derivatives or at least formations in the broader sense, as long as it is possible to identify their base units, i.e. as long as they are perceived as »compound«.
How is it possible to form new words in an unpredictable linguistic-systematic way?
On the one hand one can put two or more words together without changing them, e.g. from ne vem kakšen we get nevemkaksen; such a derivative is called a juxtaposed compound. Further, we can truncate6 one or more words arbitrarily into at least two parts (e.g. ultrazvok we truncate at two points and get U- and Z-, which are later combined into UZ). The same can be done with two or more words: e.g. from olimpijske igre we get OI, thus forming an acronym. If there is only one word in the base and we truncate it either from the end towards the beginning, from the beginning towards the end or from the beginning and the end simultaneously, so that we get one truncation that is both spoken and written,7 that is called clipping (e.g. from the name Elizabeta we get names like Beta, Ela and Iza). On the other side is an unlimited set of further possibilities, of which only a few will be recorded and described here, i.e. the ones found in the material. One possibility is that there are at least two words in the base that overlap at some point, forming a blend (see below for examples). Other derivatives discussed in the continuation of the article are: word-phrase alternations; derivatives with an internal part of the word omitted; words with the inserted hyphen and other punctuation marks (both explicitly linked to writing only); derivatives like 5ek ('petek'), which are formed from symbols from different systems and limited to the written channel (this group is already on the extreme edge of word formation). As already mentioned, this is an open set, still awaiting further investigation.
1.2.1 Juxtaposed compounds
Juxtaposition in Slovenian is a less productive but nevertheless simple and effective way of forming stylistically marked words. This is an old type of word formation, with Miklo{i~ being the first Slovenian linguist to define it, and it has not been ignored by any of the more important researchers of Slovenian word formation. In the Slovenian lexical system, juxtaposed compounds are, as a word-formation type, predictable, but practically unpredictable in terms of the (trans)formation itself. Their formative predictability lies merely in the fact that they are always made up of successive constituents of speech (parole), but cannot, as a word-formation type, be defined by the number of base words, their word type and interactive relations. As already stated, in juxtaposed compounds the concept of a syntactic base is not relevant (see
6	Truncation is a simultaneous omission of grammatical attributes and other morphemes of the base word(s) - the extent and number of these morphemes are arbitrary; the part of the word that remains is a clip.
7	As far as truncation is concerned, the same method yields (formed) symbols, which are in fact only written abbreviations. For more on word-formative distinction between abbreviations and symbols, see Logar 2003: 154-156.
VidoviC Muha 1988: 12, 32), as we cannot determine what formant belongs to the base and what is the formant of the juxtaposed compound itself. From the transformational-generative aspect, juxtaposed compounds are therefore unpredictable. What makes the juxtaposed compound one word in the written channel (this paper contains only juxtaposed compounds from written sources), is its deliberately unbroken notation, i.e. the intentional continuity of its letters. For more on the morpheme structure of juxtaposed compounds, see Logar 2005.
Only some of the juxtaposed compounds will be listed here; these can be characterised as individual (former's aspect), textual (systemicity aspect), occasional (manifestation aspect) or written juxtaposed compounds (channel aspect).
Almost all compounds in the material were of these types. Juxtaposed compounds from proper names include: Igra~e-smo-mi (a translation of Toys 'r' us, an American toy store chain) and Dromeva (the name of a planet in Iksia).8 The material contained many more juxtaposed compounds of common names (35); most of them were taken from Joker (e.g. vedno-na-pomo~-pripravljen-Ameri~an, babanaga, laserplaz-mahudiplamen, dva-jurjevo-plus-eden, hodi-moz, poberi-in-uporabi, za-nekatere-idealisti~en, vunmetati se, takenako).
Juxtaposed compounds are stylistically immediately noticeable at the time of their formation because of the way they are formed (there might be other reasons as well). The visibility can fade over time with the loss of authorship or even multi-authorship and more extensive use of these formations.
1.2.2 Acronyms
In the latest Slovenski pravopis from 2001 (hereafter: SP '01), an acronym is defined as »a noun made up of the initial parts of a multi-word designation« (SP '01: 200), e.g. BiH < Bosna in Hercegovina, DDV < davek na dodano vrednost, TV < televizija.
In the Slovenian language, acronyms began to appear more widely in all types of texts, and above all in specialised texts, from the 1950s. Since that time they have also been subjected to linguistic analysis. They are considered one of the sub-types of word shortening. They are part of unpredictable transformational-generative word formation and are formed by combining unpredictable clips; however, the base of the acronym can be a single word, a set phrase, a clausal phrase, etc. Base words are truncated to various extents, i.e. to one or more phonemes or letters and sometime coincidentally to one or more morpheme boundaries. However, abbreviated clips cannot be equated with morphemes, i.e. it is not possible to determine the formant or the word base of acronyms.
As expected according to the findings by Rode (1974) and Gložančev (2000), the vast majority of acronyms in the material, regardless of the source, were made of initials, i.e. all auto-semantic base words were truncated to the initial letter/phoneme,
8 The first inhabitants named the planet Drom and the others Eva. After making friends, they named the planet Dromeva.
e.g. CD < Cankarjev dom, RK < raztopljeni kisik, UHF < Ultra High Frequency. Next by frequency (although far behind) are acronyms made up of a combination of initial clips and word-formative morphemes truncated to the first letters, i.e. both parts of the word base of the base compounds (not necessarily the compound in the last formation stage), e.g. ZRC < Znanstvenoraziskovalni center, BAS < bakterijsko-aku-mulatorski sistem, ELISA < Enzyme-linked Imunosobent Assay; or a prefix and a word base of an ordinary derivative by prefixation (not necessarily in the last formation stage), e.g. MF < medfrekven~ni, PP < perpleksnost, ADH < antidiureti~ni hormon. These word-formative morphemes are not surprising, since both the word base and the prefix of these ordinary noun derivatives by prefixation are morphemes that originate in auto-semantic words. Because both patterns have been confirmed as dominant on approximately the same, sufficiently extensive, samples of acronyms with both Slovenian and English bases, it would be possible to say that acronym formation is a universal linguistic phenomenon, not just as a formation method but also in terms of its most frequent patterns.
1.2.3 Clippings
Koro{ec defines clippings (1993: 20), after Topori{i~ (1992: 162), as words formed by truncation, e.g. izem < modernizem/realizem, etc., Kora < Kornelija. As is obvious from the two examples above, of all the derivatives presented in this article, clippings are the most difficult to identify as derivatives. Clippings may have no association with the base word at all, and in that case, from a synchronic point of view, they can no longer be classed as derivatives.
In clippings, as in acronyms, it is impossible to determine the formant, since truncation is (as shown above) an unpredictable linguistic phenomenon in terms of its scope and its outcome (a clip) is not a morpheme; a clip can only occasionally be the same as the morpheme of the base word (as in our previous example izem, which is originally a formant). The fact remains that clips themselves are not morphemes, which means that it is impossible to define the word base and the formant in clippings as well.
A more precise definition of clippings is given by Koro{ec (1993: 20, 27) as follows: they are at least three-letter shortenings in speech/writing formed from a one-word base, with back or front truncation. For the names of companies (e.g. Fructa < Fructal, Investa < investicija, Sibir < Sibirija), Gložan~ev (2000: 77-78, 87) has found that all examples truncate the back part of the word, which is logical for proper names. The carrier of lexical meaning (word base or stem) is preserved, while the formants and grammatical morphemes are omitted; this otherwise rare method of formation is primarily used in borrowed words. The author also believes that »such derivatives are taken as somewhat jargon-like, colloquial or at least expressive« (77). For the English language as well, Bauer (1993: 233-234) establishes that shortening in clippings is unpredictable and that the initial part of the base word is most frequently preserved (e.g. deli < delicatessen). There are two other, much more rare patterns: the last part of the word is preserved (e.g. loid < celluloid) or the middle part of the word is preserved (e.g. shrink < head-shrinker).
In the material, three clippings were new according to the SSKJ: mobi < mobile ('mobile phone'); evro/euro < Europe (money unit'); and demo < demonstration ('demonstration', 'demonstration recording'). All three examples have already been borrowed as clippings and therefore did not originate in Slovenian. Clippings are frequent particularly among personal proper names, e.g. Mateja > Teja, Uršula > Ula, Ursa, Albert > Bert, Janez > Jan.
1.2.4	Blends
Blends are derivatives from two or more words, with the base words that are expressively the same in some parts, and those parts then overlap.
Some examples:9 Mladinamit < Mladina + dinamit, japanimacija < Japan + animacija, sekskluzivni < seks + ekskluzivni, Opoldnevnik < opoldne + dnevnik, Proble-market < problem + market, nogomanija < nogomet + manija, problemat < problem + avtomat, smucarajanje < smučar + rajanje, testisirati < testirati + testis, genenjava < gen + zelenjava, sprinternet < {printer + internet,10 Megazin < mega magazin, wampo-sukcija < vamposukcija + wap, izwampiti < izvampiti + wap, RAPSeren < Prešeren + rap [rep], »Arafatistan« < Afganistan + Arafat, O.K.olje < OK + okolje + olje 'okolju prijazno olje'.
From these examples it is obvious that the overlapping part is arbitrary.
Bauer (1993: 234-237) defines a blend as a new word formed from parts of two or more other words, so that a clear division into morphemes is not possible, e.g. ballute < balloon + parachute, chunnel < channel + tunnel, dawk < dove + hawk. As also evident from the examples, the most common pattern is the formation from the first part of the first word and the last part of the second word (only this type is found in Racek Kleinedler and Spears 1993). However, it is always up to the former of the blend how large the parts included in the new derivative will be, as long as it can be pronounced and semantically recognisable. It seems that such derivatives are logical and stylistically effective only if the base words within them are identifiable and each of them still appears with its (primary) meaning in the new word. Blends in Slovenian have one accent only; higher-degree derivatives can also be formed from them, e.g. japanimacijski, testisiran, stestisirati.
1.2.5	Word-phrase alternations
With word-phrase alternations, part of the first word is transferred into the second word and part of the second word is transferred into the first word. The length of these parts and which parts are transferred, varies from example to example; however, the
9 Some examples of blends were also found by chance in the advertising material of the Collegium travel agency, November 2004; Delo Saturday supplement, 13 November 2004: 20; advertising campaigns of the Horizont company from Maribor, August-November 2004; and the Siol company, August-November 2004.
In advertising for fast Internet connection that began during the Olympic Games.
length is likely to be syllable-bound, i.e., in the new word, the transferred parts should not produce a sound cluster that is hard to pronounce on the boundary between parts. The described word-phrase changes are probably more frequent with collocations, as recognisability and comprehension are easier or faster. Only one example was found in the material: grak in zvofika < zvok and grafika (»Grak in zvofika sta vrhunska«). Again, the division into morphemes is not possible, i.e. arbitrary parts are transferred (or overlapping).
1.2.6	Omission of an internal part of a word
The truncation of certain non-initial and non-final parts of words is also unpredictable, as evident from the example h'woodski (»nampoda h'woodsko kritiko Hol-lywooda«). The truncated part is -olly- and therefore almost the whole auto-semantic morpheme holly-, which is paronym of the adjective holy 'sacred', which was probably the reason for its omission. It seems that for this type, the compounds (or higher-degree derivatives) with one part of their word base omitted could be most relevant. These omissions seem worthwhile if they lead to a semantic shift between the new and the old word and, at the same time, they highlight the omitted part. Such formations are only comprehensible in the narrowest textual context.
1.2.7	Insertion of a punctuation mask into a word
A Insertion of a hypen into a word
Examples: pred-sodek, ne-potrebnost, po-ziv, od-ziv, lju-biti (»~ ali ne to je tu vprašanje«), na-klada (»Joker zategadelj povi{a na-klado«), Ne-da, Seve-da (»Nekdo ima punco Ne-da. Upa, da bo prihodnji ime Seve-da.«).
In all these examples, the hyphen was inserted on the word-formative border. In the first three examples, the insertion of the hyphen emphasises certain semantic nuances. The hyphen separates and therefore highlights the word-formative morpheme, or, more precisely, both word-formative morphemes, which have an auto-semantic word in the base (prefix of ordinary derivatives by prefixation, word base), are highlighted. In the case of lju-biti, there is a modification of Hamlet's famous expression. The »derivatives« Ne-da and Seve-da play on the homonymy of their end part with the third person singular form of the verb dati (therefore da). In fact, by inserting the hyphen into the examples above, no new derivatives were created, only the old ones were exposed as derivatives. Following the model from phraseology, this could be considered a renovation of derivative. The insertion of a hyphen did not change the morpheme structure of the »base« derivative.
B Insertion of other punctuation marks into a word
The following derivatives in our material contain a punctuation mark within the word: Si.mobil, S!mobil, Si.mobilov and BU'.janje. SP '01 does not recognise this use
of punctuation marks, but the following comment can be made: in the case of Si.mobil, the full-stop visually exposes the first part of the word and therefore points to its original meaning (partly therefore similar to the hyphen above), Si is the international Internet domain for Slovenia and the exclamation mark in S!mobil preserves the meaning of the exclamation mark (an appeal) and is at the same time also visually similar to the letter -i- turned upside down. BU!janje is a derivative from the interjection bu, or more precisely, from the new first-grade formation (verb) bujati; the exclamation mark in the derivative, together with the capital letters of the base interjection, apparently preserves its syntactical role and exposes the interjectional part of the word in a way that probably determines a louder, more expressive pronunciation (or at least presents the notion of such pronunciation). Additionally, the punctuation mark in the morpheme division of such »derivatives« plays no role; the morpheme structure is therefore the same as it would be without the intermediate full stop, exclamation mark, etc.
1.2.8 Combination of various writing symbols
To establish one of the possible influences mobile telephony has on language, it was decided to review the set of abbreviations for text messages accessible from www.pinkponk.com/smskratice.asp. On 7 September 2001 the Mobitel d.d. company, clearly encouraged by similar examples from abroad, invited their younger users to submit »imaginative abbreviations« to the website and be involved in creating the »new text-messaging language«.
Among the more than 450 examples of SMS abbreviations11 that had been submitted to the site by 11 January 2002, more than 60 % were some type of abbreviation, while the rest of the material (160 examples) was made of, for example, the following: :-) 'zadovoljen',12 :) 'veselje', :(... 'jočem', :x 'poljubček', :D '{irok nasme{ek', mi2 'midva', ju3 'jutri', 2ma~ 'preveč', sk8ar 'skejtar', 8-) 'Nosim očala', <>< 'ribica', {*} 'objemček, poljubček', *+* 'vidim te', @x@ 'ma{ mačka?', @->-- 'vrtnica', \_/0 'A gre{ na kavo?', =:x 'zajček'.
The formation of these naming-communicative units is in their composition of symbols from different symbol systems; it has already been noted that these »derivatives« are connected with written channels only. The individual structural parts of these units, and therefore individual symbols (which are by no means morphemes), cannot appear in the »derivative« with their meaning but merely with their expression, i.e. written expression (appearance), creating an icon or partial icon (e.g. :) or kr@ 'krof') or spoken expression (e.g. ju3). An even more significant fact is that we have examples such as @->-- ('vrtnica', see above), which are no longer words, and therefore, according to Peirce's division, can no longer be classified as symbols (which is what human language is), but as icons or pictures.
11	Many are not linked exclusively to text messages, but are also part of the so-called Internet texts, the most typical being e-mail, and texts written in Internet chatrooms. Moreover, several of the iconic abbreviations listed are international.
12	The meaning of these abbreviations is quoted in single quotation marks, with only s, c, z changed to Ž, where this was obvious.
2 Conclusion
The article surveyed a set of stylistically interesting derivatives and attempted to present them typologically. However, it should be pointed out that this typology was limited by the size of the sample and that the other aspect of the formation of new terms has been ignored completely, i.e. those terms that fill the terminological gap and are, as such, necessary for the overall functioning of language, but they lack authorship (or their authorship is quickly forgotten), in order for them to become accepted in general use as rapidly as possible, even though they were also neologisms when they first appeared. Only the most productive groups of new or newer stylistically marked derivatives have been discussed here, i.e. derivatives which only secondarily and differently name something that has already been named. All the examples discussed in this article might potentially take their place in a general dictionary. We can with certainty conclude the following: whether the former of the word or expression proceeds from already set and systemic word-formative processes and defining attributes of a derivative, or forms a new word in an entirely unexpected and systemically elusive way, there are a great many possibilities for linguistic innovation in (Slovenian) word formation.
V angleščino prevedel Joel Smith.
Sources
Delo XLII/253 (2. 11. 2001), 256 (5. 11. 2001), 257 (6. 11. 2001), 258 (7. 11. 2001), 260 (9. 11. 2001).
Elektrotehniški vestnik 34/1-12 (brez 3-4-5) (1967), 67/1-5 (2000). International Country Codes, 15. 10. 2002, http://www.iol.ie/taeger/tables/tab9.htm. Joker 10/100, 101 (november, december 2001).
Janez Keber, 32001: Leksikon imen: Izvor imen na Slovenskem. Celje: Mohorjeva družba. Korpus slovenskega jezika Fida, www.flda.net. Medicinski razgledi 6/1-4 (1967), 39/1-4 (2000).
Mladina 44 (5. 11. 2001), 45 (12. 11. 2001), 46 (19. 11. 2001), 47 (26. 11. 2001), 48 (3. 12.
2001), 49 (10. 12. 2001), 50 (17. 12. 2002), 51/52 (24. 12. 2001). Mobinet 30 (november 2001).
Miha Remec, 2001: Iksia ali slovo od zivostrojnega človeka. Maribor: Obzorja. Slavistična revija 15/1-4 (1967), 48/1-4 (2000).
SMS - Slovarček mini slovenščine, 11. 1. 2002, http://www.pinkponk.com/smskratice.asp.
References
Laurie Bauer, 1993: English Word-formation. Cambridge: University Press. Enciklopedija Slovenije, 1987-. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga.
Josef Filipec, 1961: Ceskä synonyma z hlediska stylistiky a leksikologie. Praha: Nakladatelstvi
Ceskoslovenske akademie ved. Alenka Gložančev, 2000: Imena podjetij kot jezikovnokulturno vprašanje. Ljubljana: Rokus.
Tomo Korošec, 1993: O krajšavah. XXIX. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana: Center za slovenščino kot tuji ali drugi jezik pri Oddelku za slovanske jezike in književnosti Filozofske fakultete. 15-27.
—	1998: Stilistika slovenskegaporocevalstva. Ljubljana: Kmečki glas.
Nataša Logar, 2003: Besedotvorna stilistika: Magistrsko delo. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.
—	2004: Filter vrečka ali filtervrečka, foto posnetek ali fotoposnetek, ISDN paket ali ISDNpaket? Knjižno in narečno besedoslovje slovenskega jezika. Maribor: Slavistično društvo. 222-239.
—	- 2005: Besedotvorni sklopi. Slavistična revija 53/2 (2005). 171-192.
Ingeborg Ohnheiser, 1979: Wortbildung und Synonymie. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopdie. Steven Racek Kleinedler, Richard A. Spears, 1993: NTC's Dictionary of Acronyms and
Abbreviations. Lincolnwood: National Textbook Company. Uvod. Matej Rode, 1974: Poskus klasifikacije krajšav. Slavistična revija 22/2. 213-219. Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika I-V, 1970-1991. Ljubljana: SAZU in DZS. Slovenski pravopis, 2001. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU.
Jože Toporišič, 1973: Stilna vrednost glasovnih, prozodijskih, (pravo)pisnih, morfemskih in naglasnih variant slovenskega knjižnega jezika. Slavistična revija 21/2. 217-263.
—	- 1974: Stilna vrednost oblikoslovnih kategorij slovenskega knjižnega jezika. Slavistična re-
vija 22/3. 245-262.
—	1992: Enciklopedija slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba.
Ada ViDOVič Muha, 1972: Kategorizacija in stilna opredelitev ozko knjižne leksike. VIII. seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 35-52.
-- 1988: Slovensko skladenjsko besedotvorje ob primerih zloženk. Ljubljana: Znanstveni
inštitut Filozofske fakultete.
—	1991: Nekaj temeljnih prvin za »besedotvorno šolanje«. Slavistična revija 39/3. 317-326.
—	2000: Slovensko leksikalnopomenoslovje: Govorica slovarja. Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete.
Povzetek
Področje leksike je izjemno spremenljivo in dinamično. V okvir jezikovnosistemske stilistike, katere temeljni nosilci so morfemi (Vidovič Muha 2000: 159), sodi seveda tudi besedotvorna stilistika, pri kateri smo izhajali iz dvojega: (a) iz značilnosti definicijskih izraznih delov tvorjenke, tj. besedotvorne podstave in obrazila, ter iz skladenjske podstave; na drugi strani (b) pa smo v besedotvornostilistično obravnavo zajeli tudi vse vzorce tvorjenja besed, ki jih sistemsko ne moremo določiti in ujeti. Prvo skupino smo opredelili kot tvorbeno-pretvorbeno predvidljive postopke tvorjenja besed, drugo skupino pa kot tvorbeno-pretvorbeno nepredvidljive postopke tvorjenja besed. Obe skupini smo še nadalje členili in podskupine ponazorili s primeri, vsekakor pa tako predvidljivi kot nepredvidljivi postopki tvorjenja besed v slovenščini ponujajo veliko možnosti za besedno inovativnost.