English Word-Formation: A History of Research (1960-1995) (review)

Pavol Štekauer has admirably summarized and synthesized the wide-ranging contributions to the study of word formation since 1960; his book will be useful for the beginner and the specialist alike. Š organizes his survey by scholars who have contributed to the field rather than by topics: For 24 different scholars, he devotes one chapter each in which he first summarizes the main theories of the scholar and then in a separate ‘notes’ section critically evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the scholar’s contributions. This organization makes the book useful on several levels. For the beginner, Š’s book can be used as an introduction to the field. In his summary sections, Š explains key terms (like ‘head’ or ‘external argument’) at a level basic enough for his book to serve almost as a glossary, and in his notes sections, Š provides a remarkably integrated account of key issues (like the role of the lexicon or inflection vs. derivation). The ample index, bibliography, and cross-referencing further contribute to the book’s usefulness as an introduction.

For the specialist, the book can also serve as a reference to less familiar works and scholars. As Š notes, the field is still growing, and contributions have come from several different directions; his book provides the valuable service of gathering and defining those contributions and relating them to each other. He treats the major issues one would expect in a survey, but his organization by scholars allows him to highlight similarities and differences in their approaches that may not have been previously noticed. Š imposes some welcome order on a field in which issues are still coalescing.

The specialist may also appreciate Š’s book as a study in its own right. In his first chapter, Š briefly describes his own theory of word formation, an onomasiological approach that begins not with the structures of words but with the naming needs of a speech community; in the notes section of each chapter he then describes how his own theory would treat particular debated issues. While Š has already devoted an entire book to his own theory, I found this survey, with its application of onomasiological theory to familiar problems, at least as useful in explaining his theory as his previous volume.

Perhaps the chief virtue of this book is Š’s clear explanation of theories and debates. By separating his summaries from his criticism, he is able to present the contributions of other scholars more on their own terms rather than as precursors to our (and his) present theories. At the same time, Š clearly signals the place of each theory within the tradition in his notes sections. In fact, his notes sections treat several more scholars not featured in his summaries. His summaries appear fair to me, though some of the scholars he discusses might be in a better position to judge.

This is a book that I am happy to own. It will stand as a good reference book until someone writes another survey of the next 30 years.