English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Marchand (1960; 1969) presents a unique analysis of back-formation (e.g., \ud editorN > editV)\ud\ud  as a combination of zero-derivation (\ud editorN >  editorV\ud \ud \ud ) and clipping (\ud editorV\ud \ud \ud > \ud editV\ud \ud \ud ). This paper will take a closer look at his analysis and argue that its revised version, which uses the notion of conversion rather than zero-derivation, is superior to the mainstream analyses of back-formation. Citing a lot of instances of back-formed verbs, we will show that back-formation does not necessarily delete an affix (e.g., \ud liaisonN\ud \ud \ud > \ud liaiseV\ud \ud \ud ), and that it is semantically parallel not to affixation (e.g., \ud filmN\ud \ud \ud > \ud filmizeV\ud \ud \ud ) but to conversion (e.g., \ud refereeN\ud \ud \ud > \ud refereeV\ud \ud \ud ). Almost all the preceding analyses fail to deal with these facts, for they are based on the assumption that back-formation deletes a (supposed) affix, or it is the reverse of affixation. Our new analysis, on the other hand, is free from this traditional assumption and can account for various properties of back-formation, including the above two, in terms of general characteristics of conversion and clipping.\u

Marchand’s analysis of back-formation revisited: Back-formation as a type of conversion