Back Formation

Prepared by,

Christopher Lye

Elvina Ivy

Macveelovea

Definition…

• Back-formation is a process of word-formation by which a word is created by the deletion of a supposed suffix. It is also known as a reverse derivation.

"A new word may enter the language because of an incorrect morphological analysis.“ - Victoria Fromkin and Robert Rodman, An Introduction to Language (sixth edition), p. 87.

http://www.think-ink.net/doh/word.htm

In etymology, back-formation is the process of creating a new lexeme, usually by removing actual or supposed affixes. The resulting neologism is called a back-formation, a term coined by James Murray in 1889.

Back-formation is different from clipping – back-formation may change the part of speech or the word's meaning, whereas clipping creates shortened words from longer words, but does not change the part of speech or the meaning of the word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-formation

By removing the derivational suffix from the originating word.

For examples: analyse from analysis,  cobble from cobbler,  eponym from eponymous, euthanase from euthanasia,  jell (a variant spelling of gel)from jelly, metamorphose from metamorphosis, 

partake from partaker,  peddle from peddler,  resurrect from resurrection,  sculpt from sculptor,  temp (meaning “a person working as an

office worker on a temporary basis”, or “to work as such person”) from temporary, 

typewrite from typewriter,  upholster from upholsterer

http://thestar.com.my/english/story.asp?file=/2012/5/22/lifefocus/11235167

May arise in the following ways:

By removing the prefix from the originating word, e.g. couth from uncouth, gruntled from disgruntled. Note that kempt may be deemed a back-formation from unkempt, but that there is no trepid as a conceivable back-formation from intrepid.

http://thestar.com.my/english/story.asp?file=/2012/5/22/lifefocus/11235167

Many English words are formed this way, new coinages may sound strange, and are often used for humorous effect.

For example, gruntled (from disgruntled) would be considered a barbarism, and used only in humorous contexts, such as by P.G. Wodehouse, who wrote "I wouldn't say he was disgruntled, but by no stretch of the imagination could he be described as gruntled"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-formation

There is a rather interesting back-formation of modern origin. The verb destruct, which apparently is a back-formation not from the base verb destroy but from its abstract noun destruction.

This word seems to have become commonplace, following from the American TV series, Mission Impossible, with its signature conclusion to taped assignment message: “This tape will self–destruct in five seconds.”

http://thestar.com.my/english/story.asp?file=/2012/5/22/lifefocus/11235167

The word destruct appears, of course, in American English dictionaries but apparently not in most British English ones – except in the recent Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2004.

The verb stenog, no doubt a back-formation from stenographer, was used by the American writer O. Henry in his short story, Springtime A La Carte. It does not seem to exist in any dictionary, whether British or American.

http://thestar.com.my/english/story.asp?file=/2012/5/22/lifefocus/11235167

A number of back-formation word has become common in English, eg, edit, beg. 

Wors created through back-formation are mostly verbs.Only few can be used as both nouns and verbs.

E.g:

gloom n.← gloomy a.    

pup n. & v ← puppy a. 

References http://

grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/backformterm.htm (Definition and examples)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_back-formations (List of the other back formation)

http://thestar.com.my/english/story.asp?file=/2012/5/22/lifefocus/11235167 (Back Formation by Dr. LIM CHIN LAM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-formation (Back Formation in English Language)