 A number of word forms involve operations that recycle existing words or parts of them and thus allow the expansion of the present-day English vocabulary to a considerable extent. The description of such word forms and the operations involved constitutes the focus of this e-lecture. In the e-lecture, Morphological Operations, we drew a distinction between the following central types. We discussed concatenative operations such as affixation, where for example, open can be turned into its past tense form by attaching the past tense affix. We looked at non-concatenative operations, where for example, by means of a vocali stem change, take can be transformed into took. And we discussed further operations such as supletions in items such as go and went. And reduplication, as in the plural form of book in Indonesian, where buku, the singular form, can be transformed into its plural form by reduplicating the base, buku-buku is the result. Yet there are further operations that combine existing material or even subtract material from existing words. Here are some word forms to which operations have been applied that have not been mentioned yet. For example, the operation of recombining parts of the words that are involved. Smoke and fog can be recombined to smog. Or take abbreviations such as the ones in UNESCO and IBM to name just two of them. Or examples of shortening where laboratory can be shortened to lab, Ronald to Ron. Or televised can be formed from the existing item television. Let us look at these operations in detail. And let's start with word forms that are formed by means of an operation that combines chunks belonging to distinct leg seams. Here are three examples. Smog, Brunch and Spanglish. These words, which are referred to as blends, are generated by a recombination of the parts of their base forms. Smog is a result of combining smoke and fog. Brunch is a result of combining breakfast and lunch. And Spanglish is a result of combining Spanish and English. The legitimacy of this operation is mainly determined by a set of phonological principles. So let us look at the internal syllabic structure of these items in detail. Let's start with smog. In smog, two monosyllabic words are combined. Here you can see the syllable structure of both of them. Well, and the result is a combination of the onset of smoke and the rhyme of fog. As a hypothesis, we can postulate on the basis of this particular blend that blends recombine different syllable constituents. Onset plus rhyme, onset and peak plus coda, and so on and so forth. Let's take Brunch next. Now here the situation is slightly different. Here we have two words with different syllable structures. Breakfast consists of two syllables and lunch of one of them. And the result, first of all, is quite similar. We have the onset of breakfast and the rhyme of lunch. But the blend is only one syllable long. Now what is the factor that determines the syllable length or the length of the resulting blend? Well, using breakfast and lunch, resulting in brunch as an example, we can conclude that the second item, the length of the second item determines the size of the blend. In Spanglish, we have a mixed case. Again, look at the syllable structures. In fact, here we have two items that consist of two syllables in each case. Now the result is, first of all, in the first resulting syllable, a combination of onset and peak taken from the first item and the coda taken from the second item, so we get Spang. Well, and then we add an entire syllable to get Spanglish. So what is the conclusion? Well, let's look at the overall conclusions in a second. From the discussion of our three blends, we can derive the following principles that apply to the operation of recombination. The first hypothesis is that blends recombine different syllable constituents, onset plus rhyme, onset and peak, plus coda, and so on and so forth, as we could easily see in Spam and Smog and Spanglish. The second hypothesis is that the second item determines the size as we saw in breakfast, two syllables plus lunch, one syllable. The overall blend consists of one syllable. Well, and the third and perhaps most general observation is that blends always start with a chunk taken from item number one and end in a chunk taken from item number two. Well, so much for blends, but there's one thing we should discuss. Blends can easily be mixed up with so-called abbreviated compounds. Abbreviated compounds are existing compounds that can be shortened to form a new word. Here are some examples. Motor camp can be abbreviated to MoCamp. Breath analyzer can be abbreviated to breathalyzer and situation comedy can be abbreviated to sitcom. Abbreviated compounds are all endocentric. A motor camp is a camp, a breathalyzer is an analyzer, a sitcom is a situation, a comedy, a type of comedy. Well, and the abbreviations may occur in the modifier, for example, as in motor, or in the head, or even in both parts of the compound. And such abbreviated compounds can easily be distinguished from blends by means of a paradigmatic test. We take a sentence and see whether we can use the potential forms within it. For example, you could easily say, I saw a sitcom last night, and at the same time, you can say, I saw a situation comedy last night. Let's apply a similar test to brunch and breakfast and lunch. Let's have brunch today is a legitimate sentence, but let's have breakfast lunch today doesn't work. So in other words, what I should have turned that, well, red really, because it's impossible. So breakfast lunch does not work. In other words, we have a nice way of distinguishing between abbreviated compounds that can be used in two ways versus blends that can only be used in their blend form within particular sentences. On the basis of this test, by the way, Spanglish would be an abbreviated compound if you accept the sentence, I use Spanish English, meaning I use Spanglish, but that's arguable. Another popular method of forming words involves the initial letters of a more complex form. Word forms of this kind, for example, radio detection and ranging list processor, international business, business machines and Los Angeles. Word forms that are used for organization names, industrial products and so on involve the strong necessity to be shortened. Well, and here are the possibilities. For example, we can abbreviate radio detection and ranging to, as you all know, to radar. We can abbreviate list processor to Lisp and we can abbreviate international business machine to become IBM or Los Angeles to LA. And as you can see, some of these abbreviations are pronounceable, like radar and Lisp, and some of them aren't. So in this case, the syllable is legitimate. In the case of IBM and LA, it is not. If the initial letters form acceptable syllables and can be pronounced as words, they are referred to as acronyms. If the syllables violate the phonotactics of present-day English, that is their non permissible, they are referred to as initialisms or alternatively as alphabetisms. In both cases, we are confronted with a purely orthographical operation where the individual words are reduced and combined. As far as the reduction is concerned, there seems to be no real constraint. As long as the resulting word form is meaningful and in the case of acronyms, pronounceable, abbreviations are permissible. Let us now turn our attention to the operation of shortening. There are several ways in which an existing word can be shortened. At one extreme, we have a shortening operation which simply cuts off material to obtain a meaningful shortened form. For example, violin cello can be shortened to cello, laboratory can be shortened to lab, and bicycle, well, here we obviously have to replace the final character and then shorten the whole item to bike. This relatively free shortening operation is referred to as clipping. So these are clippings. At the other extreme, we have a shortening operation which follows a set of phonological constraints. Here are some examples I chose names to illustrate this point. Abraham can be shortened to Abe, so we have to add the orthographical E here. Adalbert can be shortened to Bert, in which case we would have to capitalize it. And Arabella can be shortened to not to Bella, but to Bell, so this would be the result. These shortened forms are referred to as truncations. And they have in common that irrespective of the length of their base form, they are all monosyllabic. This is why Bell is the truncated form and not Bella. In looking at our examples, we can find three different types. For example, we can define a type of truncation where simply the first syllable is the result, as in Abraham. Then we may have a type where the syllable with a primary stress is the result, as in Arabella. And last but not least, we have a type where the syllable with a secondary stress is the result. So we get Adalbert, and here we have secondary stress on Bert. Note that some truncations must also undergo affixation. For example, if you truncate Andrew and Bernard, you cannot simply have and and burn, but you must at the same time add the affix, the diminutive affix, i.e. or why, to get Andy and Bernie. New words can also be formed by a shortening operation, which is referred to as back formation. The operation is relatively simple. You simply take off the affix of a particular word. In other words, we reverse the operation of affixation. Subtraction could be a reasonable name. This may happen, for example, if a noun enters the language first, and a verb is derived from it by means of taking away the affix. Here are two examples. Editor is the word that entered English first. If we take away the affix, we get edit. Television was there first. If we take away the affix, we get televise, in this case, we must add an e, to get the respective verb. As I said, this operation of shortening is referred to as back formation because we form a new word, a new word class, by means of getting back. Let me finally say something about our particular approach. In the literature, we often find two further operations under the heading of word formation processes. So here, processes and operations have been mixed up. However, according to our principle distinction between morphological processes and operations on the virtual linguistics campus, these two additional, whatever they are, operations or processes that are specified in the literature, these should not deserve special treatment. Rather, they should be subsumed under already existing headings. Take re-duplication as an example. This is a standard operation in many languages of the world. For example, in the Austronesian languages, Tagalog, Indonesian and so on. In present-day English, it can be found in items such as ding dong or helter skelter. Unlike in Indonesian, to take an example where re-duplication is used in inflection. In present-day English, it is an operation which is confined to a word formation process. Another operation is, as already mentioned, the generation of diminutive forms such as birdie, auntie, andy or bernie. However, such forms are not special at all. They simply involve affixation and are thus ordinary derivatives. So, this e-lecture concludes the morphology part of our morphology and syntax seminars. I hope that after several morphological e-lectures, you have a precise idea about the branch of morphology, its central principles and goals, and that you can apply the methods of morphological analysis in a cross-linguistic fashion. Okay, that's it. Thanks for your attendance.