ინტერფიქსი, როგორც ტერმინი და ცნება: სოციოტერმინოლოგიური მიდგომა

Abstract

In the present paper, I adhere to socioterminology as a framework of my research due to the fact that it prefers a descriptive method to a prescriptive one; socioterminology studies terms (their origin, formation, relationship with other items) with respect to contexts in which they occur. A socioterminological approach seems to be the most adequate choice for the study of interfix as a term and notion. This is necessary in order to view not only what is an interfix but also what is not an interfix. In the linguistics literature, the term interfix (Lat. inter ‘between’ + fixus ‘fasten’) is predominantly used to refer to linguistic items of two kinds: 1) a unit devoid of lexical and grammatical meanings occurring at a junction of components within a compound; 2) a meaningless item occurring between a stem and a suffix. Based on the analyses of data from various linguistics traditions, the following were established: 1) the earliest occurrence of the term interfix dates back to a book by S. Haldeman published in 1865; 2) the Russian linguistics tradition favors a declarative narrative that the term was introduced by A. M. Sukhotin in 1938; 3) in Romance linguistics, it has been acknowledged H. Lausberg’s and Y. Malkiel’s contribution to the circulation and establishment of the term. As long as notional and terminological aspects are logically interconnected, the paper also discusses the notions of infix and tmesis; the problem lies in the confusion of notions. The application of clear-cut classification features can greatly facilitate the avoidance of confusion about various kinds of affixes. Such classification features are provided by T. Gurgenidze who identifies four possible types of affixes among which we find IV. Not diving the root and not divided by the root. It is where interfix belongs to: it “is an affix which connects stems within a compound form” (Gurgenidze 2015: 43). This classification does not allow the confusion of infix and interfix. It is based on I. Mel'čuk’s definition according to which it is only an interradical entity: “a confix [sc. a confix which neither divides the root nor is itself divided] which precedes a root and follows another root” (Mel'čuk 1982: 86). Based on the discussion of abundant sources, the aforementioned classification, and typological data, I argue that an interfix is a compound marker.