Competing Patterns in English Affixation 9783034327015, 3034327013

Citation preview

li234

Linguistic Insights

Studies in Language and Communication

Juan Santana-Lario & Salvador Valera (eds.)

Peter Lang

Competing Patterns in English Affixation

li234

This is a collection of research papers on competition in English affixation. It combines methodological chapters with descriptive chapters and incorporates both contributions by renowned international authors and also by younger researchers. The book presents diachronic and synchronic research both onomasiological and semasiological. The first three chapters review the literature and provide the theoretical framework for the experimental description of the remaining chapters.

Juan Santana-Lario is Senior Lecturer in the Department of English and German at the University of Granada, Spain. His main areas of research include English morphology and syntax, corpus linguistics and forensic linguistics. Salvador Valera is Senior Lecturer in the Department of English and German at the University of Granada, Spain. He has undertaken publicly funded research leave in frontline Departments of several universities (Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand, Leeds and Vienna) under the supervision of such renowned scholars as Prof. Laurie Bauer and Prof. Dieter Kastovsky.

Competing Patterns in English Affixation

Linguistic Insights Studies in Language and Communication Edited by Maurizio Gotti, University of Bergamo Volume 234

ADVISORY BOARD Vijay Bhatia (Hong Kong) David Crystal (Bangor) Konrad Ehlich (Berlin / München) Jan Engberg (Aarhus) Norman Fairclough (Lancaster) John Flowerdew (Hong Kong) Ken Hyland (Hong Kong) Roger Lass (Cape Town) Matti Rissanen (Helsinki) Françoise Salager-Meyer (Mérida, Venezuela) Srikant Sarangi (Cardiff) Susan Šarcˇevi´c (Rijeka) Lawrence Solan (New York)

PETER LANG Bern • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Oxford • Warszawa • Wien

Juan Santana-Lario & Salvador Valera (eds.)

Competing Patterns in English Affixation

PETER LANG Bern • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Oxford • Warszawa • Wien

Bibliographic information published by die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at ‹http://dnb.d-nb.de›. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data: A catalogue record for this book is available from The British Library, Great Britain. Library of Congress Control Number: 2017952082

The research presented in this book was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (research project FFI2012-39688).

ISSN 1424-8689 hb. ISBN 978-3-0343-2701-5 hb. ISBN 978-3-0343-2700-8 MOBI

ISSN 2235-6371 eBook ISBN 978-3-0343-2698-8 eBook ISBN 978-3-0343-2699-5 EPUB

This publication has been peer reviewed. © Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers, Bern 2017 Wabernstrasse 40, CH-3007 Bern, Switzerland [email protected], www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems.

Contents

Acknowledgements................................................................................7 Juan Santana-Lario / Salvador Valera Preface...................................................................................................9 Pavol Štekauer Competition in natural languages........................................................15 Alexandra Bagasheva Comparative semantic concepts in affixation.......................................33 Jesús Fernández-Domínguez Methodological and procedural issues in the quantification of morphological competition..............................................................67 Ana Díaz-Negrillo On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes. The case of -dom, -hood and -ship............119 Cristina Fernández-Alcaina Availability and unavailability in English word-formation................163 Cristina Lara-Clares Competition in Present Day English nominalization by zero-affixation vs. -ation....................................................................207 Subject index......................................................................................245 Notes on contributors.........................................................................251

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this book was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (research project FFI2012–39688).  

The Editors

Preface

It is an assumed fact that language, like other aspects of human behaviour, is largely ruled by the Principle of Least Effort (Zipf 1932; 1935; 1949). As a general principle, it explains a number of linguistic facts that escape other considerations, like the natural tendency towards regularization. It has also been invoked as the reason for selection of specific forms for the formation of new words and, to some extent, for at least a part of the irregularity that can be observed in derivational morphology and that at one point gave rise to the interpretation of derivational morphology as arbitrary. Major theoretical schools and theoretical frameworks, like Natural Morphology and the Optimality Theory have researched to what extent economy overruns or is overrun by other linguistic principles, specifically the Principle of Transparency (e.g. Dressler 1985a; 1985b; Dressler, Mayerthaler, Panagl & Wurzel 1987; Mayerthaler 1981). General principles of the contention between these and other forces have been researched, especially in the field of linguistic typology, and also in specific cases within one language. It is precisely the latter that evidence how the general principles have an effect in language and how general tendencies find expression, in this case, in derivational morphology. Pretty much triggered by the type of questions that are used as the titles of Kjellmer’s (1984) and (2001) classic papers on specific pairs, this volume joins the studies that research specific cases, in this case affixation in English. It examines diachronic and synchronic experimental evidence from lexicographic sources and from large computerized corpora, specifically the Oxford English Dictionary (hereafter, OED) and the British National Corpus (hereafter, BNC), even if the Corpus of Contemporary American English (hereafter, COCA) is also considered at times. The data are considered onomasiologically and semasiologically for the identification of patterns in the terms of the coexistence between (apparently) specific sets or groups of semantically redundant affixes in English. The volume consists of an Introduction (by Pavol Štekauer), three largely methodological chapters (by Alexandra Bagasheva, Jesús

10 

Juan Santana-Lario / Salvador Valera

Fernández-Domínguez and by Ana Díaz-Negrillo), and two descriptive chapters (by Cristina Fernandez-Alcaina and by Cristina Lara-Clares). The chapters rely on each other to a large extent but can also be viewed as separate pieces of research that may be relevant to researchers interested in this but also in other fields (e.g. Bagasheva in cross-linguistic research, or Fernández-Domínguez regarding productivity). The book opens with an introductory chapter that provides a brief overview of various aspects of competition in natural languages (Štekauer). More specifically, the chapter reviews the mains references on the issue both from the point of view of the description of the terms of competition in word-formation and also of the less well-known aspects of word interpretation in this field. This opening chapter shows that complex-word formation depends on complex-word predictability/ interpretation and that complex-word interpretation is affected by the competition between economy and transparency at the level of complex-word formation. Although this chapter also discusses the universal character of competition at all levels in natural languages, it underlines the relatively little research available on the side of interpretation compared with the side of description of complex words. The latter reviews a good part of the background used in the chapters by FernándezAlcaina and by Lara-Clares. The next three chapters are methodological in nature. Bagasheva reviews the availability of semantic categories for cross-linguistic descriptions of word-formation and puts forward a checklist of 51 semantic categories, unspecified for word-class in any language, and therefore, purely semantic in nature. The list of semantic categories has been compiled based on the descriptive categories of individual languages identified in the literature and encompasses both language-specific categories as well as ontological types (Cruse 2000). The classification proposed can be used, with varying degrees of accuracy, for the description of individual languages according to their specificities as well as for cross-linguistic research. The classification considers the possibility that affixes can be polysemous so several senses can use the same expression. At the same time, some semantic categories are so closely related that they may co-occur in such a way that one can hardly be separated from another.

Preface

11

Fernández-Domínguez presents the methodological decisions for data selection in the research of competition between derivational affixes described in Fernández-Alcaina and in Lara-Clares. The description of the procedure covers from corpus sampling and retrieval of potential sets or clusters of competitors to the proposal of a method for measurement of the terms of the competition between affixes that express the same meaning. The method is then tested on a selection of 42 nominal and 25 verbal clusters of competing derivatives by way of illustration. This chapter reviews the literature for the role of frequency and productivity with regard to competition in derivational morphology and assesses the existing models for the measurement of morphological competition from a form- or meaning-based perspective, as well as of their theoretical implications. The results of the test show a strong presence of the meaning categories action in nouns and causative in verbs, and a prevalence of semantically transparent derivatives overall. The last methodological chapter, by Díaz-Negrillo, explores the terms of competition in a specific set (-dom, -hood and -ship). Based on the -dom, ‑hood and -ship derivatives recorded in the OED, the chapter gives a diachronic account of the senses associated with each of the suffixes and attested in their derivatives. Díaz-Negrillo argues for the need to zoom in on individual senses of the polysemous suffixes and on subtle nuances of meaning within senses for a more accurate identification of the terms of competition between different affixes. The relevance of a diachronic account of competition is underlined: contemporary tendencies may be different from tendencies from former historical periods of development, and they may also remain undisclosed in synchronic accounts of competition. The chapter concludes that the capacity of the suffixes to develop new senses has made it possible for the suffixes to remain distinct from one another and, as a result, to co-exist. In this respect, this chapter is partly methodological, but is also partly descriptive too. The introductory chapter and these three methodological chapters lead on to two specific studies on potentially competing affixes clustered around the expression of the same meaning. Largely in line with the last of the chapters of the methodological section, the two studies consider specific senses of the general meanings, and rely on corpus evidence (BNC, COCA) and on lexicographic records (OED).

12 

Juan Santana-Lario / Salvador Valera

Of these two chapters, Fernández-Alcaina collects a series of verbal affixes that coexist for the expression of the same sense. Based on the pairs of affixes identified in an initial sample of the complete BNC frequency list and after extracting from the OED 816 verbal derivatives in -ize with the sense causative, this chapter describes the diachronic development of 45 pairs of verbs derived by -ize and zero-affixation that appear to coexist for the expression of the semantic category causative. Diachronic evidence relies on lexicographic information regarding the dates of earliest and latest attestations of the forms and whether they are recorded as obsolete, no longer in use, or in current use (also after attestation in the corpora). The results seem to indicate that the language system avoids the existence of two forms with the same meaning as hinted by the number of pairs analysed and by the gradual resolution of competition between the affixes. Finally, Lara-Clares relies on synchronic evidence for the identification of clusters of potential competitors by taking a semasiological approach. From a sample of the BNC frequency list, a series of competing patterns of nominalizing suffixes are identified, among which zero-affixation and -ation for the expression of action are selected. Data from the OED is used to enlarge the initial sample: 930 -ation derivatives are searched for the identification of potential zero-affixed competitors. Eight competing clusters result from both corpus and lexicographic data, which are analyzed using methodological tools described in previous chapters, such as the C value defined by FernándezDomínguez, as well as by looking at their register distribution and dispersion. Attestation of particular senses in corpora is necessary here, as calculations that are not sensitive to various senses of the same lemma, i.e. by lemma or by entry, may lead to dissimilar conclusions compared with the analysis that are sensitive to senses. Even so, this chapter concludes that zero-affixation seems to prevail overall. The result is a volume about some of the methodological and descriptive questions that revolve around competition in affixation, in this case in English. These questions do not lead to an overview of how competing patterns may interact, but it contributes towards that overview by identifying both specific patterns and the difficulties inherent to their identification.

Preface

13

References Cruse, Alan D. 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985a. Morphonology. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Press. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985b. On the Predictiveness of Natural Morphology. Journal of Linguistics. 21, 321–337. Dressler, Wolfgang U. / Mayerthaler, Willi / Panagl, Oswald / Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1987. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kjellmer, Göran 1984. Why great/greatly but not big/*bigly? On the Formation of English Adverbs in -ly. Studia Linguistica. 38/1, 1–19. Kjellmer, Göran 2001. Why weaken but not *strongen? On Deadjectival Verbs. English Studies. 82/2, 154–171. Mayerthaler, Willi. 1981. Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion. Zipf, George K. 1932. Selected Studies of the Principle of Relative Frequency in Language. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Zipf, George K. 1935. The Psycho-Biology of Language. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Zipf, George K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Juan Santana-Lario & Salvador Valera (eds.) University of Granada

Pavol Štekauer

Competition in natural languages1

1. General Given the centrality of proliferation, competition, and selection in biological systems, and the fact that language is one of these systems, it is difficult to imagine how a theory of human language could be constructed without assigning a central place to competition… nothing in language makes sense except in the light of competition… Because we use language as the basic glue for our social lives, these competing motivations are as diverse as the many facets of human life and thought.  (MacWhinney 2014: 386).

Competition (also known as rivalry) as a linguistic notion is a term that is not owned by any theoretical school of linguistics nor is it reserved for any linguistic level or phenomenon. On the contrary, it seems to be an inherent and universal feature of natural languages. It has both synchronic and diachronic manifestations, it equally plays a role in an individual speaker as well as in a language community, it ranges over all levels of language, it concerns both language production and processing, it is an inherent part of language acquisition, and it cuts across a diversity of linguistic phenomena. The wide scope of its relevance is indicated in the first handbook devoted to mapping the diversity of manifestations of competition in natural languages (MacWhinney, Malchukov & Moravcsik 2014). Various types of competition of various degrees of generalization and manifestations can be identified. In fact, competition in natural languages is derived from the concept of competition in biological and

1

Author’s email address: [email protected]; affiliation: Pavol Jozef Šafárik University, Košice (Slovakia).

16 

Pavol Štekauer

social systems. Linguists sometimes draw a parallel to the Darwinian principles of the struggle for survival and the fittest wins. Moravcsik (2014) distinguishes four types of resolution between forms in competition: • separation (labelled variation by Malchukov 2014 and divide the spoils by Bates & MacWhinney 1987), in which case each alternative scenario occurs in a separate context; • compromise, in which each motivation applies to the same construction but with one or both modified so as to eliminate the conflict. It has been therefore labeled as peaceful coexistence by Bates & MacWhinney (1987); • override, i.e. “winner-take-all” (Bates & MacWhinney 1982), in which case one principle trumps the other; and • deadlock (labelled “blocking” by Malchukov 2014), in which case neither principle applies and thus the construction is blocked. It is however not entirely understood which of the above is the most frequent outcome or why. According to MacWhinney (1987), the three basic principles underlying evolution (proliferation, competition and selection) are inherent features of natural languages, too. Proliferation results in variation through mutation and sexual recombination. Organisms then compete for resources and the opportunity to reproduce. Finally, the fittest organisms are able to survive and reproduce in the natural selection process. In his Competition Model, MacWhinney (2012) draws an analogy to biological evolution by pointing out that language forms compete to fulfill the fundamental function of language, the communicative function. In the process of language development, new forms and structures proliferate. The selection process can then result in separation, compromise or override. At the most general level, the level of communication, i.e. the area for the application of the fundamental function of language, natural languages competed with other systems of communication in the past (signs of different nature, e.g. smoke signals, light signals, carved signs, etc.) and do so also at present, even though the situation has gradually changed by the emergence of new communication codes and communication channels, such as systems of writing for the majority of

Competition in natural languages

17

languages, the development of the Morse code alphabet, the telegraph, the Internet, and other technological devices that enabled and/or enable human communication outside the most natural spoken form. For the major part, we can speak here about imperfect complementary distribution, with the individual means of communication having their specific scope of applicability.

2. Economy vs. transparency One of the main battlefields in natural languages is that between economy of expression (also known as the Least Effort Principle) and transparency of the expressions used for communication.2 This observation is not new. Moravcsik (2014) as well as Haspelmath (2014) refer to Georg von der Gabelentz (1901: 181–185), who uses the terms Bequemlichkeit (preferred by the speaker) and Deutlichkeit (preferred by the listener). In other words, this kind of competition appears to be of a secondary nature: it reflects the competition between the preferences of the bearers of communication, i.e. the speaker, on the one hand, and the listener, on the other. While the speaker’s interest is to communicate as much as possible within a given period of time, the listener’s interest is to receive an intelligible message. The competition between economy of expression and semantic transparency is characteristic of the whole language system, and it runs across all language levels. Economizing effort observed in natural languages can also be derived from biological and social systems as assumed by Haspelmath (2014: 197): economical behavior seems to be characteristic of all types of life, and of all systems that have limited resources. Apart from the word-formation level discussed farther below, numerous examples of economizing communication are provided by 2

Certainly, there are also other factors that affect the competition and its outcome. MacWhinney (2014) mentions politeness, prestige, social solidarity, paradigmatic harmony, bias, retrievability, and identifiability, which are further expressed in complex ways throughout language and communication.

18 

Pavol Štekauer

the phonic level. Let us mention numerous cases of assimilation, assibilitation, affrication, elision and/or reduced pronunciation of sounds in rapid speech. The economizing tendencies at the level of syntax can be illustrated, e.g. with verbless sentences, with the absence of pronouns in expressing the category of verbal person in pro-drop languages, the use of appositions, absolute constructions, etc. Haspelmath (2014) recognizes two motivating principles in this competition: • •

the frequency-based economy of form, meaning that more frequent forms tend to be shorter than less frequent ones; and the system’s pressure (analogy, harmony), meaning that units of natural languages pursue the regularity represented by large classes.

Natural languages offer ample examples of both of these tendencies. Thus, as illustrated by Haspelmath (2014), English singular forms of nouns are generally more frequent than plural. Therefore, the singular form is usually shorter than the plural one. Even if there are individual cases of more frequent plurals (such as feather vs. feathers in English), their form is analogical to other plural nouns due to the system’s pressure for regularization. In this case, the system’s pressure for regularization wins over economy of expression. Contrary to this, economy of expression wins over the system’s pressure for regularization in languages like Welsh, where more frequent plurals are shorter than singulars, e.g. plu-en ‘feather’ vs. plu ‘feathers’. Finally, it follows from Haspelmath’s analysis that this competition provides unequal results for various linguistic categories, e.g. the system’s pressure is very strong in person-marking on verbs, while the Economy Principle dominates in accusative marking on nouns. The influence of the frequency of occurrence does not seem to be restricted to the length of words. It also plays an important role in the processing of complex words. So, for example, Plag & Baayen (2009) assume, in accordance with a number of other authors, that a morphologically complex word can be processed in two ways: either as a whole (e.g. insane) or through its constituents (i.e. as a sequence made up of the combination of the prefix in- and the base sane). In parallel dual route models, whole-word access and access through constituents are

Competition in natural languages

19

used simultaneously. The competition between the two routes for a given word depends, according to Plag and Baayen, on the frequency of the derived word, on the frequencies of its constituents, and on various other processing parameters relating to word length, lexical competition, and semantic connectivity. Hay’s (2001) standpoint with regard to this sort of competition is the relative frequency of the forms involved, i.e. the relation between the frequency of the derived word and the frequency of its base. Hay maintains that a high frequency of the derived word in relation to the frequency of the base favors whole-word processing, while a low frequency of the derived word compared with the frequency of the base word increases the chances of processing through the constituents (for a comprehensive summary of the state of the art in this field, see Baayen 2014). Another manifestation of the influence of frequency is mentioned below in the discussion of blocking.

3. Complex-word formation/complex-word interpretation In the following, I will confine my discussion to some aspects of competition in the field of complex-word formation and complex-word interpretation. I will indicate some directions of research into competition in complex-word formation and complex-word interpretation and the related issue of complex-word meaning predictability. Finally, it will be suggested that competition in complex-word formation has significant consequences on competition in complex-word interpretation/meaning predictability. How does competition manifest itself in word-formation? First and foremost, put with a slight amount of exaggeration, language communities have sacrificed a high degree of semantic transparency (acknowledged by the applicability, in the majority of cases, of the principle of compositionality to phrases and sentences)3 to economy. In other words, the whole system of word-formation can be viewed, with 3

The applicability of this principle to the field of word-formation is rather limited.

20 

Pavol Štekauer

regard to syntax, as a victory of the principle of economy of expression over the principle of semantic transparency: constructions that can be easily comprehensible from the communicative point of view are substantially reduced in form. In other words, information that could alternatively be provided by more semantically transparent descriptive phrases is often compressed into more economic complex words. From a different perspective, syntax and morphology are two competitive generative systems, because two lexical items can be combined in either of these components (Ackema & Neeleman 2004; 2007). This competition and its winner depend on the type of language. Padrosa Trías (2007) illustrates this competition with Catalan verbal compounds: the default combination of VO (left-headed) is a syntactic one; the morphological combination is OV (right-headed). Consequently, the morphological combination is reserved for idiosyncratic cases. This situation explains the low number of compound verbs (Padrosa Trías 2007: 100). Let us start with competition in the formation of complex words. This topic seems to have been investigated much more than that of competition in complex-word interpretation. It has also been discussed mostly in relation to the competition or rivalry among synonymous affixes and the blocking principle. Like in the other areas of competition in natural languages, the above-mentioned Darwinian principles underlie the discussion. Thus, Lindsay & Aronoff (2013) draw an analogy between a natural language system and biological ecosystems that organize themselves through the process of natural selection. Specifically, Aronoff (2013) derives the principle of competition from the Competitive Exclusion Principle proposed by Gause (1934) stating that no two species with similar ecological niches can coexist in a stable equilibrium. When two species compete for exactly the same requirements, one will be slightly more efficient than the other and will reproduce at a higher rate. The fate of the less efficient species is local extinction, or adaptive changes in the competing species. Translated to word-formation: the fittest affix is one that adapts itself best to the existing word-formation environment (see also Lindsay 2011).

Competition in natural languages

21

Competition between synonymous affixes is fairly common across languages. Out of two or more synonymous affixes, it is usually the more productive one that wins the struggle for existence. Lindsay & Aronoff (2013) assume that this struggle for existence in word-formation is motivated by the intolerance to genuine synonymy. This is, obviously, not a new fact. So, for example, Cruse (1986) maintains that the vast majority of synonyms are cognitive synonyms (rather than absolute synonyms) that differ in their connotations, register, etc. Therefore, in accordance with the Struggle-for-Existence Principle, only one affix can dominate a particular domain. History provides us with a number of examples. For illustration, the suffix ‑ment in English ceased to be productive due to the strength of its competitor -ation. As explained by Lindsay & Aronoff (2013), while -ation benefited from continued borrowing in the 17th century and later, the suffix ‑ment lost the struggle during the 17th century due to a scarcity of new verbs. Certainly, this does not mean that the “loser” in the competition necessarily ceases to exist. It can adapt itself to the existing situation by finding a niche for itself, i.e. a more specialized area of applicability.4 The Avoid Synonymy Principle (Kiparsky 1982) finds its reflection in word-formation in various conceptions of blocking. The basic idea of these theories is that a potential word is blocked if there is an actual word with the same meaning in the language in question. A well-known example cited by Aronoff (1976) for this type of blocking is *stealer as blocked by thief.5 However, as Bauer (2001) notes, the blocking of stealer is not absolute: it does not function in synthetic compounds and other constructions with an overt direct object, e.g. sheep-stealer, a stealer of sheep. This situation can also be viewed as an example of adaptation of the potential word stealer to the blocked area of its applicability. Finding its own niche is important for the survival of a weaker affix (for a diachronic explanation of this issue, see Rainer 2012: 176).

4 5

See also van Marle’s Domain Hypothesis (1986) and Rainer’s conception of token blocking and type blocking (1988), among others. As pointed out by Gaeta (2015) this type of blocking was already envisaged by Hermann Paul (1896: 704).

22 

Pavol Štekauer

A diversity of factors may contribute to finding a niche for a given suffix. When analyzing verb-deriving competing or rival affixes in English (en-, em-, be-, -en, -ize, -ate, -ify) Plag (1999) arrives at the conclusion that these affixes are not completely synonymous; rather, each of them has its specific niche, its own domain of applicability. The competition among them is resolved by their semantic and phonological properties. His analysis shows that there is no type-blocking, which makes Plag conclude that the factors at play include local analogy (in principle, van Marle’s paradigmatic formation) and token blocking. The role of phonological factors is also illustrated by Lindsay & Aronoff (2013), who show that the survival of both verbal suffixes -ize and ‑ify was conditioned by the phonological factor. Each of them has its specific niche: while there are about five times as many -ize words than -ify words, the ratio is almost reversed for words with monosyllabic stems where -ify words outnumber -ize words by almost the same ratio. The implication is that the weaker of these two suffixes, i.e. -ify, found its specific domain of operation: the monosyllabic stems that helped it survive the struggle for existence. The same role of a morphological factor can be illustrated with the competition between the suffixes ‑ic and -ical. While, in general, the preference for the -ic suffix is eight times higher than for the ‑ical suffix, the latter is preferred to -ic by almost the same ratio in the morphological domain of ‑olog- (e.g. psychology, biology, histology) (Lindsay & Aronoff 2013; see also Kaunisto 2007). Another important factor that may contribute to the resolution of the competition between synonymous affixes is frequency: a more frequent affix can systematically block a less frequent competitor. An example is provided by Rainer (1988: 172), who points out that the highly frequent Italian suffix ‑ismo tends to block its rival -ità in forming quality nouns: (1) cinico cinismo ??cinicità ‘cynic’ ‘cynism’ (2) patriottico patriottismo ??patriotticità ‘patriotic’ ‘patriotism’

It should be noted that both of these nominalizing suffixes are highly productive. Importantly, as stressed by Rainer (1988: 163), the blocking

Competition in natural languages

23

force of the established word is a direct function of its frequency and of the productivity of the intervening word-formation rule. The blocked word is usually well-formed in accordance with a particular word-formation rule. So far, I have discussed synonymy-based competition. However, as illustrated by Clark & Clark (1979), the blocking effect can also be derived from homonymy, which accounts for the non-occurrence of denominal verbs like spring → *to spring, fall → *to fall, parallel to summer → to summer, winter → to winter because of the mere presence in our mental lexicon of the corresponding homophonous verbs. In his diachronic study, Bauer (2009) views competition in word-formation as one between various word-formation patterns that compete with each other to fill slots in derivational paradigms. Bauer distinguishes two levels of competition: competition between individual words and competition between word-formation patterns. These two levels may lead to contradictory expectations: competition at the level of individual words means that an earlier word is preferred to a later word when there is competition between them. Competition at the level of word-formation pattern “[…] might lead us to expect the newer word to win out” (Bauer 2009: 181). This tension can be resolved either by simplification of the system (e.g. the reduction of a plethora of competing suffixes used for deverbal nouns in English in the 17th century) or by making the system more complicated. In the latter case, the system absorbs (apart from the regular formations) a number of unpredictable formations created by unproductive rules. Certainly, irregularities can turn into regularities by a number of analogical formations (Bauer 2009: 181–182). The preceding discussion of competition in complex-word formation is highly valuable in terms of individual competing affixes and the factors that determine their fate. However, from the perspective of the act of naming, it is too restrictive. As demonstrated by Štekauer (2005) and Körtvélyessy & Štekauer (2014), each act of giving a name to an object of extra-linguistic reality is an act of competition among various word-formation rules that run across various word-formation processes, and cannot be reduced to a competition among various affixation rules Thus, for example, a new agent noun in English results from a tough

24 

Pavol Štekauer

competition not only among various affixation rules (e.g. V + -er, V + -ee, N + -ian, N + ‑ist, etc.), but it is also affected by competition from compounding (e.g. N + N), conversion (e.g. V → N), blending, etc. The competition among the various options that are available to a coiner is affected by the Principle of Creativity within Productivity Constraints, which means that the coiner (a language user) is the ultimate institution, so to speak, that decides which of the available options is selected in the particular act of naming. The process of selection is also affected by productivity of the individual word-formation rules and a series of sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic factors, including age, education and profession (Štekauer, Chapman, Tomaščíková & Franko 2005; Körtvélyessy 2010), bilingual environment (Körtvélyessy 2010; Körtvélyessy, Štekauer & Zimmermann 2015), cognitive abilities, and also fashionable trends. All these factors have to be taken into consideration to reach an objective and undistorted picture of the result of competition in individual acts of naming as well as in determining the tendencies in complex-word formation within individual semantic categories. Competition in the field of complex-word (mostly N + N compounds) interpretation has been mainly discussed in psycholinguistic literature. Let us mention here the most influential theory developed by Gagné and her collaborators. The Competition-AmongRelations-In-Nominals (CARIN) theory of conceptual combination (Gagné & Shoben 1997; Gagné 2001; Spalding & Gagné 2008) is based on the premise that the central role in the interpretation of compounds is played by thematic relations between compound constituents and the language speaker’s linguistic knowledge of the relative strength of the individual thematic relations bound to a  particular modifier concept. Gagné (2002: 716) labels the knowledge about the probability of individual semantic relations for a given concept as relational distribution reflecting a person’s experience with the language and with combined concepts in particular. The frequency of the selected relation appears to be an important factor for the interpretation of novel combined concepts. A speaker’s previous experience with similar combinations can affect the lexical availability of one or more constituents in the subsequent combination as well as the relation availability that is used to link the modifier and the head noun. In other words, our former experience

Competition in natural languages

25

may influence the meaning that is assigned to the individual constituents and the selection of the semantic relation between the modifier and the head. A more readily available relation is interpreted faster than other competing relations that are weaker. For example, the main thematic relation of mountain is a locative relation (mountain cabin, mountain stream, mountain resort). On the other hand, there are only few made of relations for mountain (mountain range). Consequently, language users tend to interpret its combinations as sequences based on the locative relation. To estimate the competitiveness of various relations for particular constituents, Gagné & Shoben (1997) created a set of potential novel compounds by crossing 91 modifiers and 91 head nouns. Relations in individual compounds were classified in terms of Levi’s (1978) categories. For example, plastic bee was classified as using the noun made of modifier relation. Next, they computed the frequency with which each modifier and head noun appeared with various relations. For example, of the 38 compounds in which plastic was used as a modifier, 28 used the noun made of modifier relation, seven used the noun about modifier relation, two used the noun derived from modifier relation, and one used the modifier cause noun relation. This determined both highly and lowly competitive relations for both the modifier and head. Experiments showed that responses to the HH and HL compounds were faster than responses to the LH compounds, suggesting that crucial information for a highly-competitive relation comes from the for the modifier rather than from compound head. The CARIN theory was further elaborated as the Relational-Interpretation-Competitive-Evaluation (RICE) theory by Spalding, Gagné, Mullaly & Ji (2010). Like CARIN, the RICE theory postulates competition among multiple relational structures. The ease of interpretation depends on how quickly a single relation structure can be identified as the most likely candidate for interpretation. However, the RICE theory is more comprehensive than the earlier theory in taking into account (apart from the role of the modifier) the role of the head. Furthermore, it discusses two aspects of the relation selection process: suggestion and evaluation. They reflect different role of the modifier and the head in the

26 

Pavol Štekauer

process of interpretation. The modifier plays a more important role in relation suggestion. On the other hand, the information associated with both head and modifier is crucial to the evaluation phase of interpretation (Gagné & Spalding 2014: 103). Across a series of experiments, Spalding et al. (2010) found that modifier-based relational effects were more robust than the head-based relational effects in the sense-nonsense task (similar to the results of Gagné 2001; 2002; Gagné & Shoben 1997). However, it was proved that the head-based relational information strongly affects performance in the verification task. A different approach to competition in complex-word interpretation is proposed in Štekauer (2005). While Gagné and her collaborators concentrate on general semantic relations, Štekauer focuses on predictability of potential meanings in general (i.e. not restricted to compounding). It is suggested that potentially multiple readings of individual complex words compete with one another. The probability of selection by a language user of one of them (disregarding the context) is expressed by the Objectified Predictability Rate (hereafter, OPR) and the Predictability Rate Gap (hereafter, PRG). It follows from the Competition Principle that OPR is directly proportional to the PRG between the most predictable reading and the next lower predictability rates of the same complex word (and, by implication, to the Reading 1/ Reading 2 and Reading 1/Reading 3 ratios), and indirectly proportional to the number of relatively strong non-top readings, i.e. the higher the number of such readings, the lower the OPR). Furthermore, Štekauer (2005) demonstrates that the OPR value is significantly influenced by the word-formation strategy chosen by a language speaker in coining a new complex word and, by implication, there is a strong dependence of complex-word predictability/interpretation upon complex-word formation. By word-formation strategy I mean the preference for more economical vs. more semantically transparent way of coining new complex words. From this it follows that competition at the level of complex-word interpretation is affected by competition between the universal contradictory tendencies of economy vs. transparency at the level of complex-word formation. Like in formation, also in interpretation, there is a multiplicity of factors that determine interpretation (age,

Competition in natural languages

27

education, profession, bilingual setting, generic knowledge and experiences, etc.). For example, Janovcová (2015) examined the influence of cognitive abilities upon meaning predictability. Her data suggest that there are differences between high-ability participants (high verbal and high non-verbal) and low-ability participants (low verbal and low non-verbal). The levels of competition outlined above manifested in both formation and interpretation of complex words can be summarized by the following integrated onomasiological model of complex words:

Fig. 1: Integrated onomasiological model of complex words.

The purpose of this Introduction was not and could not be a comprehensive overview of all manifestations of competition in the formation and interpretation of complex words. Instead, I have outlined a range of diverse aspects related to the topic in question in order to show that competition is a universal factor that has penetrated all structures of natural languages.

28 

Pavol Štekauer

References Ackema, Peter / Neeleman, Ad 2004. Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ackema, Peter / Neeleman, Ad 2007. Morphology Does not Equal Syntax. In Ramchand, Gillian / Reiss, Charles (eds.) The Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 325–352. Aronoff, Mark 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aronoff, Mark 2013. Competition and the Lexicon.  To appear in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of La Società di Linguistica Italiana. Prepublication paper. Baayen, Harald 2014. Experimental and Psycholinguistic Approaches to Studying Derivation. In Lieber, Rochelle / Štekauer, Pavol (eds.)  Handbook  of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 95–117. Bates, Elizabeth / MacWhinney, Brian 1982. Functionalist Approaches to Grammar. In Wanner, Eric / Gleitman, Lila (eds.) Language Acquisition: The State of the Art. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press,173–218. Bates, Elizabeth / MacWhinney, Brian 1987. Competition, Variation, and Language Learning. In MacWhinney, Brian (ed.) Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum, 157–193. Bauer, Laurie 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, Laurie 2009. Competition in English word-formation. In Kemenade, Ans van / Los, Bettelou (eds.) The Handbook of the History of English. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 177–198. Clark, Eve V. / Clark, Herbert H. 1979. When Nouns Surface as Verbs. Language. 55/4, 767–811. Cruse, Alan D. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gabelentz, Georg von der 21901. Die Sprachwissenschaft, ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Tauchnitz.

Competition in natural languages

29

Gaeta, Livio 2015. Restrictions in Word-Formation. In Müller, Peter O. / Ohnheiser, Ingeborg / Olsen, Susan / Rainer, Franz (eds.) Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 859–875. Gagné, Christina L. 2001. Relation and Lexical Priming during the Interpretation of Noun-Noun Combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1, 236–254. Gagné, Christina L. 2002. Lexical and Relational Influences on the Processing of Novel Compounds. Brain and Language. 81, 723–735. Gagné, Christina L. / Shoben, Edward J. 1997. The Influence of Thematic Relations on the Comprehension of Modifier-Noun Combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 23, 71–87. Gagné, Christina L. / Spalding, Thomas 2014. Conceptual Composition: The Role of Relational Competition in the Comprehension of Modifier-Noun Phrases and Noun-Noun Compounds. Psychology of Learning and Motivation. 59, 97–130. Gause, George F. 1934. The Struggle for Existence. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins. Haspelmath, Martin 2014. On System Pressure Competing with Economic Motivation. In MacWhinney, Brian / Malchukov, Andrej / Moravcsik, Edith (eds.) Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 197–208. Hay, Jennifer B. 2001. Lexical Frequency in Morphology: Is Everything Relative? Linguistics. 39, 1041–1070. Janovcová, Lenka 2015. The Influence of Cognitive Abilities on Compound-Interpretation. Ph.D. Dissertation. P. J. Šafárik University, Košice. Kaunisto, Mark 2007. Variation and Change in the Lexicon. A CorpusBased Analysis of Adjectives in English Ending in -ic and -ical. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kiparsky, Paul 1982. Lexical Morphology and Phonology. In Yang, In-Seok (ed.) Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Selected Papers from SICOL-1981. Seoul: Hanshin, 3–91. Körtvélyessy, Lívia 2010. Vplyv sociolingvistických faktorov na produktivitu v  slovotvorbe [On the influence of sociolinguistic factors upon productivity in word-formation]. Prešov: SLOVACONTACT.

30 

Pavol Štekauer

Körtvélyessy, Lívia / Štekauer, Pavol 2014. Derivation in a Social Context. In Lieber, Rochelle / Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 407–423. Körtvélyessy, Lívia / Štekauer, Pavol / Zimmermann, Julius 2015. Word-Formation Strategies: Semantic Transparency vs. Formal Economy. In Bauer, Laurie / Körtvélyessy, Lívia / Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) Semantics of Complex Words. Dordrecht: Springer, 85–114. Levi, Judith N. 1978. The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York, NY: Academic Press. Lindsay, Mark 2011. Self-Organization in the Lexicon: Morphological Productivity as Competition. Talk presented at the LSA Summer Institute Workshop: Challenges of Complex Morphology to Morphological Theory. University of Colorado at Boulder, CO, July 27, 2011. Lindsay, Mark / Aronoff, Mark 2013. Natural Selection in Self-Organizing Morphological Systems. In Montermini, Fabio / Boyé, Gilles / Tseng, Jesse (eds.) Morphology in Toulouse: Selected Proceedings of Décembrettes 7. Munich: Lincom Europa, 133–153. MacWhinney, Brian 2012. The Logic of the Unified Model. In Gass, Susan / Mackey, Alison (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge, 211–227. MacWhinney, Brian 2014. Conclusions: Competition across Time. In MacWhinney, Brian / Malchukov, Andrej / Moravcsik, Edith (eds.) Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 364–386. MacWhinney, Brian / Malchukov, Andrej / Moravcsik, Edith (eds.) 2014. Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Malchukov, Andrej 2014. Resolving Alignment Conflicts: A Competing Motivation Approach. In MacWhinney, Brian / Malchukov, Andrej / Moravcsik, Edith (eds.) Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 17–41. Marle, Jaap van 1986. The Domain Hypothesis: The Study of Rival Morphological Processes. Linguistics. 24, 601–627.

Competition in natural languages

31

Moravcsik, Edith 2014. Introduction. In MacWhinney, Brian / Malchukov, Andrej / Moravcsik, Edith (eds.) Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–16. Padrosa Trías, Susanna 2007. Catalan Verbal Compounds and the Syntax-Morphology Competition. In Montermini, Fabio / Boyé, Gilles / Hathout, Nabil (eds.) Selected Proceedings of the 5th Décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 91–107. Paul, Hermann 1896. Über die Aufgaben der Wortbildungslehre. Sitzungsberichte der königlichen bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-philologische und historische Classe, 696–713 [Reprinted in Lipka, Leonhard / Günther, Hartmut (eds.) 1981, Wortbildung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 17–35]. Plag, I. 1999. Morphological Productivity. Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: Mouton. Plag, Ingo / Baayen, Harald 2009. Suffix Ordering and Morphological Processing. Language. 85/1, 109–152. Rainer, Franz 1988. Towards a Theory of Blocking: The Case of Italian and German Quality Nouns. In Booij, Geert / Marle, Jaap van (eds.) Yearbook of Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris, 155–185. Rainer, Franz 2012. Morphological Metaphysics: Virtual, Potential, and Actual Words. Word Structure. 5/2, 165–182. Spalding, Thomas L. / Gagné, Christina L. 2008. CARIN Theory Reanalysis Reanalyzed: A Comment on Maguire, Devereux, Costello, and Cater (2007). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 34, 1573–1578. Spalding, Thomas L. / Gagné, Christina L. / Mullaly, Allison C. / Ji, Hongbo 2010. Relation-Based Interpretations of Noun-Noun Phrases: A New Theoretical Approach. In Olsen, Susan (ed.) New Impulses in Word-formation. (Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 17). Hamburg: Buske, 283–315. Štekauer, Pavol 2005. Meaning Predictability in Word Formation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Štekauer, Pavol / Chapman, Don / Tomaščíková, Slávka / Franko, Štefan 2005. Word-Formation as Creativity within Productivity Constraints. Sociolinguistic evidence. Onomasiology Online. 6, 1–55.

Alexandra Bagasheva

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation1

1. Introduction2 As a complex, emergent, adaptive (sign) system (Frank 2015) language offers resources for expressing almost anything (see Cruse 2000 on the “infinite expressive capacity of language”). What is more, it offers a number of alternatives for a single intended message. The plethora of competing possibilities for mapping content with linguistic form challenges users to choose the best presentational design on the basis of communicative needs and activated cognitive models. The choices occur at all levels of patterning of linguistic elements, including the formation of complex words. All consecutive choices contribute towards the expression of meaning, which interactants in communicative exchanges co-construct. Allowing for a certain degree of overgeneralisation, in the long history of the study of meaning in language (more than 2,000 years, according to Murphy 2010 and Geeraerts 2010), two main paradigms can be recognised: realistic/objectivist semantics and cognitive/experiential semantics. The two follow distinct research agendas, and ascribe different ontologies to meaning but, most importantly, they study different kinds of meaningfulness in language. The realistic/objectivist paradigm focuses on mapping names to objects in a possible world and on the truthfulness of an expression. Within this logical, objectivist framework parts of names cannot be matched onto anything in a possible world out there, consequently nothing below the word can mean. 1 2

Author’s email address: [email protected]; affiliation: Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski (Bulgaria). The set of semantic comparative concepts was compiled with the unfailing help and intellectual guidance of Pavol Štekauer, to whom I am greatly indebted.

34 

Alexandra Bagasheva

This implies that the objectivist, truth-based approach to meaning is not applicable to the study of word-formation semantics. Naturally, if we are to look into the internal makeup of words and their semantics, we need to look for a theory of meaning that recognizes the possibility of meaningfulness of the constituents of composites. One such theory is the cognitivist approach to meaning in language. Within the cognitivist paradigm3 (Gärdenfors 1999) meaning is conceptualization in a cognitive model. Cognitive models are mainly perceptually determined and concepts are characterised by prototype effects. Gärdenfors (1999: 20) maintains that cognitivist semantics is lexical in nature, i.e. “the emphasis is on lexical meaning rather than on the meaning of sentences.” As concepts might be formed from atoms (Murphy 2002), it follows that lexical meaning can also be constructed out of the meanings of the constituents of complex lexemes. In what follows I try to specify the nature of the meaning of complex words4 and how it can be accounted for in the case of affixation, which is viewed as the prototypical instance of derivation (the latter, understood as new complex lexeme formation), and which leads to the enrichment of the lexicon. The notion of a complex word itself presumes the properties of constituency and combinability. The immediate question arises as to the nature of the constituents that make up a complex word. Going back to the units and levels of language patterning associated with the classical structuralist tradition (e.g. Benveniste 1971) and to Hockett’s (1966) design features, meaningfulness is a paramount characteristic of linguistic elements other than phonemes, and it implies that the constituents of complex lexemes are meaningful linguistic elements. In turn, this suggests that morphemes, as the parsable parts of affixally derived complex words, are meaningful elements and we should be able to account for their semantics (see however various arguments against this point, e.g. Aronoff 1976, even recognising morphomes as in Aronoff 1994). What is more, the notion of combinability in language, especially in 3 4

I subscribe to the general cognitivist tenets, not to the formal cognitive semantics model based on conceptual spaces (Gärdenfors 1999). The terms lexeme and word are used interchangeably here despite controversies in the definitions of both. Since the contentious issues relating to the (possible) demarcation between inflection and derivation are not touched upon in this chapter, the use of both terms as coterminous will not cause any confusion.

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation

35

relation to meaning and complex forms is inextricably intertwined with the notion of compositionality (Hoeksema 2000; Janssen 2012; etc.). Compositionality, in its turn, presupposes the combination of meaningful elements into a semantic whole. However cautiously defined as a requirement for the meaning of a complex expression to be determined by the meanings of the parts and the operations performed on those parts (Bach 1989: 46), “the requirement of compositionality is the stumbling block of all extant semantic theories” (Jaszczolt 2010: 202). Despite the unavoidable difficulties inherent in this field, including, among others, the claims for the unattainability of a semantic description of meaning in word-formation, this chapter is intended to outline a set of cross-linguistically applicable semantic categories (concepts) for the study of affixal derivation or affixation. To this end, the chapter is organised as follows: section 2 discusses the specificity of linguistic meaning in relation to word-formation. Section 3 focuses on meaning in relation to affixation. Section 4 discusses possibilities for cross-linguistic research on meaning in affixation. Section 5 presents a set of semantic categories for cross-linguistic research. Finally, section 6 reviews the major claims of this chapter and presents the main conclusions.

2. Meaning and word-formation 2.1 Overview Meaning, as Jackendoff (2002: 267) phrases it, is the “holy grail” of linguistics. Linguistic meaning has generated an enviable amount of literature from various fields of study, including linguistics, philosophy, psychology and neuroscience. A single chapter cannot do justice to the cornerstones in the history of its study in semantics. The meaning of lexemes (words) is just one aspect of linguistic semantics, i.e. lexical semantics, an area which remains an open issue in language description (see, e.g. Geeraerts 2010; Murphy 2010). Zooming in

36 

Alexandra Bagasheva

further, the immediate area of interest here is the meaning of derived, complex words. Lexical semantics as a branch of linguistic semantics is concerned with the meaning of the elements of the lexicon, engaged specifically with the nature of the relations between words and their meanings, the syntagmatic and paradigmatic meaning relations among words, the manner in which words are understood by language users, the mechanisms by which the meanings of words change, etc. But an immediate question arises: do simple and complex words acquire their meanings (or simply mean) in the same way? The answer is a resounding no. The difference may be read off Booij & Masini’s (2015: 48) claim that the central task of morphology is “to provide a proper account of how the meanings of complex words are computed.” According to Saussure (1968: 296), the difference stems from the opposition between arbitrariness and motivation. The meaning of simple words results from conventional, arbitrary mappings between form and content and speakers have to learn these by heart one piece at a time. By contrast, the meaning of non-lexicalised complex words is at least partially constructed, ergo motivated, and potentially computable. It is based on the meanings associated with the parts and hypotheses about the nature of the relationship that holds them together in a composite whole,5 and partly on the various associative relations among linguistic units of the same type. The first type of motivating factors is associated with syntagmatic relations among constitutive linguistic elements, while the second type derives from paradigmatic relations among elements of equal status. Even though the interest in the meaning of words dates as far back as Aristotle’s time (for insightful overviews, see Geeraerts 2010; Paradis 2013; etc.), the semantics of complex words or word-formation is a considerably novel area of rigorous research. In 2004 the complaint about the lack of a comprehensive semantic theory to supplement morphological accounts of word-formation still bothered linguists (Lieber 2004). Even today, meaning computation and 5

The term composite whole is used for any derived, non-simplex word regardless of whether it has been formed by affixation, conversion, compounding or any other among the generally recognised major non-extra-grammatical word-formation patterns.

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation

37

analysis in word-formation are associated predominantly with open questions rather than with unanimous consensus or with a recognisable semantic theory available for research (see, e.g. Rainer, Dressler, Gardani & Luschützky 2014; Bauer, Körtvélyessy & Štekauer 2015). Admittedly, in view of the different processes of word-formation and of the various theoretical standpoints available to account for them, a unified theory of the meaning of complex words is highly improbable. The correlation between the process of formation of a complex lexeme and its meaning can easily be read off Ludlow’s (2014) claims for a strong correlation between the underdetermination of lexical concepts and the processes of linguistic entrenchment through which interactants in communicative acts negotiate the association of shared meanings with linguistic expressions. It is natural to assume that the types of meanings and ways in which these are associated with linguistic expressions will be different for complex words derived via different processes. The identification of a plausible set of semantic categories for the description of affixal products requires clarification of two notions: lexical concept (in section 2.2) and affixation (in section 2.3). 2.2 Semantic categories in derivation Concepts6 are directly grounded in, and continuous with embodied experience (Evans 2009). Human language is a system of perceptual symbols, whereby it does not encode holistically the entirety of the brain state that underlies a perception; it provides schematic aspects of modally recorded perceptions via providing the simulator cues (Barsalou 1999; 2008). Language provides a means of structuring/assembling re-activations of body-based experience to produce compositionally complex simulations. In other words, language functions as a “scaffold” whose main task is to fine-tune “the parameter settings of a simulator in the conceptual system via specific linguistic cues” (Sickinger 2012: 6

The term concept is used in the chapter in two distinct senses. The sense in which it is used here is the cognitivist understanding of concepts as mental representations of categories speakers are familiar with (Murphy 2002). The second sense is a theoretical construct whose essence is elaborated in section 4.

38 

Alexandra Bagasheva

139, emphasis added). Among such linguistic cues, lexical concepts occupy a central place. They provide access to large knowledge structure, streamlined by the specific linguistic encoding. In short, lexical concepts are associated with lexical items and function as alternative schematic evocative attentional cues for perceptual states encoded in memory. Both Fillmore (2006) and Langacker (2008) insist that word meaning is always relativised against larger knowledge structures. Frames are central among these knowledge structures since, as Barsalou & Hale (1993: 131) contend, “[h]uman knowledge appears to be frames all the way down.” Fillmore (2006: 378) defines the correlation between frames, construal mechanisms and lexical items as a mutually implicating one: “[frame is] the structured way in which the scene is presented or remembered, we can say that the frame structures the word-meanings, and that the word “evokes” the frame.” Besides being central for the emancipation of lexical concepts, frames appear to be of relevance within word-formation as well. Similar relevance can be found in the following quotation by Koch (1999: 153, emphasis added): [f]rames, which are relevant not only to metonymies but also to certain types of word formation, can ‒ and in fact, should ‒ be defined onomasiologically, so that even cross-over links within one and the same frame realized in different languages, concepts which have not yet been expressed, senses of a given word which do not yet exist, and new words which have not yet been fanned can all be provided for.

Not only does Koch emphasize the necessity of contiguities provided by frames for properly understanding conceptual (onomasiological) categories, but he also provides the semantic (onomasiological) grounds for cross-linguistic research utilising frames to study meaning-form correlations from a word-formational perspective. 2.3 The semantics of affixation Further narrowing down the perspective of word-formation, a definition of affixation is needed. Striving for a theory-neutral definition simplifies the issue at least in part, but without a working definition trying to capture the intuitions of native speakers and not the constructs of

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation

39

theorists, no actual account can be provided for the process of affixation. Siding with Lieber (2009: 2–3), who claims that morphology is the study of the intuitive knowledge of native speakers of how to make up new words and to make judgements about them, I assume that native speakers perceive morphemes as “the minimal meaningful units that are used to form words” (Lieber 2009: 32; see, however, word-based approaches, e.g. Beard 1992). Affixation is defined as the combination of a base and an affix, where the latter is a bound morpheme with less “substantial meaning” and higher productivity/combinability than a bound base (see, among others, Lieber 2009: 32–34). The vexed question of the status of affixes in the lexicon and the issue of their meaningfulness are far from settled. Yet, according to Berg (2015: 152), a range of scholars from various frameworks and persuasions, i.e. from cognitivists for whom all units and elements are meaningful through scholars like Plag (2003) and Baeskow (2010) to generativists such as Lehrer (1995) and Aronoff & Cho (2001), “[…] have made a case for the meaningfulness of affixes.” Despite the lack of a unanimous position, Berg (2015: 152) concludes that we can “[…] take for granted the lexical nature of derivational affixes.” Even if we do not commit ourselves to a side in the debate, we can still acknowledge the meaning contributing functions of affixes in affixation on the basis of the maximization-of-opportunity premise, according to which the lexical system is highly productive and “[…] all representations that can be activated will be activated” (Gagné & Spalding 2014: 154). In that sense, even if we are still not equipped with the right tools, constructs or terminology to describe the meaning of affixes, we can assume that the traces they have left in memory in associative contexts will be activated and will contribute to the computation of the meaning of the whole. Skepticism about the possibility of studying the semantics of affixation abounds to the point of denying its very possibility. It has been claimed that “even the less restricted theory of the semantics of derivation, which allows reference to syntactico-semantic dimensions, must be untenable” (Aronoff 1984: 48).

40 

Alexandra Bagasheva

However, thirty years after this pronouncement, it is clear that there is something special about meaning in relation to word-formation, which can be directly gleaned from Baeskow’s contention that “word-formation involves aspects of meaning, which are neither predicted by the syntax nor reducible to dictionary entries” (Baeskow 2015: 39). The problem with negative definitions is that they provide very loose boundaries and project an underspecified, wide conceptual space within which too many possibilities fit to be of any analytical value. So we know that the meaning of affixation is not the lexical meaning of the base, nor the lexicalised meaning of the output and that it cannot be reduced to the meanings of the individual components in the process of naming, but what it is remains elusive. Admittedly, the problems of studying meaning are most demanding in word formation for the following pertinent questions still remain pretty much open: • •

• •

•

Are the categories employed in lexical semantics adequate and sufficient to capture the specificity of word-formation semantics? What element in the process and/or product should be focused on (sources –including bases and all other types of constituent elements–, pattern, output, or the generalisable interaction between the three at once)? Are “sets of types or rules of word-formation with the same function” (Lehman 2015: 850) the most suitable and typologically relevant descriptive tools? Do “schemata, i.e. mental representations of the knowledge which human beings share about objects and events in the world” (Baeskow 2015: 83) provide a viable alternative? Can semantic roles, based on schemata, prove the tools that provide formal and theoretical neutrality with high methodological value (Ortner & Ortner 2015: 910)? Are semantic categories analytically profitable in cross-linguistic research counter Rijkhoff (2009: 96), who claims that “semantic categories are so vague that it is not possible to say what is actually being compared or investigated”?, etc.

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation

41

The answer to the first question should be in the negative, since categories and terms in lexical semantics apply to both simplex and complex words, as well as fully lexically specified constructions (idioms, set phrases, cultural formulas, etc.). Consequently, they are too general and capture features of meaning shared by all three types of lexemes and do not specifically delineate features of derived lexemes. Accepting that language is a complex adaptive system (Beckner et al. 2009) and meaning in language is a synergetic, emergent phenomenon (Köhler 2011), one is enticed to answer the second question in the following manner: all enumerated contributing factors are involved in the generation of meaning in derivational processes with particular meaning features not attributable to any single specific factor or constituent in a recoverable causal manner. In Lehmann’s (2015: 702) words, “[c]ategories of word-formation, i.e. sets of types or rules of word-formation with the same function, are the oldest and to this day the most common function-oriented descriptive tool used in word-formation.” Rules are probably methodologically convenient since they capture all pertinent dimensions (source, meaning of the input, nature of the meaning modification and generalised lexical result). However, rules themselves suffer from a certain indeterminacy and, paradoxically, overgeneralisation, and frequently rules are downsized to a single affix shifting the emphasis from the whole complex to one of the participant constituents. Other approaches suggest that “morphemic word-formation processes […] are to a large extent regular and predictable (in hindsight) and therefore amenable to generalizations couched in the format of rules or schemas” (Schmid 2015: 65). Schemas, too, have their shortcomings: they are bound up with specific theoretical models (cognitive linguistics) and are generalisations of such high degree of abstractness that they fail to make certain differentiations possible (for an informative description of different approaches to word-formation studies, including schema and semantic role-based ones, see, e.g. Schmid 2015; Ortner & Ortner 2015; etc.). As for semantic roles, as Ortner & Ortner (2015) believe, they are most profitably applicable in the analysis of compounds, the most syntactic of all processes of word-formation.

42 

Alexandra Bagasheva

In avoidance of such problems, word-formationists have tried to pin down the elusive something by dubbing it word-formation meaning, which according to Rainer et al. (2014: 7) is defined as the “regularity in the relation between derivatives’ meanings and the lexical meanings of their respective base forms.” They acknowledge, quoting Pounder (2000: 97) that “a strict separation of word-formation meaning from lexical meaning is rarely observed in the literature.” In their view this seriously undermines the significance of the concept of word-formation meaning as such. Among the persistent problems in relation to any account of the semantics of affixation is the unsettled controversy over the demarcation of inflectional and derivational affixation. A recent differentiation between the two is formulated in the following manner: [w]hile derivational morphology has a semiotic function and contributes to lexical enrichment, inflectional morphology has the relational function of serving syntax or marking syntactic constructions with special word forms. While inflectional morphology is obligatory in a syntactic construction, derivational morphology is not. (Štekauer 2015: 516)

Attempts to establish clear criteria for differentiation between the two include: function, range of categories (based on any meaning change the affix triggers), position in the word (closer to base or in the periphery), transparency, productivity and regularity, changing/preserving wordclass of source, recursiveness, paradigms, distribution, headedness, similarity/dissimilarity within the respective group, and nature of the source (existing vs. non-existent bases). After assessing the numerous adduced examples and arguments provided, the author concludes that “it is not possible to draw a clear-cut borderline between inflection and derivation and that the relation between these two areas of morphology is best treated ‘as a cline rather than a dichotomy’ (Katamba 1993: 217), with prototypical cases at both ends of the cline” (Štekauer 2015: 532). The realisation that categorisation within linguistics is based on the same principles as everyday cognition – clines instead of dichotomies, prototypicality effects with degrees of category membership, fuzzy boundaries, contextual coercion, etc. (Langacker 2008) – facilitates naturalistic analyses, but is not a magic wand that resolves all problems.

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation

43

The problem of meaning in derivation is further aggravated by considerable uncertainty regarding even the very basic identity of derivation: nobody has attempted to define derivation in terms of the categories involved – even though we might agree that some types of derivation are more canonical than others. This raises the question of whether there are any categories which we can view as derivational in the same way that tense is seen as being inflectional. (Bauer 2002: 37)

Insightful and laudable as Bauer’s approach is, the set of categories that he isolates in his sample of languages (with occurrence per category > 10 out of 42) are a mixture of lexical and derivational meanings and are word-class based. In restricting possibilities for derivational categories, Bauer marks the negative extreme, claiming that “nobody has found a language in which a derivational affix means ‘grasp NOUN in the left hand and shake vigorously while standing on the right foot in a 2.5 gallon galvanized pail of corn-meal-mush’” (Bauer 2002: 37, capitalisation as in the original). Defining an impossible derivational category does not help much in establishing actual derivational categories, let alone purely semantic categories that can be applied cross-linguistically in affixation research. Admittedly, attempts have been made to define specific derivational semantic categories, where the individual pattern and requisite affix are separated from the meaning, which, however, remains wordclass bound, as can be seen from the differentiation between derivational type and derivational category, i.e. “[t]he formal operations define what is sometimes called a ‘derivational type’ (for instance, ‘deverbal nominal in er’ vs. ‘deverbal nominal in -ant’) and the semantic relations define a ‘derivational category’ (for instance ‘agentive deverbal noun’ vs. ‘causative verb’)” (Spencer 2015: 679). Assuming that a derivational category is slightly different from a semantic category, we still need to recognise that the former has the pretence of encompassing the latter as agent presupposes a semantic category postulated in relation to the source and the output of affixation, even though to this day “with regard to derivation, we do not have nearly as clear a notion as we do with inflection what we are mapping onto what” (Lieber 2014: 53–54).

44 

Alexandra Bagasheva

Yet another attempt to formulate semantic categories in affixation relates to measuring word-formation rules with predictable (i.e. predefined) albeit potential meaning against the lexical meaning of the resultant lexemes. Dressler & Ladányi (2002: 106) contend that “[t]here are many factors involved in bridging the gap between potential WF meaning and word meanings.” The researchers propose to utilise word-formation rules in the contrastive study of the semantics of affixation. In their view, [t]he basic approach is to compare the WF meaning of a productive WFR with the actual lexical meanings of the words derived by this WFR, because the potential meaning of a WFR is semantically transparent (with the possible exception of parasitic morphology). However, the actual lexical meanings (word meanings, not contextual meanings in performance) of its derivatives are prototypically not completely compositional, because they are lexicalised (as autonomous lexical entries), i.e. they are, at least minimally, morphosemantically opaque. (Dressler & Ladányi 2002: 106)

They go on in drawing the distinction between word-formation and lexical meaning to describe lexical meanings as a subset of the legitimate possible word-formation meanings. They suggest that it would be helpful to apply the potential word-formation meaning of a word-formation rule to a certain lexical field or a semantically definable group of words, since in this way through semantic and pragmatic inferences, disregarding the actual lexical meanings of these words, we can arrive at the specificity of word-formation semantics. The natural conclusion is that, just as actual words are a subset of potential words, lexical meaning is a subset of word-formation meaning. The abovementioned approaches to modelling and defining the semantics of affixation are just some of those that are available (for reviews, see Lieber 2004 and Schmid 2015), but they sufficiently illustrate the basic tendencies. It is unavoidable to include numerous factors contributing to word-formation meaning and it might prove fruitful to discard word-formation rules and attempts to look for the specific causality of the different contributing factors and recognise word-formation meaning as synergetic and emergent in the complex adaptive system of language. As one of the proponents of this understanding of the ubiquitous human communicative system insists, “there are general principles

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation

45

which characterize the emergence of patterns in complex systems whatever their content or scale” (Ellis 2011: 655). In this view, “language knowledge consists of a continuum of linguistic constructions of different levels of complexity and abstraction. Constructions can comprise concrete and particular items (as in words and idioms) […] [and] may be simultaneously represented and stored in multiple forms, at various levels of abstraction” (Ellis 2011: 656). So, for the agents interacting in and through language, affixation operates via generalisation (as a domain general cognitive strategy of humans) over patterns of use which create or entrench meaning-form correlations, where meaning can be holistically labelled without the possibility for clear assignment of specific semantic components to particular factors or constituents within constructions. This implies that, with the power of hindsight for research purposes, approximate categories can be postulated which can capture the most salient and highly meaning differentiating properties of constructions at various levels of abstraction and patterning. Any proposed set of semantic categories valid in cross-linguistic research of affixation will have to comprise notional categories of specific degrees of granularity to accommodate both local constructions and significant cross-linguistic patterns.

3. Categorisation for/in cross-linguistic affixation research Cross-linguistic research and typology might be considered as closely related, but not necessarily identical. The former is “the study of linguistic patterns that are found cross-linguistically, in particular, patterns that can be discovered solely by cross-linguistic comparison” (Croft 1990: 1). The latter is broader and frequently theory-oriented. In that sense the specificity of cross-linguistic research predetermines the nature of the categories one operates with. Acknowledging prototypicality effects and clines as integral in linguistic categorisation necessitates the clarification of the types of

46 

Alexandra Bagasheva

categories most fruitfully employed in cross-linguistic research, more specifically meaning-driven word-formation research.7 To the best of our knowledge, no focused attention has been paid to the cross-linguistic study of the semantics of word-formation,8 which makes the formulation of cross-linguistically relevant semantic categories in affixation difficult. Evans’ (2010: 504) recent definition of semantic typology as “the systematic cross-linguistic study of how languages express meaning by way of signs” is definitely not suited for the task at hand since the way is uniformly similar across any sample of languages, namely affixation. Resorting to Lehrer’s (1992: 249) widely quoted definition which claims that lexical typology is concerned with the “characteristic ways in which language […] packages semantic material into words” seems to have the same effect. In all fairness, both proposals are concerned with lexical semantics from an onomasiological and a semasiological perspective respectively, and do not take into consideration the specificity of affixation semantics. Focusing specifically on derivational semantics, Lehmann (2015: 701, emphasis added) recognises “categories such as agent noun, place noun, or gender marking, [as] the oldest, most common and most widely used semantic categories in word-formation, providing a suitable onomasiological basis for cross-linguistic comparison.” If we uncritically apply this set of semantic categories in word-formation research, we run the risk of committing the crime of which Rijkhoff (2009) accuses typologists, namely mixing semantic and formal categories. One of the biggest problems in word-formation research is how to tease apart word-class meaning from purely semantic dimensions. As Lehmann (2015: 858) surmises, “[word-formation] is not fully onomasiological. It is structured according to the word class of the results of word-formation (V, A, N), and […] according to the word class of the bases, e.g., deverbal nouns.”

7 8

On the specificity of prototype understanding of categorisation and its consequences for linguistics see, e.g. van der Auwera & Gast (2011). Exceptions are the areally bound research by Bauer (2002) and the contrastive research targeting opacity measures in adjectival derivation by Dressler & Ladányi (2002).

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation

47

Severing the purely onomasiological from the structural (wordclass) should in theory be possible. This would allow us to devise a set of semantic categories in cross-linguistic affixation research in the form of comparative concepts (Haspelmath 2010), independent of the formal criterion of word-class membership of the base or the output in the word-formation process. Admittedly, onomasiological word-formation (Štekauer 1998; 2001; 2005) dispenses with word-classes and operates with onomasiological types, but these are not exclusive to affixation and accommodate all basic processes of word-formation. Even if a set of purely semantic categories were available, their utility might be questioned as has been done by Rijkhoff (2009), who in principle objects to their use on the grounds that they are too comprehensive and can cover “too many structural variants” (Rijkhoff 2009: 95). In cross-linguistic research in affixation, the objection against structural variability can be easily dismissed, since the complex words under study (affixed words) all arise from the same type of word-formation and employ uniform constituents, i.e. bases and affixes, even if the bases and the outputs can still be quite varied. Claiming that semantic categories are frequently confused with formal categories, Rijkhoff appeals for the use of semantic and formal similarity as reliable criteria only after functional sameness has been established independently. As all elements under study are derived complex lexemes and their main function is to satisfy the naming needs of a community of speakers, we assume that functional sameness is guaranteed by the teleology of the output (naming), by the uniformity of the constituents (bases and affixes) and by the identity of the applied word-formation process, i.e. affixation. Among the competing models of cross-linguistic research two provide sufficient research space for postulating the set of categories presented in the next section. The first model is Corbett’s canonical typology. Corbett (2010: 141) contends that [a]dopting a canonical approach means that we look for definitions which allow us to distinguish between interesting sets of data, and we take such definitions to their logical end point. This enables us to build theoretical spaces of possibilities. Only when we have established our clear definitions, and the space they define, do we investigate how this space is populated with real instances.

48 

Alexandra Bagasheva

In his elaboration of the model, Corbett (2010: 141) admits that “from the viewpoint of canonical typology, derivational morphology proves particularly difficult and, eventually, quite exciting.” If nothing else, the author recognises that at least the model allows for the constructed nature of categories applied in typological, i.e. cross-linguistic research. The strict determination of categories based on different definitional criteria actually identifies a theoretical ideal against which actual language data are classified. As Corbett (2010: 141) phrases it, “[t]he convergence of criteria fixes a canonical point from which the phenomena actually found can be calibrated.” Canonical points are postulated semasiologically, on the basis of extensive analysis of available data and their aim is to delineate possible variations that will still share enough characteristics with the canonical point as to be categorised as members of the requisite category. Corbett even clarifies that “[c]anonical instances need have no exemplar, they are not claimed to be part of speakers’ competence (they are theoretical constructs of linguists), and they are ideally invariant” (Corbett 2010: 142). The second model advocates the application of constructs dubbed comparative concepts in cross-linguistic research, as formulated by Haspelmath (2010). As in Corbett’s, in this model the categories with which linguists operate are also constructs that try to avoid the distortion of real data or the imposition of a skewed point of view favouring a particular subset of the data (or particular language). Without going into the theoretical and historical justification for the model, we subscribe fully to Haspelmath’s ideas that “typology must be (and usually is) based on a special set of comparative concepts that are specifically created by typologists for the purposes of comparison. Descriptive formal categories cannot be equated across languages because the criteria for category-assignment are different from language to language” (Haspelmath 2010: 663). In clarifying the nature of comparative concepts, Haspelmath emphasises that they cannot be right or wrong, only more or less suited for the specific task in cross-linguistic research. He elaborates on the need for such categories to be based on other universally applicable concepts such as conceptual-semantic concepts.

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation

49

What the two models have in common is the idea that the categories with which researchers operate are analytical constructs and may but need not be necessarily instantiated in language-specific exemplars. In both models it is implied that the analytical categories are constructed as prototypes or canonical instances, while the actual language instances they are intended to categorise may deviate slightly from the core on the basis of family resemblances (actualised via lexicalisation, emergent contextual ‒ within the resultant lexeme ‒ inferences, meaning extension processes, etc.). Comparative concepts are not divorced from language specific descriptive categories. As Lander & Arkadiev (2016: 406) argue, “comparative concepts should be allowed to be based on descriptive categories and the latter should be allowed to be thought of as manifestations of comparative concepts.” In practical terms, this leads to the coincidence of some of the comparative concepts with descriptive categories and their grounding in actual language data, without restricting the construction of logical endpoints that clearly define the analytical space.

4. Comparative semantic concepts in affixation research Concurring with Štekauer (2006: 34, emphasis added) that “[w]hile [naming] processes (and their formal representations) differ from language to language, the conceptual basis of the act of naming is language-independent,” I propose a set of conceptually grounded, comparative semantic concepts relevant for cross-linguistic investigation of affixation.9 The language independence of the proposed categories is congruent with Szymanek’s (1988) grounding condition for the derivational categories in language where “[t]he basic set of lexical derivational categories is rooted in the fundamental concepts of cognition” (Szymanek 1988: 93). Even though they are formulated in English, the labels for the concepts 9

It should be noted that affixal compounds (be them synthetic or parasynthetic, on which see Bagasheva 2015; see also Melloni & Bisetto 2010) have not been considered in the compilation of the semantic categories and probably the latter will not be comprehensive enough to accommodate the complexity of meaning in the former.

50 

Alexandra Bagasheva

are not English semantic categories. They are comparative concepts in Haspelmath’s sense (2010) although, in order to avoid confusion with the use of the term concept in cognitive linguistics, psychology and everyday parlance, they have been referred to as semantic categories up to now. The comparative semantic concepts are heterogeneous in terms of a number of criteria: • • •

the degree of granularity of the notional categories (in the sense that they combine different numbers of the ontological types discussed below); the number of cross-linguistic instantiations; and the typicality for a specific language.

The heterogeneity of the degree of granularity avoids the association of the comparative concepts with any specified word-class in any language. The proposed categories avoid also any distinctions between types of affixes (infixes, superfixes, prefixes, suffixes, etc.) and the associated problems of categorial headedness.10 In particular, the differences in the contribution of infixes and prefixes which for the most part seem to contribute semantic features exclusively and do not affect the categorial features of the source base, thus violating the percolation rule as defined by Lieber (2004), are not reflected in the comparative concepts, which are strictly semantic in nature. As Fábregas & Masini (2015: 76) claim, “interpretability is guaranteed by the interplay of features within complex constituents”, which is fully in-keeping with the notion of emergent meaning, adopted for analytical purposes here. On the basis of available non-decompositional models of semantic analysis of word-formation phenomena (which automatically excludes Lieber 2004, Jackendoff 2002, and specific cognitive linguistic analyses restricted to conversion or compounding) and the literature on affixal meanings in numerous European languages, a set of semantic comparative concepts was compiled. The set has been extracted from descriptive categories of individual languages. The language-specific categories were used as the lower limit of granularity, while the upper limit

10

For a recent review of the issue of headedness in morphology see Fábregas & Masini (2015).

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation

51

was determined by the ontological types defined by Cruse in dealing with lexical semantics i.e. the “fundamental modes of conception that the human mind is presumably innately predisposed to adopt” (Cruse 2000: 49). The most basic and hierarchically highest ones (in terms of generality) Cruse (2009: 49) identifies as: 1. thing 2. quality 3. quantity 4. place 5. time 6. state 7. process 8. event 9. action 10. relation 11. manner At lower levels of generality, we find sets of conceptual categories, which the human mind construes, hierarchically branching off the ontological types. Many of these need to be named at least for communicative purposes. From an onomasiological point of view they are the concepts associated with the products of word-formation. Just as concepts are arranged in complex networks at different levels of abstraction, so are the means for producing names, which create paradigms that help coiners to produce complex words.11 Štekauer (2014: 359) contends that “‘fair’ argumentation […] requires us to put the relation between the members of a minimal (i.e. two-member) derivational paradigm on a truly semantic basis by saying that the paradigm rests on the cognitive category of, for example, result of action.” It is obvious that result of action is a subcategory of the basic ontological types, combining features of action and state. It is at that immediately lower level of generality that the comparative semantic concepts are construed.

11

The notion of paradigmaticity is indispensable and “the paradigmatic nature of derivational semantics” (Booij & Lieber 2004) has been recognised.

52 

Alexandra Bagasheva

Operating with such concepts alleviates the problems of polysemy in derivation, as each sense associated with a specific affix will be separately recognised by the requisite semantic concept. When applied in cross-linguistic research on derivation, this would clearly illustrate Apresjan’s (1974) concept of “regular polysemy” (recurrent patterns of radial networks across languages). This understanding of polysemy is fully harmonious with Rainer’s (2014: 348) suggestion that polysemy be treated “as a radial or family-resemblance constellation. In that case, all patterns are concrete in the sense that they define a set of possible words.” If necessary, in the analysis, if “the semantic relationship between two patterns is still perceived synchronically, it is explicitly stated in the description as a relationship of motivation” (Rainer 2014: 349). This is easily described and indexed, if the research targets detectable polysemy of a recurrent constituent. Within the parameters outlined above the following semantic concepts are identified. Their applicability and profitability will be used in the following chapters of this book and elsewhere (e.g. in research targeting the scope of derivational networks in European languages, Körtvélyessy & Stekauer p.c.). The categories are assigned on the basis of the last cycle of derivation (i.e. the emergent meaning resulting from the combination of the last two potentially parsable constituents of the complex is taken into account).12

12

When the set of comparative semantic concepts is used for cross-linguistic comparative analyses, the focus in the initial stage falls exclusively on non-lexicalised derivatives whose meaning features can be compared and captured by the prototype-like comparative concept. When the set is used for intralinguistic analyses various levels of opacity of the outputs of a productive pattern can be taken into account, depending on the research task.

53

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation

Table 1.  Set of comparative semantic concepts in affixation. The table illustrates English and, additionally, a different language (typically Bulgarian), if the concept does not apply in English and/or for illustration in a language other than English. The language from which the example has been extracted is in front of the word. Comparative semantic concept ability

Emergent meaning

Examples

Possibility to be processed in a particular way

abstraction

Name of an abstract idea

action

Performing of an activity

agent

Performer of an activity/ Name of a profession, job, title or permanent activity

anticausative

Event affecting its subject without any syntactic or semantic indication of the cause of the event Above the default quantity / Condoning attitude for being more than a standard

Eng. readable readability Bul. četiven četivnost ‘readable’ ‘readability’ Eng. justice Bul. pravda ‘justice’ Eng. reading Bul. strelba ‘shooting’ Eng. killer Bul. ubiec ‘killer’ pekar ‘baker’ Bul. stâmva se ‘get darker’

augmentative/ ameliorative/ intensive

causative

Indication of the cause of an activity/change of state

collectivity

Name of a collection of entities conceptualised as a whole

comitative

Co-participant

composition

Composition (made of)

Eng. overpower Bul. mâžiše ‘a huge man’ raztiča se  ‘start running energetically and forcefully’ Eng. empower Bul. zaliva  ‘cover fully with something’ Eng. readership Bul. selyačestvo ‘the totality of all villagers’ Eng. co-worker Bul. sâdružnik ‘partner’ Bul. orehovka ‘walnut biscuit’

54 

Alexandra Bagasheva

Comparative semantic concept cumulative

Emergent meaning

Examples

Performing an action to achieve a considerable amount of something

desiderative

distributive

Desire to do the act denoted by the root Below the default quantity (of substance, action, quality or circumstance) Relating to or providing a specified spatial dimension Allotted among members of a set

durative

Atelic, continuing

dweller

Occupant of a specified location

entity

Objectification; object that has real existence, material expression Active participant in a perceptual/ affective/cognitive event

Bul. ponapiše  ‘write staff I consider enough’ Saami jugastuvvat ‘want to drink’ Eng. piglet Bul. pospya ‘sleep for a while, nap’ Slovak odkopnúť ‘to kick away’ Bul. izponabie ‘beat everyone around’ Bul. lovuva ‘hunt’ Eng. villager Bul. selyanin ‘villager’ Bul. kostilka ‘pit, stone’ Eng. admirer Bul. obožatel ‘admirer’ Eng. actress Bul. čistnica  ‘woman fastidious about cleanliness’ Eng. archbishop Bul. nadreden  ‘above a line/established level’ Eng. subtotal Bul. podvid ‘subtype’ Bul. zapee ‘start singing’ Eng. opener Bul. kopačka ‘hoe’

diminutive/ attenuative directional

experiencer

female

Female representative of a human type/profession

hyperonymy

Superordination in hierarchical relations

hyponymy

Subordination in hierarchical relations

inceptive

Initiation of an activity

instrument

Object specifically used for a specialised activity

55

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation Comparative semantic concept iterative

Emergent meaning

Examples

Repetitive activity

location

Specified position in space

manner/ viewpoint

In a particular way

ornative

Addition of a feature or property

patient

Party to/for whom something is/has been done Bearer of state/quality Negative attitude, disapproval or a slighting attitude to (the possession of undesirable characteristics) Experience of one of the physical senses or reasoning faculties Distribution of action among several agents, at various places and/or times, aimed at various objects, etc. Relationship of possession (alienable or non-alienable) Negation or inversion of properties / Activity of deprivation

Eng. reread Bul. prenapiše ‘rewrite’ Eng. vicarage Bul. pekarna ‘bakery’ Eng. respectfully Bul. iznenadvašo ‘surprisingly’ Bul. ovkusi ‘addition of dressing’ Eng. amputee Bul. obučaem ‘trainee, student’ Eng. mishandle; malpractice Bul. advokatin ‘an advocate of poor abilities’ Bul. zabeleža ‘notice’ Bul. izponapivame se ‘to get drunk.for all present’

pejorative

perceptive pluriactionality

possessive privative

process purposive

Natural, non-volitional unfolding of a change of state With a desired or intended result/aim

quality

Current or resultant quality

reciprocal

Performed mutually

Bul. kučeški ‘belonging to a dog’ Eng. unnatural Eng. mispronounce Bul. bezpolezen ‘useless’ Bul. protiča ‘to develop, to unfold’ Bul. naušnici ‘what is for the ear’ Eng. Bul. Bul.

beautiful mârzeliv ‘lazy’ obvinyavame se ‘accuse each other.pl’

56 

Alexandra Bagasheva

Comparative semantic concept reflexive

Emergent meaning

Examples

Verb with the same semantic agent and affected

relational

resultative

Undetermined relation (between the base and the noun that the derived adjective potentially modifies) Result of an action

Bul. obuvam se ‘put on one’s trousers or shoes’ Eng. medical Bul. planinski ‘related to a mountain’

reversative

Reversal of the result

saturative/ total

Perform an action up to a wholly satisfying or exhaustive degree or affecting all affected entities or the totality of a single affected entity Momentary or punctiliar action

semelfactive similative

Showing resemblance, somewhat possessing a particular quality

singulative

Individual entity from a group or undifferentiated mass Particular condition of being / Be in a state

state

subitive

Action that occurs suddenly or sharply

terminative

Marking the end phase of an event

temporal

Pertaining to temporal dimensions

undergoer

Entity that undergoes an action that changes its state

Eng. building Bul. postroyka ‘building’ Eng. unzip Bul. razvie ‘uncover’ Bul. napuši (se) ‘smoke enough, up to satisfaction’ Bul. skokne ‘jump once’ Eng. childlike Bul. zatvorničeski ‘like that of a prisoner’ Breton geotenn ‘a single blade of grass’ Eng. sadness Bul. zelenee se ‘show one’s greenness’ Saami addilit  ‘to give (in a haste or quickly)’ Bul. dopie (si) ‘drink up‘ Slovak najnovšie ‘recently, lately’ Saami čuhppojuvvot ‘to be cut (of somebody)’

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation

57

5. Retrospectus and prospectus One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. ‘Which road do I take?’ she asked. ‘Where do you want to go?’ was his response. ‘I don’t know,’ Alice answered. ‘Then,’ said the cat, ‘it doesn’t matter.’ (Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland)

McWhorter (2003) claims that languages are extremely diverse and differ in terms of complexity (which is difficult to measure by any reliable instrument). Isolated, exotic languages spoken by hunter-gatherer communities are characterised by greater complexity and by peculiarities preserved through time. Naturally, no claims are made that the set is at this stage exhaustive and suited to capture the almost limitless diversity of languages. As is well known, the research question and the hypotheses formulated in relation to it legitimise certain patterns of rationality. The ultimate aim of this piece of research was the compilation of theoryneutral, comparative semantic concepts (categories) against which various kinds of analyses of data of affixation patterns in languages can be generated. Employing the model of defining something by what it is not, we can say that what the proposed set of comparative semantic concepts is less well equipped for is: • • •

a model of lexical semantic representation of the process of affixation; a theoretical construct of modes of interaction between base and affix; and an explication of the mapping between the complex conceptual content of a derived word and the sensory-motor side of the Saussurean sign (see Lieber 2014, where such a model is proposed).

From the point of view of positive definitions, the set of categories is suited for intra- and interlanguage analysis of affixation phenomena in specific languages and cross-linguistically. This possibility of using comparative concepts for both language-specific and cross-linguistic research is defined and convincingly argued for by Lander & Arkadiev

58 

Alexandra Bagasheva

(2016). As the authors contend, “[v]ariation is related to instability […] which determine language-specific descriptive categories. Vague prototype-based comparative concepts presumably can manage with this language-specific nature” (Lander & Arkadiev 2016: 408). Its applicability stems from the fact that the categories are exclusively meaning-based and not part-of-speech bound. The level of granularity can be successfully expanded or narrowed depending on the type of targeted generalisation. In the process of narrowing down the granularity of the prototype-based concepts (categories), problems of language-specific instances of lexicalisation and degree of opacity of productive word-formation rules can be accounted for. Starting from semantic concepts allows also for the analysis of affix competition, since any concept can be used as tertium comparationis for the rivalry among affixes for encoding specific semantics. Furthermore, the set can be used for tracing the productive meaning profiles of specific affixes in a language. The set has been compiled on the basis of both semasiological (extensive reading of analyses of affixation phenomena on the basis of existing, actual words in various European languages) and onomasiological considerations (the onomasiological stance underlies the very cogitation of these concepts designed to incorporate possible words; see Kjellmer 2000 on potential and Rainer 2012 on virtual and potential words), paradigmaticity of derivational semantics and the emergence of synergetic meaning. The set of comparative semantic concepts has been conceived of as a potential instrument in fieldwork on affixation in various languages and for the purposes of cross-linguistic analyses. It is (at present) designed to capture the diversity of European languages, exclusively. The latter arises from the fact that, as comparative constructs, the semantic concepts are based on available analyses of affixation phenomena in this group of languages. As the list stands (with real possibility for further enlargement), it most probably lacks concepts that can capture peculiarities of McWhorter’s “exotic” languages. Hopefully, the suitability of the set of comparative concepts for intralanguage affix rivalry and competition is tested (and corroborated) by the papers in the current volume, while future projects will put to the test its cross-linguistic profitability.

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation

59

Acknowledgements I am greatly indebted to Lívia Körtvélyessy and Pavol Štekauer for the very idea of the compilation of semantic categories for cross-linguistic research on affixation and for insightful comments and suggestions in the process of their compilation. All usual disclaimers stand.

References Apresjan, Ju. D. 1974. Regular Polysemy. Linguistics. 142, 5–32. Aronoff, Mark 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Aronoff, Mark 1984. Word Formation and Lexical Semantics. Quaderni di Semantica. 5/1, 45–50. Aronoff, Mark 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Aronoff, Mark / Cho, Sungeun 2001. The Semantics of -ship Suffixation. Linguistic Inquiry. 32/1, 167–173. Auwera, Johan van der / Gast, Volker 2011. Categories and Prototypes. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Language Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 166–189. Bach, Emmon 1989. Informal Lectures on Formal Semantics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Baeskow, Heike 2010. Derivation in Generative Grammar and NeoConstruction Grammar: A Critical Evaluation and a New Proposal. In Olsen, Susan (ed.) New Impulses in Word Formation, Sonderheft Linguistische Berichte. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 21–59. Baeskow, Heike 2015. Rules, patterns and schemata in word-formation. In Müller, Peter O. / Ohnheiser, Ingeborg / Olsen, Susan / Rainer, Franz (eds.) Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Vol. 2. iBooks. Berlin: de Gruyter, 32–184.

60 

Alexandra Bagasheva

Bagasheva, Alexandra 2015 On Verbocentric Nominal Compounds Denoting Humans in Bulgarian. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics. 12/3, 74–104. Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. Perceptual Symbol Systems. Behavioural and Brain Sciences. 22, 577–660. Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2008. Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology. 59, 617–645. Barsalou, Lawrence W. / Hale, Christopher R. 1993. Components of Conceptual Representation: From Feature Lists to Recursive Frames. In Mechelen, Iven Van / Hampton, James / Michalski, Ryszard S. / Theuns, Peter (eds.) Categories and Concepts: Theoretical Views and Inductive Data Analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 97–114. Bauer, Laurie 2002. What You Can Do with Derivational Morphology. In Bendjaballah, Sabrina / Dressler, Wolfgang U. / Pfeiffer, Oskar E. / Voeikova, Maria D. (eds.) Morphology 2000: Selected Papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 24–28 February 2000. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 37–48. Bauer, Laurie / Körtvélyessy, Lívia / Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) 2015. Semantics of Complex Words. Dordrecht: Springer. Beard, Robert 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Beckner, Clay / Blythe, Richard / Bybee, Joan / Christiansen, Morten H. / Croft, William / Ellis, Nick C. / Holland, John / Ke, Jinyun / LarsenFreeman, Diane / Schoenemann, Tom 2009. Language as a Complex Adaptive System. In Ellis, Nick C. / Larsen-Freeman, Diane (eds.) Language as a Complex Adaptive System. Language Learning. 59 (Special Issue. Supplement 1), 1–26. Benveniste, Émile 1971. The Levels of Linguistic Analysis. In Benveniste´, Émile (ed.) Problems in General Linguistics. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press, 101–113. Berg, Thomas 2015. Locating Affixes on the Lexicon-Grammar Continuum. Cognitive Linguistic Studies. 2/1, 150–180. Booij, Geert / Lieber, Rochelle 2004. On the Paradigmatic Nature of Affixal Semantics in English and Dutch. Linguistics. 42/2, 327–357.

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation

61

Booij, Geert / Masini, Francesca 2015. The Role of Second Order Schemas in the Construction of Complex Words. In Bauer, Laurie / Kőrtvélyessy, Lívia / Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) Semantics of Complex Words. Dordrecht: Springer, 47–66. Corbett, Greville G. 2010. Canonical Derivational Morphology. Word Structure. 3/2, 141–155. Croft, William 21990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, Alan D. 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dressler, Wolfgang U. / Ladányi, Mária 2002. On Contrastive WordFormation Semantics. Degrees of Transparency/Opacity of German and Hungarian Denominal Adjective Formation. In Bendjaballah, Sabrina / Dressler, Wolfgang U. / Pfeiffer, Oskar E. / Voeikova, Maria D. (eds.) Morphology 2000: Selected Papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 24–28 February 2000. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 105–115. Ellis, Nick C. 2011. The Emergence of Language as a Complex Adaptive System. In Simpson, James (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. London: Routledge, 654–667. Evans, Nicholas 2010. Semantic Typology. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 504–533. Evans, Vyvyan 2009. How Words Mean. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fábregas, Antonio / Masini, Francesca 2015. Prominence in Morphology: The Notion of Head. Lingue e Linguaggio. 14/1, 79–96. Fillmore, Charles 2006. Frame Semantics. In Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.) Cognitive Linguistics. Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton, 373–400. Frank, Roslyn M. 2015. A Complex Adaptive Systems Approach to Language, Cultural Schemas and Serial Metonymy: Charting the Cognitive Innovations of ‘fingers’ and ‘claws’ in Basque. In Díaz-Vera, Javier E. (ed.) Metaphor and Metonymy across Time and Cultures. Perspectives on the Sociohistorical Linguistics of Figurative Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 65–95. Gagné, Christina / Spalding, Thomas 2014. Relation Diversity and Ease of Processing for Opaque and Transparent English Compounds. In Rainer, Franz / Gardani, Francesco / Luschützky, Hans Christian /

62 

Alexandra Bagasheva

Dressler, Wolfgang U. (eds.) Morphology and Meaning. Selected Papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 153–162. Gärdenfors, Peter 1999. Some Tenets of Cognitive Semantics. In Allwood, Jens / Gärdenfors, Peter (eds.) Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 19–36. Geeraerts, Dirk 2010. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haspelmath, Martin 2010. Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories in Cross-Linguistic Studies. Language. 86/3, 663–687. Hockett, Charles F. 21966. The Problem of Universals in Language. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.) Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1–29. Hoeksema, Jack 2000. Compositionality of Meaning. In Booij, Geert / Lehmann, Christian / Mugdan, Joachim (eds.) An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Vol. I. Morphologie: Ein Internationales Handbuch Zur Flexion und Wortbildung, Band 1. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 851–857. Jackendoff, Ray S.  2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Janssen, Theo M. V. 2012. Compositionality: Its Historic Context. In Werning, Markus / Hinzen, Wolfram / Machery, Edouard (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 19–46. Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2010. Default semantics. In Heine, Berndt / Narrog, Heiko (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 193–221. Katamba, Francis 1993. Morphology. London: The Macmillan Press. Kjellmer, Göran 2000. Potential Words. Word. 51/2, 205–228. Koch, Peter 1999. Frame and Contiguity: On the Cognitive Bases of Metonymy and Certain Types of Word Formation. In Panther, Klaus-Uwe / Radden, Günter (eds.) Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 139–168. Köhler, Reinhard 2011. Laws of Language. In Hogan, Patrick C. (ed.) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 424–426.

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation

63

Lander, Yury / Arkadiev, Peter 2016. On the Right of Being a Comparative Concept. Linguistic Typology. 20/2, 403–416. Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lehmann, Volkmar 2015. Categories of Word-Formation. In Müller, Peter O. / Ohnheiser, Ingeborg / Olsen, Susan / Rainer, Franz (eds.) Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Vol. 2. iBooks. Berlin: de Gruyter, 848–908. Lehrer, Adrienne 1992. A Theory of Vocabulary Structure: Retrospectives and Prospectives. In Pütz, Martin (ed.) Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution. Studies in Honour of René Dirven on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 243–256. Lehrer, Adrienne 1995. Prefixes in English Word Formation. Folia Linguistica. 29/1–2, 133–148. Lieber, Rochelle 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieber, Rochelle 2009. Introducing Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieber, Rochelle 2014. Theoretical Approaches to Derivation. In Lieber, Rochelle / Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 50–67. Ludlow, Peter 2014. Living Words: Meaning Underdetermination and the Dynamic Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McWhorter, John 2003. The Power of Babel. A Natural History of Language. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Melloni, Chiara / Bisetto, Antonietta 2010. Parasynthetic Compounds: Data and Theory. In Scalise, Sergio / Vogel, Irene (eds.) CrossDisciplinary Issues in Compounding (pp.). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 199–217. Murphy, Gregory 2002. The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Murphy, M. Lynne 2010. Lexical Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ortner, Hanspeter / Ortner, Lorelies 2015. Schemata and Semantic Roles in Word-Formation. In Müller, Peter O. / Ohnheiser, Ingeborg / Olsen, Susan / Rainer, Franz (eds.) Word-Formation. An International

64 

Alexandra Bagasheva

Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Vol. 2. iBooks. Berlin: de Gruyter, 908–985. Paradis, Carita 2013. Lexical Semantics. In Chapelle, Carol A. (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Plag, I. 2003. Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3357–3356 Pounder, Amanda 2000. Processes and Paradigms in Word-Formation Morphology. Berlin: de Gruyter. Rainer, Franz 2012. Morphological Metaphysics: Virtual, Potential, and Actual Words. Word Structure. 5/2, 165–182. Rainer, Franz 2014. Polysemy in Derivation. In Lieber, Rochelle / Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 338–353. Rainer, Franz, / Dressler, Wolfgang U. / Gardani, Francesco / Luschützky, Hans Christian 2014. In Rainer, Franz / Gardani, Francesco / Luschützky, Hans Christian / Dressler, Wolfgang U. (eds.) Morphology and Meaning. Selected Papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3–46. Rainer, Franz / Gardani, Francesco / Luschützky, Hans Christian / Dressler, Wolfgang U. (eds.) 2014. Morphology and Meaning. Selected Papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Rijkhoff, Jan 2009. On the (Un)suitability of Semantic Categories. Linguistic Typology. 13, 95–104. Saussure, Ferdinand de 1968. Cours de Linguistique Générale (critical edition by Rudolf Engler, Vol. I). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schmid, Hans-Jörg 2015. The Scope of Word-Formation Research. In Müller, Peter O. / Ohnheiser, Ingeborg / Olsen, Susan / Rainer, Franz (eds.) Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Vol. 1. iBooks. Berlin: de Gruyter, 54–98. Sickinger, Pawel 2012. Mental Models and Linguistic Cues: Investigating the Interface between Language and Mental Representation across Cultures. In 35th International LAUD Symposium. Cognitive Psycholinguistics: Bilingualism, Cognition and Communication. Essen: Linguistic Agency University of Duisburg, 125–147.

Comparative semantic concepts in affixation

65

Spencer, Andrew 2015. Derivation. In Müller, Peter O. / Ohnheiser, Ingeborg / Olsen, Susan / Rainer, Franz (eds.) Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Vol. 1. iBooks. Berlin: de Gruyter, 677–718. Štekauer, Pavol 1998. An Onomasiological Theory of English WordFormation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Štekauer, Pavol 2001. Fundamental Principles of an Onomasiological Theory of English WF. Onomasiology Online. 2, 1–42. www. onomasiology.de. Štekauer, Pavol 2005. Onomasiological Approach to Word-Formation. In Štekauer, Pavol / Lieber, Rochelle (eds.) Handbook of WordFormation. Dordrecht: Springer, 207–232. Štekauer, P. 2006. Onomasiological Theory of Word-Formation. In Brown, Keith (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 9. Oxford: Elsevier, 34–37. Štekauer, Pavol 2014. Derivational Paradigms. In Lieber, Rochelle / Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 354–369. Štekauer, Pavol 2015. The Delimitation of Derivation and Inflection. In Müller, Peter O. / Ohnheiser, Ingeborg / Olsen, Susan / Rainer, Franz (eds.) Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Vol. 1. iBooks. Berlin: de Gruyter, 508–542. Szymanek, Bogdan 1988. Categories and Categorization in Morphology. Lublin: Catholic University Press.

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

Methodological and procedural issues in the quantification of morphological competition1

1. Introduction Although the first explicit reference to productivity dates back to the 19th century (Dietz 1838), the notion has underlain treaties of morphology since at least Sanskrit grammars (see Bauer 2001: 11–12). Productivity is broadly understood as the readiness with which a word-formation process can be activated for the creation of neologisms (see Plag 1999: 5–35; Bauer 2001: 11–32; Gaeta & Ricca 2015 for comprehensive surveys). Competition, for its part, is a “theory-neutral notion” (Štekauer this volume) and “[…] happens when two or more morphological processes can express the same syntactic-semantic function” (Kastovsky 1986: 597; see also Bauer, Lieber & Plag 2013: 33; Aronoff & Lindsay 2014: 80). The complex relationship competition-productivity occupies a central position in modern word-formation, and has been recurrently referred to since Marchand (1969), for example in Fabb (1988), Lindsay (2012), Scherer (2015) and Aronoff (2016). Marchand’s discussion does not consider affix polysemy or blocking, and it was with Aronoff’s (1976) generative orientation that morphological rivalry became a topic of study per se. Descriptions like van Marle (1988), Plag (1999) and Bauer (2009) have laid the foundations for research on competition and productivity, but few attempts have been made at quantifying the relationship between both notions besides case studies like Bauer (2001: 177–199). Mainstream references have approached competition, for example, by contrasting the behaviour, distribution and prevalence of groups of rival affixes, i.e. mainly based on the formal features 1

Author’s email address: [email protected]; affiliation: University of Granada (Spain).

68 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

of word-formation (see, among others, Plag 2000; Kjellmer 2001; Kaunisto 2009; Lindsay 2012; Arndt-Lappe 2014), although meaning (Riddle 1985; Baeskow 2012) and pragmatics (Guz 2009) have been occasionally considered too. Overall, it may then be argued, an incomplete picture of word-formation has been projected by leaving the cognitive-semantic features of competing processes out of the picture. A different course of action is the use of an onomasiological approach, where the point of departure is not the form but the meaning of lexemes (Štekauer 2005; 2016; Štekauer et al. 2005). This paper takes into consideration the two approaches (especially the latter because it is less widespread), and addresses the following questions with regard to the connection between competition and productivity: • • •

Does corpus selection have an impact on the range of word-formation processes and semantic roles involved in competition, and hence on the outcome of the investigation? How do cognitive-semantic categories behave with regard to morphological competition? What information on competition can be obtained from the formulas of productivity available in the literature?

For these issues this paper relies on evidence retrieved from the British National Corpus (BNC; Davies 2004–), the Corpus of American Contemporary English (COCA; Davies 2008–) and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED; Proffitt 2016). Of these, the corpora were used for retrieval of frequency data and contexts of occurrence. The OED was used for attestation dates and interpretation of which readings prevail and which become obsolete when in competition. Otherwise, the paper relies on frequency-based formulas for a sample of cases of competing affixes, previously grouped based on the semantic classification in Bagasheva (this volume). This chapter is structured as follows: this introduction is followed by a discussion of the methodological decisions of the study (section 2). Section 3 examines and contrasts the main perspectives on productivity and competition. Section 4 then looks at alternatives for the quantification of morphological competition, and the conclusions are offered in section 5.

Methodological and procedural issues

69

2. Data selection It seems appropriate, before engaging in the description of morphological competition proper, to consider the consequences of the procedure adopted for the experiment. These methodological decisions include corpus selection (2.1), corpus data collection (2.2) and selection of lexicographic evidence (0). 2.1 BNC vs. COCA The key methodological decisions affecting corpus data collection are presented in section 2.2. However, it seems crucial to consider to what degree the choice of a given corpus may affect the outcome of the investigation. Accordingly, this section contrasts the repercussions which the BNC may bring in for these results as opposed to another reliable source: the COCA corpus. This appraisal is aimed at illustrating the potential of the raw frequencies in these two corpora and is not accompanied by sense differentiation through concordance checking. The comparison is therefore between the possibilities offered by each corpus rather than between attested data at least as far as regards senses expressed by specific affixes, which is why frequency values here are slightly different from those in section 4.2. During the data selection process, competing forms were tracked down both in the BNC and in COCA. For an analysis of present competition, clusters2 were selected in which at least two forms within each cluster are attested in the BNC. It was however noted that some forms are attested in one corpus but not in the other. Use of one or the other corpus would therefore lead to the selection of different clusters depending on the corpus consulted. Thus, the need emerged for a further view on the possible differences between both attestations in order to check if they could lead to dissimilar conclusions regarding competing patterns. For that purpose, nouns and verbs were analyzed 2

The term “cluster” is hereafter used in reference to a group of synonymous derivatives morphologically related by their bases but formed with a different affix (see Fernández-Alcaina this volume).

70 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

separately. Because the selection of the corpus could greatly influence the outcome of the investigation, it seems pertinent to examine differences and similarities between the BNC and COCA in order to evaluate their role in this process. Prior to further discussion, the different natures and scopes of the BNC and COCA should be made clear, as variation between them concerns not only corpus size (100 million vs. 520 million) or language variety (British vs. American English), but also time range (1980s–1993 vs. 1990–2015), genre balance or register distribution. Given the larger size of COCA, higher frequencies are taken for granted throughout categories in comparison to the BNC, but differences are expected at other levels too. Table 1 displays the BNC and COCA frequencies of four clusters of competing derivatives, two nominal (action and instrument) and two verbal (causative and privative), for illustration: Table 1: Cluster sample from BNC and COCA. Semantic category action instrument causative privative

Lexeme transferring transferN transferral wringer wringN smartV smarten unbelieve disbelieve

BNC 1 5,815 8 12 3 96 55 1 137

COCA 7 15,277 20 140 6 55 77 2 461

As anticipated, BNC frequencies are all lower than COCA frequencies. This is true for the nine lexemes displayed, although other particularities can be detected. For example, units that stand out in a cluster in one corpus normally do so also in the other one, as with transferN (5,815 in the BNC vs. 15,277 in COCA), wringer (12 in the BNC vs. 140 in COCA), and disbelieve (137 in the BNC vs. 461 in COCA). These values are quantitatively different for each corpus but the ranking of lexemes does not vary. Note, however, that the distances between BNC and COCA frequencies are unpredictable and not always proportional, i.e. the frequency of a lexeme cannot be extrapolated to the BNC if its

71

Methodological and procedural issues

COCA frequency is available (or vice versa), because the design and the balance of each corpus are not parallel. This explains why the frequency of transferring is 1 in the BNC and 7 in COCA, while the frequency of unbelieve is 1 in the BNC and 2 in COCA. This is also the reason why lacking the frequency of a derivative for a corpus means discarding it from the study (see below in this section). Other differences that can be noticed in Table 1 are qualitative in nature, as in the cluster causative, where the most frequent lexeme is smartV in the BNC (96) but smarten in COCA (77). This carries deep implications for morphological competition in that such divergence cannot be accounted for merely by differences in corpus size, and raises questions on the actual status of presumed competitors in specific language varieties (see section 4). Further consequences follow from the choice of a given corpus. Table 2 summarizes the data available in the BNC and COCA about nouns and verbs: Table 2: Data summary in the BNC and COCA (nouns and verbs).

Number of competing words Mean N per word Number of clusters – two-word clusters – three-word clusters – four-word clusters Number of diff. meanings Number of diff. wordformation processes

BNC 92 686.11 42 36 4 2 10 22

Nouns COCA 124 2,979.53 55 46 8 2 13 27

BNC 50 1,488.78 25 25 – – 7 17

Verbs COCA 61 6,856.22 30 29 1 – 8 20

Beyond the abovementioned differences in token frequency (N), the first noticeable characteristic is the number of words that stand in competition according to each corpus. In contrast to the examples in Table 1, which features clusters whose lexemes occur in both the BNC and in COCA, there are numerous cases where a unit occurs in only one corpus (usually COCA), and this hampers the development of research: because frequency values are not available in the two corpora, the lack

72 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

of attestation of a unit in one of them implies that its absence may be due to a morphological cause (it has been ousted in competition) or to a methodological one (different designs in each corpus). In particular, the study contains around 30 nouns less in the BNC (92 vs. 124), and 11 verbs less compared with COCA (50 vs. 61). If we concentrate not on individual derivatives but on clusters, the disparities are not negligible. There are 42 nominal clusters based on the BNC and 55 based on COCA, and the 25 verbal clusters in the BNC go up to 30 in COCA. Overall, this means disregarding 18 clusters if the BNC is chosen, i.e. around 21% of the data initially available. In these cases, when a cluster occurs in COCA but not in the BNC, the reason is normally not that the entire set of words is missing. These tend to be two-word clusters where one of the units displays a very low frequency in COCA. When tracking down the derivatives in the BNC, the unit with the higher frequency in COCA is often present in the BNC too, but the one with a lower frequency is not. This means that the entire cluster cannot be researched as regards frequency, since only data of one unit remains available, e.g. as in the pair facility ‒ facileness, where the current frequency trends clearly favor facility based on COCA: BNC COCA (1) facility state 9,469 38,897 facileness state 0 1

Facility has a frequency of 9,469 in the BNC, but facileness is not recorded in the BNC. This means that we lack frequency evidence for a comparison between both units. Similar cases are those of editress (1) ‒ editrix (5) and leaser (3) ‒ lesee (1), where the latter lexemes are missing in the BNC. Less frequently, a three-word cluster loses two members in this frequency attestation process, as in triviality ‒ trivialN ‒ trivialism, where all three units appear in COCA but only the first occurs in the BNC: BNC COCA (2) triviality abstraction 51 173 trivial abstraction 0 4 trivialism abstraction 0 1

Methodological and procedural issues

73

Finally, a three-word cluster (disarming ‒ disarmament ‒ disarmN) may become a two-word cluster (disarming ‒ disarmament), if one unit disappears but the other two are attested. No four-word cluster is affected by the non-occurrence of units in the BNC. Unsurprisingly, the lexemes that do not appear in the BNC tend to have low frequencies in COCA, e.g. advancing (1), blacksmithery (1), conspicuity (1), disarmN (3), preventiveN (1), productor (6), or registery (1) (see 2.2 and 2.3 for details on the retrieval of derivatives). Exceptions to this are refreshN (187) and registrar (538). Corpus choice has an impact on the range of meanings that enter the study as well. Among nouns, 10 different meanings are found in the BNC-based sample (see 2.2), while 13 appear in COCA. Most of these categories appear for both samples, e.g. abstraction (likeness, triviality), action (registration, threshing), instrument (aliment, sprinkler) or state (connectivity, minimalism), but other meanings are available only in COCA, e.g. location (registerN, registry), feminine (editress and editrix) and occupation (registrar and registry). With regard to verbs, seven different meanings are found in the BNC, and eight in COCA. These include action (actionV, labourV), augmentative (overcharge, surcharge), causative (prettify, publicize) or privative (disbelieve, mislike). The one semantic category that is recorded in COCA but not in the BNC is one of resolved competition with the meaning location (overplant, transplant).3 If the semantic scope of the sample is affected by the selection of the corpus, the same is expected to happen for the range of word-formation processes. In this case, 22 word-formation processes are found among nouns if the BNC is taken as the data source, while the figure goes up to 27 for COCA. This drop concerns affixes like -trix (editrix), -ess (editress), -ive (preventive) and -ar (registrar). In verbs, the number of processes drops from 20 to 17 and entails the loss of the prefixes trans- (transplant), mis- (mislike) and a- (alarge). While this synopsis may give a pessimistic view, it must be acknowledged that the picture is not so gloomy if observed in detail. 3

The reason for the analysis of overplant as locative (and not e.g. as augmentative) is found in one of its senses, which the OED lists as a synonym of transplant. This locative sense, obsolete today, coexisted with transplant up to the 15th century.

74 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

Careful examination of nominal forms shows that there is only one instance of a competing noun from our sample attested only in the BNC: ribboning. Still, it does not represent the competing meaning (collectivity), but is actually an adjective in its only occurrence, even if tagged as a noun in the BNC. After close inspection, therefore, ribboning must be discarded as a competitor, which only offers further evidence of the consequences that ensue from wrong tagging. In COCA, on the contrary, 19 nouns occur that are not attested in the BNC. Of those, three are recorded as obsolete in the OED: relevation, extremite and aggressiveN. The first, relevation, does not represent the competing meaning ‘act of easing from sorrow’, but is a typo of revelation. The instances of extremite, on the other hand, are in French, and the instances of aggressive tagged as nominal forms correspond to adjectives, not to nouns. Regarding frequency, two nouns have a frequency over five: refreshN (187) and registrar (538). The instances of refreshN do not correspond to the competing meaning ‘act of refreshing’ but rather make reference to the ‘act of resetting a computer’. Some instances of refresh are actually verbs instead of nouns. Finally, the concordances for registrar do correspond to the competing meaning occupation. If we turn to verbs, it will be noticed that ten of them compete with other forms that are attested in the BNC but not in COCA. Of those, one is recorded in the OED as obsolete (weakV) and misreport is recorded as obsolete in its competing sense (sense 3: ‘speak ill’). However, closer inspection of both [weak].[v*] and [misreport].[v*] shows that, for the former, the only form attested in the corpus corresponds to an adjective and, for the latter, none represents the meaning ‘speak ill’. They should hence be considered as obsolete despite their occurrence in the corpus. As for the other forms attested only in the BNC, it should be highlighted that they all have a frequency of 1 or 2, which could mean that they are neologisms or nonce formations. Still, some of them do represent the competing meaning as described in the OED (e.g. unchurch meaning ‘to deprive of the membership of the church’). Regarding the forms attested only in COCA, seven (out of 22) are recorded in the OED as obsolete: beclose, alarge, disbar, dupleV, mislike, publicate and disreport. All these suggest identification of a list of competing clusters, but we do not know how they were identified or

Methodological and procedural issues

75

where they can be found (see 2.2 and 2.3 for details). Of these derivatives, three should not count as attested forms: beclose and alarge, are typos in the corpus,4 while the concordances for dupleV do not correspond to the competing meaning (‘make double’) because the unit appears as a premodifier of other nouns meaning ‘double, twofold’. The other four derivatives (mislike, disbar, publicate and disreport) do show the competing meaning in the concordances, some of them even with a large number of instances in the corpus (e.g. disbar with 137 occurrences). The remaining forms have frequencies below five (e.g. objectivize, enrobe, passivate and bedew) with the exception of overachieve (17) and wigV (11), only the first of which shows the competing meaning. A reasonable conclusion is that different corpora lead to different results on competing clusters, although the main patterns are still found regardless of the data source. The differences between the results from the BNC and COCA are qualitative and quantitative, and occur at various levels (number of clusters, semantic range, or range of word-formation processes), even if some of these are minimized upon scrutiny of concordances and use of the OED. These differences can be caused by the varieties of English in each corpus (British and American) but also by the sources and design used for their compilation. The evidence from concordances points to the latter as most likely, since no form attested in only one of the corpora is recorded in the OED as pertaining to any specific variety. In fact, most forms attested in only one of the corpora are typos or hapaxes. In contextualising the importance of a proper treatment of corpus data, and despite the sharp contrasts of the above assessment, the use of BNC vs. COCA was the only changing variable in this data preparation process. The question then is not whether different results can be expected from each corpus, but the importance of these discrepancies, and this, in the case under study, is a more inclusive impression of competition from COCA-derived data if compared to that from the BCN.

4

Note the misspellings in the concordances (emphases added): “[o]ne of the values specified should beclose to the mean” and “[r]esearchers think that alarge proportion of all colorectal cancer cases…”.

76 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

2.2 Corpus evidence The BNC was selected as the data source for its fine-grained sample classification (and, thus, for its potential to explore distribution across sample types), and for its manageability. The corpus was sampled based on its entire frequency list, which contains c. 615,000 types and over 100,000 lemmas. The list is ordered by frequency and alphabetically where lemmas have the same frequency. Systematic random sampling was designed so the resulting sample complies with certain conditions that are usually problematic in stratified sampling, e.g. the difference between frequency strata is not as big as if the strata were selected by the number of units in each frequency range, the sample obtained for a given frequency range does not contain lemmas beginning with the same initial letter, the sample avoids restrictions due to alphabetical order within the same frequency range that reduce the possibility of finding the highest and most varied number of bases, or the sample is free of as many irrelevant cases as possible.5 These conditions were formalized as a software program by the name of Scáthach (Lara-Clares 2016), developed to allow unbiased and automatic extraction of bases according to affixes (separated as prefixes and suffixes). This software can extract types of sequences based on their form (but not types of bases), and thus derivatives with affixes are retrieved by word-class. The software can search the entire BNC frequency list for whichever set(s) of affixes (prefix% or %suffix, e.g. bi%, %al) and for a specific word-class. The affixes used as input are the result of the combination of the affixes listed in Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik (1985: 1540–1552, 1557) and in Stockwell & Minkova (2001: 194–204). Although some of the elements listed therein can be argued not to be affixes (e.g. electr- or nub-), this inclusive approach allows the extraction of as many derivatives that may be in competition as possible. Any (probably) unwanted elements, like the two cited above, were discarded after an analysis of every lemma in the sample, whenever needed for selection of clear affixes alone. Also, as the software used does not

5

This is irrelevant for the number of prepositions, conjunctions, numbers or abbreviations, because only two types of lexical items are to be analyzed.

Methodological and procedural issues

77

separate affixes from random letter sequences that are formally identical with affixes (especially in items with higher frequencies), the list was searched manually for identification of lemma beginnings or endings that are homonymous with affixes but are not affixes. Prior to use of this software, the frequency list was broken up into separate lists for each word-class. Each list was then sampled by the software program. As the sample was intended to extract bases for analysis on morphological competition, frequent repetitions were expected: the same base would appear more than once in the sample, i.e. as the base form and also as a part of each one of its derivatives (e.g. the base large would appear in enlarge and alarge). For this reason, extraction was designed to target affixed words (identified as lemmas containing given sequences of initial or final letters, see below). In this respect, zero-affixation, which cannot be extracted automatically according to the above conditions, is assumed to exist by default, and then attested as such (or discarded) according to the results obtained from completion of the list of potential competitors recorded in the online edition of the OED, as described below. As the focus is on affixation, and further identification of potential competitors is achieved by use of the OED at a later stage, lemmas containing hyphens were not extracted. Solid compounds (e.g. aircondition) were deleted manually from the sample, as well as other types of processes involving shortening (e.g. sub from substitute). Allomorphic variants were searched for in both forms and their occurrences were summed up, e.g. modularize vs. modularise. For the resulting sample, the spelling recorded in the frequency list was kept. Similarly, for lemmas tagged differently in the BNC, e.g. as if two word-forms were two different lexemes, their occurrences are summed up, as in outshone vs. outshine. The sample size was calculated according to the following formula (Fernández Pita 2001):6 N= (N*Za2p*q)/d2*+Za2*p*q,

6

Although this formula was created for calculating the sample size for a population study, it can also be used on a linguistic corpus study, whose representativeness is based on the same variables.

78 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

where N is the number of lemmas, Zα is the confidence level (here 95%), p is the distribution of the sample (set at 50%, if it is unknown), q equals 1-p and d is the margin of error (here 5%). Three samples were extracted both for nouns and verbs. Each sample starts at a different point of the original list in order to avoid repeated data. Table 3 shows the size of each sample and the total number of lemmas extracted: Table 3: Samples sizes and total of lemmas extracted for each word-class. Word-class

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Total

Nouns

384

382

381

1,147

Verbs

377

370

370

1,117

2.3 Lexicographic evidence Clusters of past and present competitors were identified based on the information contained in the OED starting from the sample outlined in Table 3 as follows. The sample of complex words by affixation was separated into word-classes, and the list of each word-class was then expanded into clusters of competitors by searching the OED for the base of each of the items in the sample plus any other affix different from the one attested in the lemma listed in the BNC sample. Thus, for example, the entry dullV recorded in the sample prompted retrieval of all other derivatives by affixation recorded in the OED: dullify, dullen, etc. Opaque derivatives and derivatives imported into English as such (i.e. not formed in English according to the etymological information contained in the OED) count as derivatives, again for later deletion or not according to morphological analysis. The resulting set of forms was checked for attestation of the occurrence of the same meaning in the OED, such that only forms for which the dictionary would attest the same meaning are retained as members of a cluster of alternative derivatives for the expression of the same meaning, i.e. once clusters are grouped according to their semantic category, clusters in which two or three affixes may compete are identified.

Methodological and procedural issues

79

Identification of the occurrence of the same meaning for two forms relied primarily on the hypernymic definition of the word in the OED, but also on other means whenever definitions were not explicit on the point to be attested. Each derivative within a cluster was also classified semantically according to Bagasheva (this volume) for easier comparison according to a unified typology of meanings. Subsenses within the OED were not taken into account, unless a subsense competes with (at least) one sense of a competing word, as in subsense 1b of potentiate, in competition with potentialize and potentize meaning ‘make stronger’ (this subsense marked for register in the OED, specifically in Pharmacology and Biology). Homonymy was dealt with following the OED’s description. Cluster members were therefore ascribed to one or the other homonym according to their meaning. Finally, the OED was also used for identification of the timeline of each cluster member by considering the earliest record of the derivative and the latest record in those cases in which the word under study is listed as no longer in regular use (i.e. is recorded as “obsolete” or “rare”). Whenever it is one sense of a word that is in competition, the earliest date of attestation is taken from that sense, and not from the earliest date of attestation of the word, e.g. wringer’s earliest date of attestation is a1300, but the date of its sixth sense (i.e. the one that is in competition) is 1799.

3. The relationship between competition and productivity This section reviews the existing theoretical positions on morphological competition. It first considers productivity with regard to competition (3.1) and then turns to an onomasiological view (3.2). 3.1 Competition in the light of productivity From the review of competition presented in section 1, it comes as no surprise that competition and productivity cross their paths, as productivity by nature compares two or more derivational rules.

80 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

Dissimilar statements are found in the literature on whether a process becomes more productive because it has formerly prevailed in competition, or it prevails in competition because it has formerly become more productive. Thus, proposals like Scherer’s (2015) illustrate competition understood as a language-internal factor causing change in productivity, while the reverse is defended in van Marle (1988). For van Marle, morphological rivalry goes through various phases, from a pre-competitive state of affairs to the ousting of one process by another: a. phase I: morphological process A is productive; b. phase II: morphological process A becomes unproductive; c. phase III: a new morphological process B arises, which can be considered the successor of A; d. phase IV: morphological process B becomes productive; e. phase V: morphological process B ousts its predecessor A more or less completely.

Fig. 1: The ousting of morphological processes (from van Marle 1988: 47).

Figure 1 outlines five clear stages with two morphological processes contending for derivation. Van Marle locates a particularly complex spot between phases II and III, where competition between process A and process B actually begins and the relationship between productivity and competition is at its closest. The rest of phases seemingly develop in a more straightforward manner. Unfortunately, this hypothetical situation is usually not as clear as Figure 1 may imply. One difficulty arises, for instance, when historical evidence does not allow telling exactly when a given phase has been completed and the next starts. It then becomes difficult to empirically pinpoint transitions between phases, as happens with -ment, whose current productive status ambiguously stands between phases I and II, and makes the analysis of English nominalizations challenging (Plag 2003: 52; Lieber 2005: 408; Aronoff & Lindsay 2014: 77; Palmer 2015: 126; Díaz-Negrillo this volume). A second issue is that not all phases I-V may occur. Besides the expectation for one form to outlast another, Bauer (2009: 188–189) reports cases where both competing lexemes disappear (conducence vs. conducency), both lexemes survive with (partially) different meanings (commitment vs. committal), or even both lexemes survive with apparently the same meaning (bequeathal vs. bequeathment). Such diversity

Methodological and procedural issues

81

of routes seems to indicate that van Marle’s (1988) phases are permeable and that they often overlap, which increases the number of possibilities in competition. Be that as it may, the above evidences that the study of competition involves making assumptions on productivity, for example, as regards (un)intentionality of coinage or concerning qualitative and quantitative views of productivity. Such discussion falls out of the scope of this chapter, although variables like earliest attestation dates or the definition of new word must often be dealt with due to methodological necessities rather than to purely theoretical interests (see Cowie & Dalton-Puffer 2002: 419–421 and section 2.3). There is, however, one point where scholars have concurred, namely the so-called domains of productivity, defined as the set of lexical bases which a word-formation process may potentially apply to. The boundaries of a domain may be fixed by phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic requisites which together set the number and nature of the lexical input of a rule (Bauer et al. 2013: 32; Aronoff & Lindsay 2014: 70–71; Gaeta & Ricca 2015: 848–849; Scherer 2015: 1782). One case in point is adjective-deriving -ly, which cannot be used on roots but attaches to native bases (e.g.  lordly), non-native bases (e.g. princely) and words ending in -er (e.g. southerly) (see Lieber 2005: 384–388). Although the explicit postulation of domains is relatively recent, the notion in itself is not: the Unitary Base Hypothesis, for instance, lays down the syntactosemantic conditions of lexical bases,7 and a number of other productivity constraints have been described for morphological processes (Plag 1999: 37–61; 2000). As I see it, these specific restrictions amount to negatively defining the domains of productivity: the statement that, for instance, nominalizing -al is phonologically constrained is equivalent to defining the phonological domain of -al as “verbs with final stress”, since both measures limit the potential lexical input of that word-formation rule. 7

The Unitary Base Hypothesis (Aronoff 1976) stipulates that word-formation rules do not operate on just any lexical base, but that there are categorial and meaning conditions for word-formation to activate, for example, the fact that -ity cannot be used on adjectives ending in Germanic affixes (excitingness vs. *excitingity; Arndt-Lappe 2014). If two processes exist which feed from different kinds of bases, they should be analyzed “as separate rules whose operations happened to be homophonous” (Aronoff 1976: 48).

82 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

Domains have been recently revised into a biology-based conception which prefers the term niche and where linguistic competition is paralleled with organized systems in natural environments (Lindsay & Aronoff 2013; Aronoff 2016). This Darwinian conception of competition claims that, like species, morphological processes struggle for survival, and that, in so doing, the loser may become extinct or else incorporate adaptive changes. The relevance of niches lies in the opportunity which they offer for rival affixes to coexist, and explains the availability for new formations of sets like -ity to the detriment of ‑ness, or anti- and dis- to the detriment of un-. When rival word-formation rules are not found in the others’ morphological environment, we speak of complementary distribution (Plag 1999: 197, 223–224; Bauer 2001: 73; Arndt-Lappe 2014). For example, in the pair -ify and -ize, the former attaches “[…] to monosyllabic words, to words stressed on the final syllable, and to words stressed on the penult followed by a final syllable ending in unstressed /ɪ/” (Plag 2003: 93), while the scope of the latter is the opposite (i.e. bases ending in an unstressed syllable). Because each affix operates on a highly restricted domain, their scopes do not overlap and each can target different bases. Strictly speaking, those may not be considered authentic rival processes in that there is no direct competition for coinage, at least synchronically. The truly interesting (and correspondingly complex) cases, it seems, are those where there is imperfect complementary distribution (Štekauer this volume), i.e. where the scope of rules is not settled and they compete in the same domain, as in -ity vs. -ness (Baeskow 2012; Arndt-Lappe 2014), -dom vs. ‑hood vs. -ship (Trips 2009; Baeskow 2010; Díaz-Negrillo this volume), or -ic vs. -ical (Kaunisto 2007; Aronoff & Lindsay 2014: 80–83). The existence of domains certainly carries implications for word-formation. Adhering to the notion of domains means, for example, facing the idea of potentiality, which has proven highly influential since the mid-1970s. Aronoff (1980: 74) makes it plain: “Our central concern is the possible but non-occurring word.” The matter is controversial not just because of the difficulties in defining potential words, but also because of how to actually quantify them (Plag 1999: 6–11; Bauer 2001: 41–43, 143). The epitome of this issue is probably Aronoff’s (1976) pioneering measure of productivity: I = V / S, where

Methodological and procedural issues

83

I is the index of productivity of an affix, V is the types coined by it and S is the number of forms that the affix may potentially create. Justified by an alleged overgenerating capacity of word-formation, S represents an unspecified figure which points towards competition in that any two synonymous affixes will struggle to derive a number of derivatives (V) that is as close as possible to S. Aronoff’s (1976) reasoning is that the productivity of affixes should not be computed in absolute terms, but by putting the domains of application of each rule side by side. The reason is that the more lexical bases are available for a given process (i.e. the greater its potential), the more profitable that process may be. 3.2 An onomasiological approach to word-formation As has been repeatedly pointed out, and probably due to the strong influence of structuralism and generativism in 20th century linguistics, form-oriented approaches to word-formation are more widespread than meaning-oriented ones. The onomasiological approach to word-formation follows in the precepts of the Prague School of Linguistics and researchers from Eastern Europe, especially Dokulil (1962) and Horecký (1983). The spirit of this tradition is represented today by Štekauer, who has shifted the focus of word-formation analysis away from its formal aspects onto the naming needs of language users (see Štekauer 1998; 2005; 2016; this volume; Štekauer et al. 2005). This model holds a different view to conventional options regarding competition in that the separation into morphological processes is not crucial for proper understanding of word-formation. Because in this view the ultimate goal of derivational morphology is to label a reality, logicalsemantic categories take a central position in the analysis. It is still true that, for instance, derivation through -ity is confronted by derivation through -ness, but Štekauer’s proposal goes beyond structural features like stress, number of syllables or the semantics of the base. Besides systemic factors like these, this approach integrates idiosyncratic elements like the speakers’ personal experience, cultural knowledge, intellectual capacity, education, age, etc., all of which play a role in coining. These variables fluctuate across individuals, which is why speakers create different lexemes for the same concept in different naming acts. This makes

84 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

clear why the notion of competition, though acceptable, is but one of the many pieces in the onomasiological mechanism of word-formation. Because this model focuses on meaning rather than on form, any enquiry into complex lexemes begins with the identification of the extralinguistic reality/concept to be named rather than of a given word-formation rule, and then progresses towards the generation of a unit. This is best illustrated with one of the experimental tasks in Štekauer et al. (2005): a number of informants are asked to provide a naming unit for a person who is supposed to meet aliens as a representative of the human race: (3) (a) human race representative (b) space alien meeter (c) extra-terrestrial greeter (d) outerspace wellcomist (e) earth ambassador (f) contactee (g) greeter

A number of morphological processes may come into play for coinage but, crucially, the cornerstone of this proposal is that language users have the faculty to name pertinent concepts. It is not vital whether the particular lexeme is produced through root compounding (a, e), synthetic compounding (b, c, d) or suffixation (f, g); the aim of word-formation is to name, regardless of which formal resource is activated. The units in (3) also illustrate the relative significance of the distinction between actual and possible or potential word. Because word-formation is activated for each naming need, potential words become virtually irrelevant in that they lack a causal link with the community’s requirements, and the central notion is that of the existing word. As a result, morphological competition is dealt with differently in the onomasiological model. Instead of directly contrasting morphological processes as such, Štekauer’s working concept is the word-formation type cluster (WFTC), which brings together all the lexemes coined for a given semantic role, e.g. agent, location, manner, instrument, etc. A WFTC can be realized by eight possible onomasiological types (OT), each set up based on three constituents which occupy the invariable slots in (4). Eight possible combinations exist regarding the (non-)

Methodological and procedural issues

85

occurrence of these three constituents, and each of these patterns shapes one of the eight OTs: (4)

[determining const. of the mark] [determined const. of the mark] [onomasiological base]

The determining constituent of the mark and the determined constituent of the mark offer the modifying features of the naming unit, while the onomasiological base specifies its category. For example, in taxi driver the onomasiological base is agent (as specified by -er as the base), and taxi and drive modify it as the action and the object, respectively. The above three constituents therefore shape the resulting lexeme as a compound, an affixed unit, a converted unit, etc., although no one-to-one correspondence exists between the five OTs and traditional morphological processes (see Štekauer 1998, 2016 and Štekauer et al. 2005: 10–12 for further details). We may now review the eight OTs in order to observe how different internal configurations give rise to different surface structures. OT1 is the most cognitively helpful because the base and the two constituents of the mark are present in it, and this results in a structure that favours meaning interpretation: (5) object action process truck drive -ing

OTs 2 and 3 are similar in that they have a binary structure, i.e two out of three constituents occur in them. In OT2 the determining constituent of the mark is absent (6), while the determined constituent of the mark is absent in OT3 (7). Despite their similar twofold makeups, OT3 is potentially more ambiguous in interpretation because the missing constituent is always the action: (6) … action agent Ø paint -er (7) result action cartoon Ø

agent -ist

86 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

These three OTs were complemented with two further kinds until Štekauer (2016), where a revision of the model extends the list and modifies some of the existing OTs. Since then, two kinds correspond to the traditional process of conversion (OT4 and OT8), but they are different because OT4 has a ternary structure, while OT8 has a binary one. An example of OT4 is cheatN ‘a person who cheats (someone)’, where cheat simultaneously embodies the action and the agent (8). An example of OT8 is bridgeV, where the action is specified (9) but the object is not. As a consequence of this twofold division, actionto-substance (nominal) conversion corresponds to OT4, while substance-to-action (verbal) conversion corresponds to OT8. Variants like quality-to-substance or quality-to-action are at present being explored (Štekauer pers. comm.), under the assumption that the former fits as a subtype of OT4 and the latter as a subtype of OT8. (8) OBJECT ACTION AGENT Ø cheat (9) object Ø

action bridge

OT5 is a variant of OT4 that incorporates a morpheme for the determining constituent of the structure. This makes the meaning of the whole more predictable: (10)

OBJECT ACTION AGENT

tourist

cheat

OT6 is also similar to OT4 in that it comprises one morpheme, so its ternary structure is not fully exploited. Their difference is that OT6 does not contain the base or the determined mark, while in OT4 both are expressed by the same morpheme. The consequence is that meaning predictability is rather low for OT6 as well, as in redskin (11). Finally, OT7 is internally unanalysable because the determining and the determined constituents of the mark cannot be distinguished (12). (11) quality state patient red skin Ø Ø

Methodological and procedural issues

87

(12) quality state dark-hair -ed

Each OT 1 to 8 has defining features as regards the coining process or degrees of informativeness, with OTs 1 and 8 as the most and least informative, respectively. The most distinctive particularity of this model is that productivity, and hence competition, is assessed within WFTCs, i.e. for lexemes denoting the same reality, not across affixes or formal marks. This section has looked at the most outstanding differences between onomasiological and traditional perspectives in competition. As has been shown, the onomasiological approach to word-formation sets the conceptual level as the starting point, and the remaining components accordingly hinge on it. The result is an eight-category taxonomy which embraces lexemes based on the morphemic representation of cognitive-semantic categories, and where OTs are the onomasiological counterparts of traditional word-formation processes. After this overview, section 4.1 is an application of the onomasiological model to the computation of morphological competition.

4. Methods for the measurement of morphological productivity and competition Section 3 has evidenced similarities and differences between competition and productivity at a theoretical level and, based on these correspondences, the present section looks into alternatives for a quantification of competition. This is done by first resorting to traditional productivity models, both onomasiological (4.1) and semasiological (4.2), and then proposing a formula specifically intended for competition (4.3).

88 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

4.1 An onomasiological approach to productivity measurement This section applies an adaptation of the onomasiological proposal and inspects nominal and verbal affixation and conversion by resorting to Bagasheva (this volume) for a fine-grained semantic classification. In the case of nouns, the 92 derivatives in the sample are distributed across 42 WFTCs that embody 12 different meanings: Table 4: Clusters and derivatives per semantic role in the sample (nouns). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Meaning abstraction action agent agent/entity augmentative entity instrument patient process resultative resultative/entity state TOTAL

WFTCs 1 17 3 1 1 1 5 2 1 2 1 7 42

Items 2 39 7 1 2 2 12 4 2 4 2 15 92

Two semantic categories stand out in terms of lexeme membership: action and state, which together comprise almost half of the competing nouns. Action nouns are mostly derived by three word-formation processes: -ation (e.g. disputation), -ing (e.g. disputing), and conversion (e.g. disputeN), although cases are also found of -age (e.g. demurrage), -al (e.g. demurral), -ary (e.g. exhortary) or -ery (e.g. battery). The two most profitable processes for state nouns are by far -ity (e.g. contrariety) and -ness (e.g. contrariness), with sporadic coinages by -ism (e.g. minimalism) or conversion (e.g. contraryN). For both action and state, the range of processes and their semantic scopes are in agreement with recent descriptions of these denominal affixes (Bauer et al. 2013: 195–215). In contrast to action and state, several semantic categories are realized by just one cluster: abstraction, agent/entity, augmentative, entity, process, and resultative/entity. In terms of

89

Methodological and procedural issues

OTs, the noun sample shows a distribution which clearly favors OT2 and OT3, i.e. those with a binary structure and where OT2 is more explicit because the action is specified: Table 5: Distribution of OTs (nouns). OT

Lexemes (%)

OT1

–

OT2

55 (59.78%)

OT3

15 (16.30%)

OT4

22 (23.91%)

OT5

–

OT6

–

OT7

–

OT8

–

TOTAL

92 (100%)

Some WFTCs are made up entirely by units from OT2, as in refreshment ‒ refresher ‘something that refreshes’ (instrument), while in other cases the makeup corresponds entirely to OT3, as in minimalism ‒ minimality ‘lack of adornment in art’ (state): (13) action instrument refresh -ment refresh -er

OT2 OT2

(14) quality state minimal -ism minimal -ity

OT3 OT3

Although to a lesser extent, OT4 is present in the sample too. For reasons of formal distinctiveness, it is impossible for a WFTC to comprise more than one lexeme from OT4 (the derivatives would be indistinguishable). Instead, OT4 competes with OT2, as in (15) ‘pleasure’ (resultative), and with OT3, as in (16) ‘being opposite’ (state): (15) action lik 1ike

resultative -ing OT2 Ø OT4

90  (16) quality contrarie contrary contrari

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez state -ty OT3 Ø OT4 -ness OT3

It may have been noticed that in no WFTC do we find competition between OTs 2 and 3. This is caused by the data preparation process, where clusters are established based on the word-class of the lexical base, i.e. what affixes compete for. This implies that, when the lexical input is a verb, the resulting derivatives will all include the actional seme, while when the lexical base is, for example, an adjective, they will not. Such procedure explains why the units in (13), both of which originate in refresh (action), fall under OT2; in contrast, because the base of the cluster (14) is minimal (quality), any derivative will belong to OT3. It is also possible to look into the onomasiological structure of WFTCs, for instance by examining the lexemes that, based on their BNC frequencies, are most likely to succeed in competition. Table 6 indicates the OT of the lexeme for which competition is most favorable in each WFTC, together with the meanings and proportions within the sample. The figures in this table reveal a tendency for OT2 to prevail, since this morpho-semantic makeup is displayed by more than half of the prevailing nouns. Globally, the most fruitful combination is that, where OT2 produces an action, which is the case of almost one third of the lexemes, e.g. disarmament, demurring or coloration. A high incidence of the semantic role action is expected in OT2 from the weight of verbs as lexical input (see above in this section). With regard to OT3, it is apparently most effective for the expression of state (7 prevailing lexemes), e.g. minimalism, connectivity or viscosity. Finally, OT4 leads to successful competition especially for action (e.g. aimN, transferN, ventureN), although to an extent lesser than OTs 2 and 3. Overall, Table 6 discloses a modest variety of semantic roles, with action and state bringing together a substantial number of all prevailing nouns.

91

Methodological and procedural issues Table 6: Prevailing meanings per OT (nouns). OT OT1 OT2

Meaning – abstraction action agent agent/entity instrument patient process resultative

OT3 augmentative state OT4

OT5 OT6 OT7 OT8 TOTAL

action agent entity instrument patient resultative/entity – – – –

WFTC – 25 1 13 2 1 6 1 1 1 8 1 7 9 4 1 1 1 1 1 – – – – 42

% – 59.52% 2.38% 30.95% 4.76% 2.38% 14.28% 2.38% 2.38% 2.38% 19.04% 2.38% 16.66% 21.42% 9.52% 2.38% 2.38% 2.38% 2.38% 2.38% – – – – 100

As for logical-semantic structures, success in competition is visibly favored by onomasiologically clearer OTs, as shown by the dominance of OT2 (25 units), in which the explicitation of the action facilitates meaning interpretation. The lower incidence of OT3 goes along the same lines in that only 27 derivatives display that binary structure, where no actional constituent is present and meaning interpretation is more difficult. The third attested type is OT4 (9 units). This type, which corresponds to noun-deriving conversion, is potentially ambiguous due to the formal parallels between lexical base and derivative. This all suggests that explicitness of expression (hearer-friendly) is here more powerful than economy of expression (speaker-friendly).

92 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

Regarding verbs, Table 7 summarizes the data, where 44 lexemes appear under 22 clusters with the following 9 meanings: Table 7: Clusters and derivatives per semantic role in the sample (verbs). Meaning

Clusters

Items

1

action

2

4

2

augmentative

1

2

3

causative

10

20

4

causative/resultative

1

2

5

manner

1

2

6

privative

3

6

7

resultative

2

4

8

reversative

1

2

9

reversative/privative

1

2

TOTAL 22

44

In semantic terms, the most dominant role is causative which, together with the variant causative/resultative, accounts for half the lexemes in the sample (i.e. 22 out of 44). Less prominent categories are augmentative, manner, reversative, and reversative/privative, with one cluster each. Table 8: Distribution of OTs (verbs). OT OT1 OT2 OT3 OT4 OT5 OT6 OT7 OT8 TOTAL

Lexemes (%) – 31 (70.45%) – – – – – 13 (29.54%) 44 (100%)

Methodological and procedural issues

93

On account of the dominance of OT2, a large number of WFTCs (9) were expected to comprise exclusively OT2 derivatives, and this is precisely so. OT is habitually connected to the process of affixation, as is confirmed by the majority of lexemes in the sample: (17) reversative action un- cover OT2 dis- cover OT2 (18) quality potent potent

causative -iate OT2 -ize OT2

In the remaining 13 WFTCs, competition takes place between OT2 and OT8, and in seven of those the successful lexeme is derived by OT8. That means a 53.84% success rate for OT8 when in competition. (19) entity syllable syllab

resultative Ø OT8 -ify OT2

(20) quality causative close Ø OT8 en- close OT2

Table 9 presents the breakdown of prevailing verbs per OT, with totals of clusters and meanings. As with nouns, OT2 is revealed as a proficient naming resource for verbs (63.63% prevailing lexemes). In particular, OT2 is most efficient for the expression of causatives, a combination which yields 31.81% of all the verbs in the study, e.g. inactivate, prettify or smarten. Let us remember that this onomasiological configuration contains the lexical base and the determined constituent of the mark, which means that OT2 will encompass any lexeme with two morphemes whenever one of them is an action. Given the nature of the sample (see 2.2), this affects an important number of derivatives and explains the variety of word-formation rules under OT2, including both prefixation and suffixation: en-, un-, de-, dis‑, ‑ate, ‑en, ‑ify, -ize, etc.

94 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

Table 9: Prevailing meanings per OT (verbs). OT

Meaning

WFTC

%

OT1

–

–

–

augmentative causative manner privative resultative reversative reversative/privative

14 1 7 1 2 1 1 1

63.63% 4.54% 31.81% 4.54% 9.09% 4.54% 4.54% 4.54%

OT3

–

–

–

OT4

–

–

–

OT5

–

–

–

OT6

–

–

–

OT7

–

–

–

action causative causative/resultative privative resultative

7 2 2 1 1 1

31.81% 9.09% 9.09% 4.54% 4.54% 4.54%

Doubts

1

4.54%

TOTAL

22

100

OT2

OT8

As with nouns, OT2 is revealed as a proficient naming resource for verbs (63.63% prevailing lexemes). In particular, OT2 is most efficient for the expression of causatives, a combination which yields 31.81% of all the verbs in the study, e.g. inactivate, prettify or smarten. Let us remember that this onomasiological configuration contains the lexical base and the determined constituent of the mark, which means that OT2 will encompass any lexeme with two morphemes whenever one of them is an action. Given the nature of the sample (see 2.2), this affects an important number of derivatives and explains the variety of word-formation rules under OT2, including both prefixation and suffixation: en-, un-, de-, dis‑, ‑ate, ‑en, ‑ify, ‑ize, etc.

95

Methodological and procedural issues

The second onomasiological structure involved in verbal derivation is OT8 (31.81% of prevailing lexemes), which agrees with Plag’s (2000: 74) assertion that “[…] conversion is certainly not the most productive process in important semantic domains.” The meanings of these conversions are action (2), causative (2), causative/ resultative (1), privative (1) and resultative (1), which mirrors the proportions of the entire verbal sample with regard to meaning expression. If semantic categories are considered for OT2 and OT8 jointly, causative absorbs 10 verbs, i.e. 45.45%, in absolute dominance for the verbs in the sample. With regard to onomasiological structures, OT2 enjoys absolute superiority for verb creation; not in vain configurations like OT3, OT4, OT5 and OT6 are inevitably discarded for verbal derivatives because they cannot express an action. On the other hand, even if the makeup of OT1 does comprise an action, it is customarily embodied by nominal synthetic compounds (e.g. ‘drive’ in taxi-driver), and is hence absent here. This explains why the verbs in the study all fall into OTs 2 and 8, in turn roughly corresponding to the traditional processes of verbal affixation and verb-deriving conversion. Divergent tendencies are noticeable between nominal and verbal clusters with regard to meaning categories. The left-hand section in Table 10 lists the ten most recurrent meanings among nominal clusters as well as the equivalent figures for verbal clusters. On the right-hand side the most common meanings for verbs are offered, accompanied by the corresponding noun clusters: Table 10: Most frequent meanings for nouns and verbs. #

Meaning

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

action state instrument agent patient resultative abstraction

Nominal clusters 17 7 5 3 2 2 1

Verbal clusters 2 – – – – 2 –

# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Meaning

Verbal clusters causative 10 privative 3 action 2 resultative 2 reversative 1 augmentative 1 manner 1

Nominal clusters – – 17 2 – 1 –

96  #

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez Meaning

#

Meaning

8

Nominal Verbal clusters clusters augmentative 1 1

8

9

entity

1

–

9

causative/ resultative reversative/ privative

10

process

1

–

Verbal clusters 1

Nominal clusters –

1

–

Based on these results, nouns and verbs are first and foremost characterized by their different ranges of meanings, as only three of the most frequent meanings of nouns appear also in verbs, and only three of the most frequent verbal meanings are shared with nouns. This can be expected for person-related categories like agent and patient which, for reasons of extralinguistic reference, are not expressed by verbs. Similarly, the sample does not contain nouns with meanings that affect the action, e.g. causative, privative, or reversative. This section has attempted an extension of the onomasiological model to the measurement of competition across affix sets. One consequence of this analysis is the difficult extrapolation of the key concept of domain. Two reasons explain this. First, domain-based research on competition involves a limited view of word-formation, because the analyst studies processes whose lexical input is conditioned at a phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic or pragmatic level (e.g. -ity vs. -ness). Second, domains carry a strong sense of potentiality in that their central object of study is which units could or could not be coined, but this is not the main concern in an onomasiological view of word-formation, which concentrates on actual lexemes coined in a real context. Because this model is not intended for the study of isolated affixes or specific formations, its application on selected word-formation processes will result in little variety of OTs, as is the case with the above results. 4.2 A semasiological approach to productivity measurement In the historical development of the study of morphological productivity, Aronoff (1976) means a landmark that has attracted the interest of

Methodological and procedural issues

97

morphologists, many of which have later adhered to this formal view.8 This proposal has gained such significance since Baayen & Lieber’s (1991) formalization of Aronoff’s proposal that models for productivity calculations seem to outnumber the theoretical investigations on the phenomenon. Since these measures provide rankings which grade processes according to their output, it can be naturally assumed that they carry an inherent component of rivalry, which backs the application of productivity models to assess competition. As an attempt to widen these horizons, this section explores the productive potential of the cognitivesemantic categories in Bagasheva (this volume) through frequencies of occurrence from the BNC. The present frequency-based approach has an admittedly limited scope in that it disregards some of the formulae in Baayen & Lieber (1991), Baayen (2009) and Gaeta & Ricca (2015). This is justified by a lack of frequency data, in particular hapax legomena and tokens, without which reliable results are unattainable. Such difficulties with corpus data can be explained by the diachronic nature of the data, in particular from lexemes which were unsuccessful in competition and which, being rare in Present-Day English, do not always occur in corpora. Other proposals have resorted to Google hits for productivity estimates (e.g. Lindsay 2012), but these are incompatible with a fine-grained analysis in that meaning/sense differentiation would be a disproportionate task due to the high figures obtained from the Web. This shortage is here tackled by employing types (V) and tokens (N) for the exploration of meaning categories. The three measures considered here are type frequency, token frequency, and the V/N ratio, albeit with an onomasiological twist, as they are operated not on word-formation rules, but on semantic categories. 8

One exception is Bolozky’s (1999: 5) R2 measure, which resorts to dictionaries entries and “[…] compares the number of neologisms in a pattern with the total number of neologisms in the semantic category concerned.” This ratio reflects how productive a process is for a given semantic category in the lexicon, and can theoretically indicate which process is more productive for that semantic role. Despite sharing with Štekauer’s proposal an emphasis on meaning and speakers’ intuitions, Bolozky’s measure has not been widely employed, partly because of its less straightforward application, partly because limitations associated to dictionary data still apply to it (Plag 1999: 25–28; Bauer 2001: 184; Cowie & Dalton-Puffer 2002: 419).

98 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

To that end, V values were first calculated per semantic role, and N values subsequently retrieved from the BNC. The identification of the relevant occurrences of each entry where the entry conveys the sense under study is according to all the concordances of the lemmas in question contained in the BNC. Six exceptions were allowed: if the wordforms of the lemma have more than 5,000 occurrences, the data are the data of each of the word-forms that do not amount to more than 5,000 occurrences, plus the proportional amount of the word-form with more than 5,000 occurrences after analysis of 5,000 concordances selected at random in five sets of 1,000 concordances each, by use of the sample function of the online concordancer (Davies 2004–). The latter method was thus used on the singular of transferN (transfer.[n*]), on the base forms of like (like.[v*]), and close (close.[v*]), and on the -ed forms of close, discover and like. In these six cases, 5,000 concordances selected at random were analyzed for the sense under study in each case, and the results extended proportionally to the entire figure and then added to the actual results after study of each concordance in the rest of the wordforms of the same lemma. In assessing the aforementioned productivity measures, it has been widely recognized that V and N, though advantageous in combination with other values, prove by themselves inadequate for consistent results. The reason is that, if applied straightforwardly, V indicates the number of different lexemes coined by a process, and N gives its overall number of occurrences, but they tell nothing about possible neologisms in the sample, degrees of lexicalization or future productivity tendencies. V and N are nevertheless helpful if combined with each other or with other values. One such possibility is dividing the number of types by the number of tokens, which has been regarded as indicative of lexical diversity and, in turn, of morphological productivity. The V/N ratio offers results which range from 0 (not productive) to 1 (very productive) and brings the benefit of compensating possible divergences between types and tokens in a given process. The following are the results for the semantic categories in nouns:

99

Methodological and procedural issues Table 11: Frequency values for meanings (nouns). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Meaning abstraction action agent agent/entity augmentative entity instrument patient process resultative/entity state

V 2 39 7 1 2 2 12 4 2 6 15

N 165 10,711 748 215 1,560 2,525 5,743 2,523 73 453 361

V/N 0.0121 0.0036 0.0093 0.0046 0.0012 0.0007 0.0020 0.0015 0.0273 0.0132 0.0415

In evaluating rivalry among nominal meanings, it immediately becomes evident that the V values match those of the items presented in Table 4, which reveals a connection between these frequencies and Štekauer’s (1998; 2005) calculations. Because the two figures are identical, the results from V and from the onomasiological model must be the same, with action (39), state (15), agent (7) and instrument (12) outnumbering the rest of semantic roles. Finer nuances can be discerned by turning to N frequencies. For example, while augmentative and entity both have 2 types and hence an identical ranking according to V, ambiguity is resolved if tokens are considered: now entity (2,525) clearly outranks augmentative (1,560). The most fruitful categories in a token-based ranking are action (10,711), instrument (5,743), entity (2,525) and patient (2,523). Also note that, while action secures prevailing positions in both V- and N-based rankings, changes occur for instance in state (much more productive for V than for N) and patient (less productive for V than for N). One interesting piece of data is the average N per lexeme, which in nouns is 271.57 (25,077 tokens vs. 92 types) and contrasts with the average N value in BNC: 106.49 (100,001,000 tokens vs. 939,028 types; Kilgarriff 1996). Such disproportionate mean frequency suggests a substantial degree of lexicalization in the sample. This is in line with the fact that, despite the extinction of numerous rivals decades ago, the survivors from competition have been around for 400 or 500 years. Not surprisingly,

100 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

such long existence is often accompanied by recurrent usage, which in turn makes the same unit (invariable V) be repeatedly employed (increasing N). This not only raises awareness of the idiosyncratic nature of the derivatives under study, semantically speaking, but may as well have a bearing on morphological competition in that, as argued in Rainer (1988) or Riehemann (1998), blocking is often performed by lexicalized lexemes. The implication is that derivatives with a high N value are strong competitors doubly: backwards, in that their frequency indicates consolidation in the speech community, and also forwards, in that they can activate blocking, hence preventing the coinage of a potential competitor. A high degree of lexicalization is indeed confirmed by the V/N ratio. As the value resulting from this formula ranges between 0 and 1, it is safe to claim that productivity figures are rather poor for the noun sample (most meanings stand below 0.1). This is customarily interpreted as almost null productivity. The most productive meanings based on the V/N ratio are state (0.0415), process (0.0273), and abstraction (0.0121), but even these lie far from productive ranges (closer to 1). Table 12 displays the results for meaning categories in verbs: Table 12: Frequency values for meanings (verbs). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Meaning action augmentative causative causative/resultative manner privative resultative reversative reversative/privative

V 4 2 20 2 2 6 4 2 2

N 1,922 65 12,391 52 43 127 42 9,938 90

V/N 0.0020 0.0307 0.0016 0.0384 0.0465 0.0472 0.0952 0.0002 0.0222

As in nouns, the V values of verbs are identical to the number of different lexemes from an onomasiological analysis (compare with Table 7). In both cases, causative is by far the most frequent meaning (20 types), followed by privative (6), action (4) and resultative (4). If N values are considered, causative (12,391), reversative (9,938) and action (1,922) remain very productive, but privative plummets with

Methodological and procedural issues

101

an unexpectedly low index (V 6 – N 127). The main reason for this is the poor N frequencies of several verbs under this semantic role, e.g. deworm (4), disnature (1) and unbelieve (1). The categories with fewest types are augmentative (2), causative/resultative (2), manner (2), reversative (2), and reversative/privative (2). This overview can be completed with the V/N ratio, where resultative (0.0952), privative (0.0472), manner (0.0465), and causative/resultative (0.0384) lead the ranking, even if none has more than 6 types. Again, the explanation for these high ranks lies in the low N frequencies of these categories: it induces a high ratio despite limited V frequencies. This table reveals the opposite for reversative (0.0002), or action (0.0020), where the degree of lexicalization causes an increase in N that inevitably results in lower productivity. The lexicalized nature of the verb sample is confirmed by the average N per verb, namely 560.68 (24,670 tokens vs. 44 types), i.e. close to the value estimated for the sample of nouns. The outcome of this test seems clear: the competitive potential of all semantic categories is, as a rule, poor, with the exception of state and process in nouns, and resultative in verbs. These findings, though numerically unequivocal, contradict our intuition and do not correspond to the features of the sample, where other meanings are more frequent in both prevailing and non-prevailing lexemes. It is for instance unexpected that action and instrument, which embrace 55.43% of the nouns in the sample, display extremely poor values for the N/V ratio (0.0036 and 0.0020, respectively), and that causative, the most dominant meaning among verbs, has a ratio of 0.0016. Even if these findings can be justified on the grounds of disproportionate N figures, we may need to question the effectiveness of frequency-based formulas when an incoherent outcome is the rule more than the exception. Consistent results are occasional in the sample too (e.g. low values regarding the competitive capacity of abstraction), but what researchers expect is probably not results to cherry-pick from, but constant and consistent figures. Likewise, these productivity measures do not seem to offer obvious advantages for an onomasiological understanding of competition, among other because they are semasiologically oriented. Put differently, if each WFTC consists of lexemes with the same semantic role, the relevant question here is not which meaning the prevailing lexeme will have (we know that already), but which linguistic form it will adopt. In the

102 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

light of these conflicts, a reasonable interpretation is not that all these semantic categories display a generalized low competitive potential but, instead, that mainstream measures backfire when operated on them due to a partial lack of corpus data (see section 2.2). Besides this meaning-form conflict, it has been observed that the frequency data available makes it impossible to properly gauge productivity. This shortage of frequency data is commonly reported in diachronic corpus studies, and is one of the reasons why results of this type must be taken with a pinch of salt (see Cowie & Dalton-Puffer 2002: 420–421). The above leads to the conclusion that the semantic aspects of morphological competition are best understood through an application of the original onomasiological model. 4.3 The Index of Competition The above results evidence that, despite the conceptual proximity of productivity and competition, the onomasiological approach (4.1) needs a data collection procedure different from the one in this experiment, and that mainstream productivity formulas cannot reliably measure competition (4.2). The lack of applicability of these models should not be regarded as a flaw, since neither proposal is actually devised for the computation of morphological competition, which is why it was here decided to devise a specific proposal to that end. The following Index of Competition (C) innovates in that it expresses the present likelihood that a given lexeme outlasts its competitors within a given cluster, regardless of the productivity of the morphological process that generated it, and taking into account the domain of the lexeme. As a self-contained formula, C is computed cluster-internally and is not dependent on corpus size, which alleviates well-known problems in productivity computations (Baayen & Lieber 1991: 815; Plag 1999: 24–28; 2003: 55–59; Bauer 2001: 150–152). The Index of Competition is calculated by means of the formula

C = (N / NC) / VC,

where N is the token frequency of a competing lexeme, NC is the token frequency of all the units in the cluster and VC is the number of lexemes

103

Methodological and procedural issues

in current competition. The principle is that the higher the figure obtained from C, the greater the likelihood that a lexeme will prevail in competition in that cluster. Unlike other proposals, the highest score in C is not constant but varies according to the number of competing lexemes. The highest possible value of C in each cluster is modulated by VC and is the Reference C. The highest possible Reference C is 1, and occurs exclusively in cases of resolved competition, i.e. when a cluster contains only one lexeme. The value will decrease as more lexemes enter the competition. Hence, the Reference C will be 0.5 for clusters with two competitors, 0.33 for three competitors, 0.25 for four competitors, 0.2 for five competitors, etc. The rationale behind this is that the outcome of competition is influenced not just by the individual frequency of a competing lexeme, i.e. its presence in the lexicon of the community (N), but also by the overall frequency of the rest of rivals (NC) and by how many rivals it has (VC), under the assumption that the more competitors there are, the lower the probability to prevail will be for all the competitors. On the whole, figures closer to 1 indicate dominance in competition, while figures closer to 0 signal the opposite. Let us consider two clusters for illustration. The first displays the noun competitors for the verbal base transfer: Table 13: C values for the nouns in the cluster transfer (action). Lexeme

N

NC

VC

C

transferN

3,870

3,879

3

0.3325

transferral

8

3,879

3

0.0006

transferring

1

3,879

3

8.593–5

Reference C = 0.33

In this case the present picture is in principle favorable to transferN (0.3325), with transferral (0.0006) following closely. In contrast, transferring (8.593–5) has a rather poor value and does not seem the fittest candidates in the set. The Reference C in this cluster is 0.33 (three lexemes are in competition), so 0.33 is the baseline against which to measure C. The interpretation of Table 13 is that conversion and -al are, as of today, the processes with the strongest chance in this cluster, but it is by no means clear which may win out. Similarly, one must be aware that,

104 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

despite the clear dominance of conversion and -al, at least one other process may concur and may at some point regain relevance despite their poor current values, namely -ing. Another cluster is presented in Table 14, this one with two nouns competing for the verbal base venture: one derived by conversion, the other by -ing. Note that both word-formation processes participate in Table 13 as well: Table 14: C values for the nouns in the cluster venture (action). Lexeme

N

NC

VC

C

ventureN

2,506

2,510

2

0.4992

4

2,510

2

0.0007

venturing

Reference C = 0.5

Because there are two competitors, the Reference C value here is 0.5, and so 0.5 is the highest possible C. Like in the previous cluster, the results are promising for conversion (0.4992) and unfavorable to -ing (0.0007), which sets ventureN as the most probable winner but, significantly, the C values are different in each of these two clusters. Note that, while the token frequencies of transferN and ventureN in their respective clusters are relatively similar (3,870 and 2,506), their C values are very different (0.3325 and 0.4992, again, on a scale of 0 to 0.5 for C). The reason is that, while both are provisionally more dominant in their respective sets, the likelihood of success is at present higher for ventureN than for transferN because the former has fewer competitors, and this is numerically reflected by C. Naturally, this state of affairs would change if the VC value of either set was modified, as the Reference C automatically adjusts to the new membership in order to reproduce the new status of competition. The usefulness of C is hence twofold: •

•

It allows cluster-internal comparisons, which is advantageous in order to evaluate which lexeme is currently in a most advantageous position in a given set without overlooking the role of the rest of competitors; and It allows to compare the performance of the same word-formation process across different clusters thanks to VC, whose oscillation is sensitive to changes in cluster membership. This feature makes

105

Methodological and procedural issues

C apt not only for synchronic comparison of different clusters, as with conversion in registerN and ventureN above, but also for the diachronic analysis of a given cluster. Since we may track the evolution of the rival lexemes in a cluster, it is also possible to contrast them at different points in time, in which case the C values will show the tendencies for every lexeme. Depending on the number of rivals, C values will be lower in highly competitive contexts and will rise with decreasing membership. It should be noted that extremely low frequencies reduce the reliability of C, since in those cases figures are so small that the addition of just two or three tokens significantly alters the results (see e.g. Tables 18, 19 and 20 below). It is difficult to stipulate a minimum threshold for NC (i.e. the token frequency of all the units in the cluster) so as to achieve reliable C results, but it is safe to state that an all-hapax cluster may be telling us more about corpus methodology and compilation features than about morphological competition in itself. We must thus take low frequency figures with caution and be aware that C will be greatly dependent on any minor modulation in frequency (see section 2.1). Given the amount of data available in this experiment, it seems appropriate to apply C to a selection of competing derivatives. The following clusters therefore aim at illustrating the applicability of C with representative cases, by first considering examples of leveled competition and then cases of clear dominance in nominal clusters, and then doing the same for verbal clusters. Competition-wise, clusters which comprise several derivatives seem especially interesting in that the struggle for prevalence is a priori harder. In the noun sample, five clusters comprise three derivatives, while the rest are two-member clusters: Table 15: C values for the nouns in the cluster dispute (action). Lexeme

N

NC

VC

C

disputeN

236

241

3

0.3264

disputing

4

241

3

0.0055

1

241

3

0.0013

disputation

Reference C = 0.33

106 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

As in Table 13, the highest value is here achieved by a derivative by conversion, with disputeN displaying a value similar to transferN in Table 13 (0.3264 vs. 0.3325). Admittedly, the token frequencies of the derivatives are much lower in Table 15 (mean N = 80.33) than in Table 13 (mean N = 1,293). This suggests a much higher degree of institutionalization (or lexicalization) for the units in the latter set, and this accounts for the fact that the OED lists various senses in use today for the fittest competitor (transferN N = 3,870), while only the sense action is listed for the other two derivatives (transferral N = 8, transferring N = 1). The remaining 37 nominal clusters all comprise two members. As in the examples above, cases exist of evenly matched competition along with cases of dominance: Table 16: C values for the nouns in the cluster plus (augmentative). Lexeme

N

NC

VC

C

surplusN

1,557

1,560

2

0.4990

3

1,560

2

0.0009

overplus

Reference C = 0.5

Derivation by sur- illustrates the case of one lexeme being in the lead in competition as opposed to another lexeme with, in principle, a lower chance in this cluster. The context is here auspicious to surplus for its high N value, but also because it has only one competitor, which increases its relative C value. The majority of two-member clusters in the noun sample are cases like this one, where one of the derivatives can be foreseen as the probable remaining form once competition is resolved. The opposite is found in the cluster batter: Table 17: C values for the nouns in the cluster batter (action). Lexeme

N

NC

VC

C

battery

65

126

2

0.2579

battering

61

126

2

0.2420

Reference C = 0.5

In contrast to other clusters, these two rivals present approximate C values that make it difficult to anticipate further development in either

107

Methodological and procedural issues

lexeme. Additional signs of potential success may be sought in the OED, although lexemes’ history cannot be used to refine C for a more conclusive result, as battery is first attested in 1531 and battering in 1542, and both are in use today with the meaning action. In view of the evidence available, then, the two lexemes seem to be a part of the speaker’s lexicon to a similar extent. Regarding verbs, there are 22 clusters overall, all of which consist of two competitors. As in the case of nouns, the greatest part corresponds to clusters where one of the terms noticeably prevails over the other. This is so for clusters involving any word-formation process and any semantic role, as in Tables 18, 19 and 20. These three clusters share the successful competitive nature of one of their derivatives to the detriment of the other member of the pair. This involves different prefixes (Table 18), suffixes (Tables 19 and 20) and derivatives by conversion (Tables 19 and 20), as well as meanings such as privative, causative and action. Although illustrated here with three cases, the results are similar in the main for the entire sample of verbs. Table 18: C values for the verbs in the cluster believe (privative). Lexeme

N

NC

VC

C

disbelieve

77

78

2

0.4935

unbelieve

1

78

2

0.0064

Reference C = 0.5 Table 19: C values for the verbs in the cluster weak (causative). Lexeme

N

NC

VC

C

weaken

1,207

1,208

2

0.4995

weakV

1

1,208

2

0.0004

Reference C = 0.5 Table 20: C values for the verbs in the cluster value (action). Lexeme

N

NC

VC

C

valueV

1,651

1,654

2

0.4990

valuate

3

1,654

2

0.0009

Reference C = 0.5

108 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

There are nevertheless some examples where prevalence is not so manifest, as in Tables 21 and 22. In these clusters, C yields almost identical values for the two competitors. This could in principle be interpreted as the two derivatives having similar indices of competition. Then again, these cases do not represent the same situation as batter above (Table 17), because their leveled rivalry is explained by their minimal frequencies, as explained above in this section. Table 21: C values for the verbs in the cluster syllable (resultative). Lexeme

N

NC

VC

C

syllabify

2

2

2

0.3333

syllableV

1

2

2

0.1666

Reference C = 0.5 Table 22: C values for the verbs in the cluster pink (causative). Lexeme

N

NC

VC

C

pinkV

1

2

2

0.25

pinken

1

2

2

0.25

Reference C = 0.5

The last example is one where leveled figures are truly indicative of tight competition between two forms: Table 23: C values for the verbs in the cluster pretty (causative). Lexeme

N

NC

VC

C

prettify

11

14

2

0.3928

prettyV

3

14

2

0.1071

Reference C = 0.5

As opposed to cases of particularly low frequencies, this cluster contains two derivatives and an NC value of 14 which, in view of the results of C, is sufficiently large for a correct application of the model. The results are more advantageous to derivation by -ify than by conversion although, given the relatively low token frequencies of the two lexemes (11 and 3), no firm claims can be made in this respect. Because C offers consistent

Methodological and procedural issues

109

but inconclusive results, the OED may be used for refinement. In this case, prettify has one sense that is regarded as in use in the dictionary, while prettyV has two senses, both labeled as “originally and chiefly US.” This may suggest that prettify is the fittest candidate because of its C value and because its causative meaning is standardized and not limited to one language variety (as in prettyV). This section has introduced and applied a formula for the objectivization of morphological competition as in the sample and the conditions described in section 2. The usefulness of C lies in its ability to numerically describe the current status of the derivatives in a cluster by modulating tokens and types. It has been shown that, the data allowing, C aptly depicts the behavior of the units that compete for a given meaning, and that this analysis may be complemented with lexicographic data. As regards the samples of nouns and verbs under study in this volume, while likely outcomes may be hinted on the grounds of corpus frequencies and sometimes to the OED, there exist cases where factual substantiation is impossible to gather. In those cases, the conclusions remain restricted or provisional. Such is the case of battery vs. battering (Table 17) or of syllableV and pinkV (Tables 21 and 22), where no compelling evidence is available regarding the prevalence of either competitor. Still, it should be remarked that C is meant for a numerical description of current morphological competition, but no capacity to predict future trends should be ascribed to it. It is in my view risky to maintain that past evidence of a given morphological rule, be it corpusor dictionary-based, is somehow linked to prospective tendencies on its competitive or productive behavior. Doing this inevitably brings in assumptions regarding extra-linguistic features like fashion, prestige or any other social motivation whereby a word-formation process may become more appealing to language users at a given point in time. While experimental predictions can be a major target in fields like psycholinguistic or neurolinguistics (e.g. in Baayen 2009; Baayen & Lieber 1991), it probably falls out of the scope of morphology to describe complex words beyond the present.

110 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

4. Conclusions Morphological competition has been customarily inspected from a semasiological perspective. With some exceptions (Bauer, Valera & Díaz-Negrillo 2010), this has normally implied selecting two or more competing affixes and analyzing them so as to understand the nature of their competition or of their rivalry (Lindsay 2012; Arndt-Lappe 2014). This paper has attempted an onomasiological analysis and, by use of semantic categories, has explored a sample of nouns and verbs in keeping with the tenets in Štekauer (2005; 2016; section 4.1). Subsequently, mainstream productivity measures have been applied to representative sets of competing derivatives (section 4.2) and a specific formula has been proposed for the relationship between such lexemes (section 4.3). The following conclusions arise from the study: •

•

Incongruous results are on the whole obtained from employing productivity models for a meaning-oriented measurement of competition. While type and token frequency give a tentative view of the most and least productive meanings, these frequencies do not seem effective to tackle morphological competition as such, at least not when used separately. Admittedly, the V/N ratio is moderately reliable for meaning categories which have a sufficient number of lexemes (i.e. when V is not too low), but setting a predetermined V threshold is difficult due to the small size of the present sample. The cause of this situation is a procedural incompatibility between an onomasiological orientation and the formal nature of traditional measures, and is aggravated by a relative lack of corpus data. One consistent alternative is the competition-specific formula C, which calculates the present status of the derivatives in a cluster. C is more reliable for increasing NC, although this experiment suggests the possibility of consistent findings also for small samples. Even if this paper applies C on synchronic corpus data, the formula is expected to be equally valid diachronically; The high average frequencies in the sample are an effect of lexicalization on the N of lexemes (Baayen & Lieber 1991: 830;

Methodological and procedural issues

•

•

111

Plag 1999: 24–34; Bauer 2001: 152), which in turn leads to few low-frequency units (e.g. hapaxes) and causes the aforementioned defective application of productivity models. On these grounds, more accurate results are expected from samples whose frequencies are not limited to higher ranges and therefore include rare and unusual units. The availability of low-frequency units, especially hapax legomena, is a requirement of statistical-probabilistic models which can be met by use of third-generation corpora (Baayen & Lieber 1991; Gaeta & Ricca 2003). A problem for large-scale studies, however, lies in the level of detail required for a thorough semantic analysis which, being a manual process, is not always possible and seems incompatible with vast amounts of data. This is a crucial decision and one that has a major effect on the choice of the model to be used and on the accuracy of the results at the semantic level; In both the noun and the verb sample, the analysis suggests prevalence of OT2 to the detriment of OTs 3, 4 and 8. Such is the case of the two samples in general terms, but especially so regarding resolved competition, as 60.93% of all prevailing lexemes (39 out of 64) belong to OT2. This can be taken as an indication that morphological rivalry is favored by semantic transparency more than by economy of expression (under the assumption that meaning interpretation is less demanding in OT2 than in other OTs, see Štekauer 2016); and The study of morphological rivalry seems to largely involve exploiting partial or incomplete datasets, insofar as it requires tracking down not only existing lexemes (i.e. the prevailing ones), but also derivatives that do not succeed in competition, and which often fall into disuse (see Fernández-Alcaina this volume). It is these non-prevailing units that prove especially challenging not only in relation to their (non)-occurrence in corpora, but also in the reliability of the data that has come down to us (attestation dates, etymology, meanings, etc.). As shown in section 2.1, this is induced in part by methodological decisions like corpus selection but, since competition is about defeating and being defeated, it is also logical that derivatives that do not prevail or find a niche for survival are the most complex to detect. This difficulty, common to synchronic

112 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

and diachronic approaches, is essential for an accurate description of the system: neglect of this implies “counting dead souls as live people” (Marchand 1955: 14; italics as in the original). The present paper is intended as a step towards the study of competition through an approach that integrates cognitive-semantic categories, corpus-based frequencies and possible measures of morphological competition. In sum, a wide-ranging account of morphological competition seems a demanding but necessary task that should integrate meaning-based categories so as to supplement traditional approaches and comprehend as many principles of word-formation as possible. Actions on the horizon include an all-inclusive semantic exploration of morphological processes, the incorporation of high corpus frequencies and the refinement of formulae for the measurement of competition.

References Arndt-Lappe, Sabine 2014. Analogy in Suffix Rivalry: The Case of English -ity and -ness. English Language and Linguistics. 18/3, 497–548. Aronoff, Mark 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Aronoff, Mark 1980. The Relevance of Productivity in a Synchronic Description of Word Formation. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) Historical Morphology. The Hague: Mouton, 71–82. Aronoff, Mark 2016. Competition and the Lexicon. In Elia, Annibale / Iacobini, Claudio / Voghera, Miriam (eds.) Livelli di analisi e fenomeni di interfaccia. Atti del XLVII congresso internazionale della società di linguistica Italiana. Roma: Bulzoni Editore, 39–52. Aronoff, Mark / Lindsay, Mark 2014. Productivity, Blocking, and Lexicalization. In Lieber, Rochelle / Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 67–83.

Methodological and procedural issues

113

Baayen, Harald 2009. Corpus Linguistics in Morphology: Morphological Productivity. In Lüdeling, Anke / Kytö, Merja (eds.) Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook. Berlin: de Gruyter, 900–919. Baayen, Harald / Lieber, Rochelle 1991. Productivity and English Derivation: A Corpus-Based Study. Linguistics. 29/5, 801–844. Baeskow, Heike 2010. His Lordship’s -ship and the King of Golfdom. Against a purely functional analysis of suffixhood. Word Structure. 3/1, 1–30. Baeskow, Heike 2012. -Ness and -ity: Phonological Exponents of n or Meaningful Nominalizers of Different Adjectival Domains? Journal of English Linguistics. 40/1, 6–40. Bagasheva, Alexandra. This volume. Comparative Semantic Concepts in Affixation. Bauer, Laurie 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, Laurie 2009. Competition in English word-formation. In Kemenade, Ans van / Los, Bettelou (eds.) The Handbook of the History of English. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 177–198. Bauer, Laurie / Valera, Salvador / Díaz-Negrillo, Ana 2010. Affixation vs. Conversion: The Resolution of Conflicting Patterns. In Rainer, Franz / Dressler, Wolfgang U. / Kastovsky, Dieter / Luschützky, Hans Christian (eds.) Variation and Change in Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 15–32. Bauer, Laurie / Lieber, Rochelle / Plag, Ingo 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bolozky, Shmuel 1999. Measuring Productivity in Word Formation: the Case of Israeli Hebrew. Leiden: Brill. Cowie, Claire / Dalton-Puffer, Christiane 2002. Diachronic WordFormation and Studying Changes in Productivity over Time: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations. In Díaz Vera, Javier E. (ed.) A Changing World of Words (pp.). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 410–437. Davies, Mark 2004–. BYU-BNC (Based on the British National Corpus by Oxford University Press). Available at: http://corpus.byu.edu/ bnc/. Last accessed 6 Dec 2016.

114 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

Davies, Mark 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/. Last accessed 6 Dec 2016. Díaz-Negrillo, Ana. This volume. On the Identification of Competition in English Derivational Morphemes. The Case of -dom, -hood and -ship. Diez, Friedrich 1838. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen II. Bonn: Weber. Dokulil, Miloš 1962. Tvoření slov v češtině 1: Teorie odvozování slov. Prague: Academia. Fabb, Nigel 1988. English Suffixation Is Constrained only by Selectional Restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 6/4, 527–539. Fernández-Alcaina, Cristina. This volume. Availability and unavailability in English word-formation. Fernández Pita, S. 2001. Determinación del tamaño muestral. Available at: . Last accessed 5 May 2016. Gaeta, Livio / Ricca, Davide 2015. Productivity. In Müller, Peter O. / Ohnheiser, Ingeborg / Olsen, Susan / Rainer, Franz (eds.) WordFormation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 842–858. Guz, Wojciech 2009. English Affixal Nominalizations across Language Registers. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. 45/4, 447–471. Horecký, Jan 1983. Vývin a teória jazyka. Bratislava: SPN. Kastovsky, Dieter 1986. The Problem of Productivity in Word Formation. Linguistics. 24, 585–600. Kaunisto, Mark 2007. Variation and Change in the Lexicon. A CorpusBased Analysis of Adjectives in English Ending in -ic and -ical. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kaunisto, Mark 2009. The Rivalry between English Adjectives Ending in -ive and -ory. In McConchie, Roderick W. / Honkapohja, Alpo / Tyrkkö, Jukka (eds.) Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX 2). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 74–87.

Methodological and procedural issues

115

Kilgarriff, Adam 1996. BNC Database and Word Frequency Lists. Available at . Last accessed 18 October 2016. Kjellmer, Göran 2001. Why weaken but not *strongen? On Deadjectival Verbs. English Studies. 82/2, 154–171. Lara-Clares, Alicia 2016. Scáthach BNC Frequency Tool. Available at: http://scathach.laraclares.com. Last accessed 8 September 2016. Lara-Clares, Cristina. This volume. Competition in Present Day English Nominalization by Zero-Affixation vs. -ation. Lieber, Rochelle 2005. English Word-Formation Processes. Observations, Issues and Thoughts on Future Research. In Štekauer, Pavol / Lieber, Rochelle (eds.) Handbook of Word-Formation. Dordrecht: Springer, 375–427. Lindsay, Mark 2012. Rival Suffixes: Synonymy, Competition, and the Emergence of Productivity. In Ralli, Angela / Booij, Geert / Scalise, Sergio / Karasimos, Athanasios (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting ‒ Morphology and the Architecture of Grammar. Patras: University of Patras, 192–203. Lindsay, Mark / Aronoff, Mark 2013. Natural Selection in Self-Organizing Morphological Systems. In Montermini, Fabio / Boyé, Gilles / Tseng, Jesse (eds.) Morphology in Toulouse: Selected Proceedings of Décembrettes 7. Munich: Lincom Europe, 133–153. Marchand, Hans 1955. Synchronic Analysis and Word-Formation. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure. 13, 7–18. Marchand, Hans 21969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. Munich: Beck. Marle, Jaap van 1988. On the Role of Semantics in Productivity Change. In Booij, Geert / Marle, Jaap van (eds.) Yearbook of Morphology 1988. Dordrecht: Foris, 139–154. Palmer, Chris C. 2015. Measuring Productivity Diachronically: Nominal Suffixes in English Letters, 1400–1600. English Language and Linguistics. 19/1, 107–129. Plag, Ingo 1999. Morphological Productivity. Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

116 

Jesús Fernández-Domínguez

Plag, Ingo 2000. On the Mechanisms of Morphological Rivalry: A New Look at Competing Verb-Deriving Affixes in English. In Reitz, Bernhard / Rieuwerts, Sigrid (eds.) Anglistentag 1999 Mainz. Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 63–76. Plag, Ingo 2003. Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Proffitt, Michael 2016. The Oxford English Dictionary. Available at: http://www.oed.com. Last accessed 15 December 2016. Quirk, Randolph / Greenbaum, Sidney / Leech, Geoffrey / Svartvik, Jan 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Rainer, Franz 1988. Towards a Theory of Blocking: The Case of Italian and German Quality Nouns. In Booij, Geert / Marle, Jaap van (eds.) Yearbook of Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris, 155–185. Riddle, Elizabeth M. 1985. A Historical Perspective on the Productivity of the Suffixes -ness and -ity. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) Historical Semantics: Historical Word-formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 435–461. Riehemann, Susanne Z. 1998. Type-Based Derivational Morphology. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics. 2, 49–77. Scherer, Carmen 2015. Change in Productivity. In Müller, Peter O. / Ohnheiser, Ingeborg / Olsen, Susan / Rainer, Franz (eds.) Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Vol. 3. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1781–1793. Štekauer, Pavol 1998. An Onomasiological Theory of English WordFormation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Štekauer, Pavol 2005. Onomasiological Approach to Word-Formation. In Štekauer, Pavol / Lieber, Rochelle (eds.) Handbook of WordFormation. Dordrecht: Springer, 207–232. Štekauer, Pavol 2016. Compounding from an Onomasiological Perspective. In Hacken, Pius ten (ed.) The Semantics of Compounding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 54–68. Štekauer, Pavol. This volume. Competition in Natural Languages. Štekauer, Pavol / Chapman, Don / Tomaščíková, Slávka / Franko, Štefan 2005. Word-Formation as Creativity within Productivity Constraints. Sociolinguistic evidence. Onomasiology Online. 6, 1–55.

Methodological and procedural issues

117

Stockwell, Robert / Minkova, Donka 2001. English Words. History and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trips, Carola 2009. Lexical Semantics and Diachronic Morphology. The Development of -hood, -dom and -ship in the History of English. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes. The case of -dom, -hood and -ship1

1. Introduction Competition in language tends to arise as a result of synonymy and becomes resolved thanks to language economy, which acts against overabundance in language. In derivational morphology, competition means that two or more productive affixes which share very similar semantic properties target the same base (see Lara-Clares this volume). The existence of synonymous (and, hence, potentially) competing or rival affixes may be due to various reasons, including borrowing, coining of new words, speech errors, and reanalysis of existing words (Lindsay & Aronoff 2013). For English, it has been argued that the large amount of borrowing that took place during the 17th century resulted in the rivalry of native and non-native synonymous affixes which competed for the expression of the same meaning (Lieber 2004: 44; Bauer 2006: 189– 190). Cases in point are -ness and -ity, insofar as native and non-native affixes for derivation of nouns, respectively (see Riddle 1985; Baeskow 2012; Arndt-Lappe 2014). This is also the case of -ic and -ical, or -ize and -ify, except that, unlike -ness and -ity, the former pairs are non-native affixes and still compete for the expression of relational and causative meaning in English adjectives and verbs respectively (see Lindsay & Aronoff 2013). The opposite is also possible, i.e. competition or rivalry may exist between affixes which have always belonged to the native vocabulary stock of the English language. This is the case of -dom, -hood and -ship, and also the subject matter of this paper. 1

Author’s email address: [email protected]; affiliation: University of Granada (Spain).

120 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

Regardless of the origin of competing or rival suffixes, competition is resolved under the influence of economy, causing an accommodation of the derivational system. For Lindsay & Aronoff (2013), competition in morphology is analogous to competition in biology, and will result in a situation in which one of the competing affixes will become dominant and more frequent, while the less frequent pattern will end up in either extinction or differentiation. The first possible outcome for less dominant affixes, extinction, is, for example, the case of -ment, which lost its productivity in competition with -ation.2 In the second scenario, differentiation, the less dominant pattern may find what Lindsay & Aronoff (2013) call “a niche” where the pattern becomes productive. A niche can be of several kinds: phonological, morphological, pragmatic or semantic. Even if not necessarily in line with Lindsay & Aronoff’s (2013) interpretation of morphological competition, a number of studies illustrate the various areas of specialization listed by these two authors. An example of phonological specialization is the case of -ify vs. -ize: according to Lindsay (2012), -ify tends to combine with shorter bases, which he proves also true for their cognate French, Portuguese and Spanish suffixes (-ifier vs. -iser for French, and -ificar vs. -izar for Spanish and Portuguese). An example of morphologically motivated survival is -ic vs. -ical, mentioned also in Lindsay (2012), where the author shows that -ical tends to find a scope of action in -olog bases. The resolution of the competition between -ness and -ity has also been explained in terms of the form of the morphology of the base in Plag (1999), Lindsay (2012) and Arndt-Lappe (2014): according to recent research, -ity, the less productive suffix, dominates lexeme creation on adjectival -able, -ar, -al and -ic bases (Lindsay 2012; Arndt-Lappe 2014). For pragmatically constrained specializations, Lindsay & Aronoff (2013) mention the use of non-native -esque and -ian in formal contexts and of native -ish in non-formal contexts. Guz (2009) adds a further variable and discusses the distribution of nominalizers in terms of register, such that the morphological makeup of the base selected by a given nominalizer (the commonest in his study being -ness, -ity and -ion) have an effect on the distribution across registers of derivatives formed with one and the 2

Some authors, however, still see hints of vitality in -ment, e.g. Lieber (2005) or Palmer (2015).

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

121

same suffix. Finally, semantically motivated specialization can be illustrated by the accounts of the resolution of competition of -ness vs. -ity by Riddle (1985): -ity derivatives often denote abstract or concrete entities, while -ness derivatives often denote an embodied trait. Baeskow (2012) adds that ‑ness is sensitive to the scalar structure of the adjectival bases and therefore tends to select high degrees of the properties they denote. Another example of semantically motivated specialization is Aronoff & Cho (2001) on -hood and -ship. The authors claim that -ship is restricted to bases which express stage-level properties, i.e. properties which are temporary, while -hood readily combines with both noun bases that express stage-level properties and bases which express individual-level properties, the latter being properties which are permanent. The suffixes -dom, -hood and -ship may be considered to be in competition or rival suffixes in that the three form abstract nouns from concrete nouns, and their derivatives are often paraphrased as ‘the state or condition of being X’ (e.g. in Bauer & Huddleston 2002: 1701, 1703). Given that these suffixes date from Old English (hereafter, OE), if the three suffixes had not found a differentiated niche, and according to what has been discussed above, one or two of these three would not have survived to this day. Indeed, in her diachronic study of the development of the three suffixes, Trips (2009) claims that they are actually not rival suffixes, since each of them has its own differentiated semantic scope (see also Aronoff 2017 on this point). In addition, the three suffixes also share the fact that they are polysemous. Indeed, a number of extended senses are often listed for the suffixes which at first sight may be shared by at least two of them (Lehrer 2003). This raises the question of how competition between polysemous affixes should be tackled. This paper sets out to explore the three suffixes in terms of the individual senses that are contained their semantic makeup in order to disclose potential areas of competition between senses through their historical development. Unlike Trips’ (2009) study, this paper relies on lexicographic data from the Oxford English Dictionary (hereafter, OED), and looks at the suffixes in terms of their polysemous nature. Before setting off, a few words are due as to polysemy and derivation.

122 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

2. Polysemy in derivation This paper acknowledges a lexico-semantic nature of derivation. In this respect, it stands in opposition to approaches to morphology which deny the existence of meaning in affixes (Beard 1988, 1990, 1995; Beard & Volpe 2005; for a reaction against this view, see also Lehrer 2000), or of categorial information in affixes (Marantz 1997; Embick & Marantz 2008; for the opposite view, see Baeskow 2010). In contrast to these two positions, generative approaches (Lehrer 2000, 2003; Plag 2003; Lieber 2004; Trips 2009; Baeskow 2010), and cognitive approaches (Booij 2010; Rainer 2014; Berg 2015) agree that affixes are meaningful units and, what is more important for this paper, that they may also be polysemous (Lehrer 2000, 2003; Lieber 2004; Trips 2009; Baeskow 2010; Booij 2010; Rainer 2014). Polysemy in derivation involves the existence of more than one related sense within the semantic makeup of the same affix.3 The traditional assumption is that polysemy avoids the proliferation of affixes, i.e. it contributes towards the mapping of one form to several meanings and, thus, is a sign of the natural flexibility and efficiency of language (Ullmann 1962: 167–168). An extreme view on sense unification is advocated by supporters of unitary meanings, typically under a structuralist approach. In fact, in morphology there has been a debate about the consideration of affixes as showing a unitary meaning or showing polysemy (for an overview, see Rainer 2014: 342–349). As Rainer (2014: 340) explains, the advocates of monosemism agree on the existence of a unitary core sense to stand as an abstract umbrella for concrete senses. As a result, the definitions of abstract unitary senses may be so vague that they could extend to the semantic scope of other units. In an earlier paper, Rainer (2003) also explained that a unified abstract meaning fails to explain both the existence of semantically unexpected derivatives and the non-existence of semantically expected derivatives for a given pattern. In contrast, from a cognitive perspective, Rainer (2014: 348–349) proposes that the core meaning may be viewed as a starting point for other specific 3

Instead of referring to the various semantic components of polysemous affixes as “senses”, some morphologists also refer to them as simply “meanings” (see, e.g. Lieber 2009: 41).

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

123

senses which build a network motivated by metaphor and metonymy, and which he refers to as “radial or family-resemblance constellation”. From a constructionist perspective, Booij (2007, 2010) argues for a subspecification of schemas, or constructional subschemas, where a range of extended meanings are specified for each affix in inheritance trees. Overall, the need to acknowledge the internal polysemy of word-formation processes and to treat the various senses of one and the same process independently has been shown to be crucial in various areas of derivation. For example, Kastovsky (1986: 596–597) and Bauer (2001: 199–203) stress the importance of dealing with the various meanings of one and the same affix independently when discussing the productivity of affixes. In a study of conversion among the German adjective, noun and verb fett/Fett/fett- ‘fat’, Plank (2010) resolves that conversion operates over senses rather than over lexemes and shows, rather crucially for this paper too, that directionality may differ depending on which of the senses of the lexemes are at play, thus transferring relationships from the level of lexemes to the level of senses within lexemes. A recent description of word-formation processes along the lines of polysemy is Bauer et al. (2013), where the authors identify a number of semantic domains for each affix as well as areas of semantic overlap among them (for prefixes, see, for example, Bauer et al. 2013: 366), and claim that “[one] must be able to account for the substantial evidence that affixes […] are frequently semantically underspecified, and subject to polysemy and meaning extensions of various sorts.” (Bauer et al. 2013: 641). Synchronic approaches to polysemy often contrast with diachronic approaches. Rainer’s (2003) account of Spanish -azo sets up the semantic configuration of the suffix in a radial structure of metonymic and metaphoric links, and shows that the synchronic polysemy of the suffix results from its diachronic development.4 Trips (2010: 206) claims the same for -dom, -hood and -ship. It may also be argued that synchronic accounts may give the wrong impression that there is competition between senses of different suffixes, while the senses in question may not be active anymore. Therefore, it seems reasonable to 4

Rainer (2003) also adds historical coincidence, in particular, ellipsis, homonymization and borrowing, as further influences on polysemy.

124 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

propose that a study of competition among polysemous affixes should deal with the individual senses of the affixes in question and with their diachronic evolution, so as to identify whether indeed there have been semantic overlaps at a given point of time and/or whether the overlaps exist at present time or not.

3. An outlook of -dom, -hood and -ship The English suffixes under study in this paper, -dom, -hood and -ship, are Germanic suffixes. As described in handbooks of English morphology or word-formation, the three suffixes date back to OE and derive abstract nouns from nominal bases, sometimes also from adjectives and verbs; they can appear in combination with compound and complex bases and also in combination with either native or non-native bases; and the three are reported to be highly productive in contemporary English (Bauer et al. 2013: 247–249; see also Marchand 1969: 262–264, 293, 346–347; Bauer & Huddleston 2002: 1701–1704). The suffixes -dom and -hood stem from the OE nouns dōm and hād respectively. In OE dōm is defined as ‘jurisdiction, state, statute’ (Marchand 1969: 262) and hād as ‘state, rank, order, condition or character’ (Marchand 1969: 293). During OE they readily combined with other nouns and eventually developed into suffixes in Middle English (hereafter, ME) as a result of changes in their semantics, phonology and productivity. By contrast, -ship has had suffixal status since OE (Trips 2009: 131–138). It goes back to OE -scipe/-scype, which shares the same root with OE scyppan ‘shape’, i.e. -skap meaning ‘create, ordain, appoint’ (Marchand 1969: 345) (for a diachronic account of the morphological development of the three suffixes, see Trips 2009). Synchronically, the three suffixes share the meaning ‘state of being X’. Senses can be identified derived from this meaning by metonymy and metaphor, developing as a result a polysemous structure, which is described below following Lehrer (2003: 226–227):

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

125

• -dom. Three senses emerge from state/condition:5 status, rank (e.g. earldom), territory (e.g. dukedom) and collectivity (e.g. clerkdom). Baeskow (2010: 13) refers to territory as territory, domain, region including therein domain (e.g. boydom), which is as a metaphorical extension of territory; • -hood. Three senses emerge from state/condition: state of affairs, for derivatives formed on adjectival bases (e.g. falsehood), state (e.g. motherhood), which leads to stage of life, described as the period of time connected with that state (e.g. babyhood), and collective body (e.g. brotherhood) (see also Marchand 1969: 293). Baeskow (2010: 15) also lists rank/social position (e.g. priesthood), but explains that this is a minor sense; and • -ship. Five senses emerge from state of being/relationship: office, position (e.g. ambassadorship), role, position (e.g. leadership), respectful designation (e.g. ladyship), skill (e.g. penmanship) and community/collectivity (e.g. partnership), the latter developing into stipend (e.g. fellowship). Aronoff & Cho (2001: 169) explain that the interpretation of the suffix as relationship (e.g. friendship) is provided by the base and is not specific to the suffix (see also Baeskow 2010: 10–11). As shown above, synchronically the three suffixes are very similar not only in their general meaning (‘state or condition of being X’) but also in some of the senses listed in their polysemous structure. According to Aronoff (2017), a major difference between the suffixes is that each of them has become specialized for use in a given niche. Thus, Aronoff claims that -dom has become specialized for the expression of domains and realms, -ship in the selection of bases which are stage-level predicates, i.e. they denote properties of stages, which are therefore temporary, while -hood is not sensitive to the distinction between stagelevel predicates and individual-level predicates, the latter meaning that the base noun can denote both temporary or permanent properties (for an account of the semantic specialization of -hood and -ship, see Aronoff & Cho 2001). Aronoff’s semantic distinction has been commented on by a number of authors. Lieber (2004: 160) questioned Aronoff & Cho’s 5

Senses are cited in small caps and nuances of senses within inverted commas.

126 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

constraint for ‑ship and listed a number of -ship derivatives which are in fact based on individual-level predicates. Relatedly, Baeskow (2010: 11) also claimed that, rather than a condition, one could regard them as semantic tendencies. Trips (2009: 183–184) supports Aronoff & Cho’s claims but adds that the synchronic distinction can be explained diachronically in terms of the meaning of the units since OE. Trips (2009: 169) interprets the individual- vs. stage-level distinction in terms of either denoting properties which are intrinsic to persons, individual-level predicates, or properties which are acquired externally (from society), stage-level predicates. This paper will refer to this dichotomy in the terms claimed by Trips (2009: 169). This interpretation is more suitable to the semantic nature of the suffixes in question and, we could add, it also saves the obstacle of having derivatives formed on individual-level predicates which are defined as denoting life stages, which is the case of a number of -hood derivatives (e.g. babyhood). Aronoff & Cho explain these cases proposing a subcategorisation of individual-level predicates into left-side individual-level predicates (e.g. childhood) and right-side individual-level predicates (e.g. motherhood), where the former refer to states acquired from birth to a particular point and the latter from a particular point until death. This paper then looks at the polysemy of -dom, -hood and -ship with a view to shedding light on possible areas of competition, again under the assumption that, for proper understanding of competition among polysemous affixes, the senses of the suffixes should be looked at individually and diachronically. Accordingly, the various senses which have been associated with the suffixes over their history will be identified, and any areas of competition across time and at present time will be disclosed.

4. Method The diachronic study of the polysemy of -dom, -hood and -ship is based on the derivatives formed on each of the suffixes recorded in the online edition of the OED. For this, all the OED noun entries containing each

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

127

of the suffixes under study were retrieved and grouped by historical periods. To this end, OE is considered to reach up to 1099, Middle English (hereafter, ME) from 1100 to 1499, and Modern English (hereafter, ModE) from 1500 onwards. The OED data selection relied on the following four stages: • *dom, *hood and *ship was queried at a time; • each search was then refined to nouns; • the timeline view option was used to sort the entries by periods of fifty years; and • any entries which were not -dom, -hood or -ship derivatives were discarded during the analysis. The most recent entries retrieved in the three queries date from the 20th century, so this latter century was used as the reference for attestation of the current behavior of the suffixes. All in all, the study considered 296 derivatives for -dom, 296 for -hood and 822 for -ship, i.e. 1,414 derivatives in total. Table 1 shows the diachronic distribution of -dom, -hood and -ship derivatives: Table 1: Diachronic distribution of -dom, -hood and -ship derivatives. n -dom 19 -hood 14 -ship 18

OE % 6.42 4.73 2.19

n 15 50 124

ME % 5.07 16.89 15.09

n 262 232 680

ModE % 88.51 78.38 82.73

n 296 296 822

Total % 100.00 100.00 100.00

n 32 13 34

20th c. % 10.81 4.39 4.14

The records of the OE and ME periods show the lowest figures. In contrast, ModE by far records the highest number of derivatives for the three suffixes. For -dom and -hood, most of the derivatives date back to the 19th century: 62.84% (n=186) of the total coinages for -dom, and 49.32% (n=146) of the total of coinages for -hood. As to -dom this peak has been explained in that 19th-century authors contribute substantially to the productivity of the suffix by coining -dom words in their works (Lieber 2009: 68–69, after Wentworth 1941). Most ModE -ship derivatives date back to the 16th century (24.12%), the 17th century (31.18) and the 19th century (25.29%). For the three suffixes, there is a sharp decrease in the

128 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

number of derivatives attested in the 20th century compared with those attested in the 19th century (see Table 1 for 20th century figures). The semantic analysis will look into the polysemy of the suffixes under study. As noted above, the competition among the three suffixes is viewed as competition among the senses associated with each suffix at various points of historical development. The analysis follows a view of polysemy in which a central sense is identified for each suffix, from which a series of related senses emerge motivated by metonymy or metaphor (Rainer 2014: 340–341). The senses considered in the analysis come partly from accounts of the suffixes in the literature (Marchand 1969; Lehrer 2003; Baeskow 2010), and partly from the analysis of the suffixes and of their polysemy in this paper. The senses used in the analysis are listed below. Each sense is illustrated with OED entries of the types of derivatives where the sense in question has been recorded. One example is given for each derivative.6 • State: this sense is generally identified with OED definitions referring to the state of being, condition or quality. The rest of the senses listed below develop from this sense. This sense is considered the central core sense for the three suffixes: Christendom: the state or condition of being Christian. c893 tr. Orosius Hist. ii. iv, Ac heo [Rome] for hiere cristendome nugiet is gescild. soulhood: the quality, state, or condition of being or having a soul. 1940 C. S. Lewis Probl. of Pain ix. 129 Supposing…that the personality of the tame animals is largely the gift of man—that their mere sentience is reborn to soulhood in us as our mere soulhood is reborn to spirituality in Christ.

6

The listing of the senses in this section is for methodological purposes only. For a discussion of the polysemy of each of the suffixes and how senses relate to each other in each case, see section 6.

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

129

servantship: the state or condition of being a servant. 1583 A. Golding tr. J. Calvin Serm. on Deuteronomie lxiv. 391 That seruantship bare no sway in him by the space of those fortie dayes.

This sense also gathers derivatives which are defined in the OED as ‘relation’ or ‘relationship’. This is considered a nuance of meaning of the derivative, i.e. not of the suffix, and to result from the type of noun which the suffix selects as a base, namely relational nouns (Aronoff & Cho 2001: 169; Baeskow 2010: 10–11). This applies to relations of various kinds, including family relationships (e.g. colleagueship, cousinhood);

• Collectivity: this sense is identified with OED definitions referring to sets of entities which share a status, occupation, interest, etc.: servantdom: servants as a class. 1883 T. Wright in 19th Ct. Feb. 285 The point of the saying, ‘No man is a hero to his valet’ extends in practice to all servant-dom. ladyhood: ladies collectively. a1666 R. Fanshawe Hurtado de Mendoza’s Querer por solo Querer (1670) i. 12 These Ceremonies which thou seek’st to bar, From the first hallowing fundamental are To Lady-hoods fair Order. followership: a group of followers or supporters, a following. 1913 Oakland (Calif.) Tribune 12 Feb. 6/1 We seem now to have another school of public men who do not put their ambitions to the hazard of leadership, but have developed a followership and profess exact knowledge of what ‘the people’ want. • Position: this sense is very closely related to the central sense state and is identified with definitions referring to ‘rule’, ‘authority’, ‘dignity’, ‘rank’, ‘status’ and ‘occupation’: richdom: royal power, sovereignty. OE Wulfstan Paternoster & Creed (Junius 121) 166 Ðin ricedom ofer us rixie symble.

130 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

clerkhood: the status or position of a clergyman. c1449 R. Pecock Repressor (1860) 380 Officis of bischophode or louȝer preesthode or louȝer clerkhode. spyship: the office or occupation of a spy. 1779 J. Warner in J. H. Jesse G. Selwyn & his Contemp. (1844) IV. 43 So, sir, there is an end of my affair and my spyship, for I do not think I can have anything else to say to you about it.

This sense also covers definitions where the derivative is used to refer to the duties (e.g. editorship) or emoluments (e.g. scholarship) associated with a particular office or status. These are considered nuances of this sense, because they are often part of definitions referring to occupations or statuses and, overall, are only marginal (see, however, stipend in Lehrer 2003: 227, where ‘emolument’ stands as a separate sense). This sense also covers derivatives which are used as a (mock) form of address (e.g. counthood, ruffianship), specially preceded by a possessive. These are taken in this study as cases of lexicalization (Baeskow 2010: 10; see, however, Lehrer 2003: 226–227, where the form of address is listed as a separate sense);

• Practice: this sense refers to activities or actions often associated with events, entities of a particular rank or status, etc.: theftdom: the action or practice of stealing. 1566 Sc. Acts Jas. I c. 154 That nouther Lord of Regalitie, Schiref, Barrone, na vthers sell ony theif, or fyne with him of thiftdome done [Record ed. (1814) of thift done]. quakhood: the state, condition, or practice of a quack or charlatan. 1843 T. Carlyle Past & Present iv. i. 322 Mans History, was it not always even this: The cookery and eating up of imbecile Dupedom by successful Quackhood.

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

131

artisanship: the work and activity of an artisan or of artisans collectively. 1827 T. Carlyle Goethe in German Romance IV. 14 Intellectual artisanship, however wondered at, is less desirable than intellectual manhood. • Realm: this sense refers to the abstract domains, worlds or spheres defined by a particular interest, activity, occupation, etc. crookdom: the realm of crooks. 1929 Daily Express 7 Jan. 9 Story of a careless young athlete’s adventures in crookdom. worldhood: the secular world, as opposed to the religious world of the cloister. eOE tr. Bede Eccl. Hist. (Tanner) iv. xxv. 342 Wæs he [sc. Cædmon] se mon in weoruldhade [L. in habitu saeculari] geseted oð þa tide þe he wæs gelyfdre ylde, & næfre nænig leoð geleornade.

This sense has been described as a metaphorical extension of the sense territory (listed below), and as part of the latter sense (for example, Lehrer 2003; Baeskow 2010: 13). Given the higher number of derivatives defined as realm (n=110), as opposed to those defined as territory (n=47), and the fact that the interpretation territory is not common in derivatives defined as realm,7 it seems reasonable, however, to give the status of independent sense to the sense realm;

• Skill: this sense refers to the skill or art associated with a particular activity, occupation, etc.

7

This sense is almost exclusively found in -dom derivatives from the 19th century to the 20th century, as will be shown below.

132 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

airmanship: skill in flying an aircraft, hot air balloon, etc. 1859 N.Y. Times 7 July 4/3 In the voyage of Messrs. Wise and La Mountain, we see all the elements of what we suppose we must call airmanship. • Territory: this sense refers to the extent of land associated with a particular rule, activity, population, etc.: negrodom: the areas populated by black people. 1862 N. Hawthorne in H. Bridge Personal Recoll. N. Hawthorne (1893) 173, I ought to thank you for a shaded map of negrodom, which you sent me a little while ago. neighbourhood: the vicinity or surrounding area. c1450 (?c1425) E. Hull tr. Seven Psalms (1995) 192 Wasche here and purge here from þe spottys of þe vij dedly synnys. And for-to cast my soule from þer neyborowhed, expandi manus meas ad te. commissionership: the district under the jurisdiction of a commissioner. 1625 S. Purchas tr. A. De Herrera Descr. W. Indies in Pilgrimes III. 878 The Citie of Saint Sauiour..is a chiefe Commissionership [Sp. Alcadia Maior] with title of his Maiestie. • Time: this sense includes definitions referring to periods of time mostly associated with a particular state or condition, occupation, practice, etc.: sceptredom: period of sceptred rule; reign (of a king). 1599 T. Nashe Lenten Stuffe 9 In a faire text hand texting vnto vs, how in the Scepterdome of Edward the Confessor, the sands first began to growe into sight at a low water. calfhood: calf state or stage. 1881 G. Allen Evolutionist at Large iii. 26 Cows hate dogs instinctively, from their earliest calfhood upward.

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

133

graduateship: the period during which one is a graduate. 1644 Milton Areopagitica 27 It is no new thing..for a parochiall Minister..to finish his circuit in an English concordance and a topic folio, the gatherings and savings of a sober graduatship. All the OED derivatives were sorted by suffixes and by historical periods as described above, and a quantitative analysis of the senses was carried out by looking up in the OED each of the derivatives. The quantification of the senses consisted in: • •

the identification of the sense(s) of each derivative in the historical period where it dates from; and the identification of the number of times a sense is cited in each historical period.

Of these, the identification in the OED definitions of the senses listed above was not always a straightforward task, especially because the OED entries may have more than one definition, and/or because one definition may list more than one sense. In these cases, the examples in the definition(s) and their dates determined the ascription of the senses to one of the three historical periods. For example, for kingdom (OE), which lists more than one definition in its OED entry, the sense position in the first definition was counted and not territory in the second definition, because the latter is firstly attested in ME according to the OED examples while the derivative dates from OE. For lorddom (OE), whose only definition lists more than one sense (‘the office or dignity of a lord; the estate or territory owned or ruled by a lord; (also) lords considered as a collective body or class. Formerly also: †rule, dominion, dominance (obs.)’), the senses position and territory were counted, but not collectivity. This is because the examples dating from OE illustrate position and territory, whereas collectivity is only illustrated by examples dating from ModE. A consequence of this analysis is that more than one sense may be listed for each derivative. The fact that there may be more than one sense per derivative and also the order in which the senses are recorded in the entries may provide hints as to how the various senses of a suffix emerged and are connected. The overall number of senses per derivative in each historical period or century is computed in this paper as the sense/derivative ratio.

134 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

As it is often pointed out, the use of dictionaries for semantic analysis has both pros and cons. While the OED is a versatile tool because it provides very useful information with regard to senses, etymology and dates, it may also be too inclusive: a lexeme may be cited in the dictionary before it is generally used and examples may still be given in the dictionary when the word is out of use (Bauer 2006: 181–182). In addition, the OED is updated regularly and the earliest attestations for certain entries may change after a study has been completed. The dictionary also lists nonce words, which may create false expectations about the behavior and general use of an affix, even if they may also be an indication of the native speakers’ intuitions about the nature and semantics of the suffix in question. As a result, the dates and entries given in this study should be taken with flexibility and as indicative of general tendencies.

5. The polysemy of -dom, -hood and -ship This section presents the results of quantifying the senses attested for each of the suffixes. To this end, this section first gives a general account of the suffixes in terms of the senses recorded for each suffix, irrespective of historical periods. This account is the outcome of the diachronic analysis in this study so it may include senses that are not in use nowadays. The aim is simply to give a general overview of the semantic nature of each suffix. After this general account, there is a diachronic description of the polysemy of each suffix for illustration of the occurrence of individual senses in each suffix and in each historical period, as well as of the links between the various senses associated with each suffix. Table 2 and Table 3 show the overall distribution of the senses covered in this study as in the OED definitions, with percentages calculated within suffixes and within senses, respectively.

135

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

Table 2: Distribution of senses across each suffix (percentages calculated within suffixes). -dom

-hood

 

n

%

n

state

124

27.62

collectivity

111

position

51

practice realm

Total

-ship

%

N

%

n

%

242 66.85

320

31.62

686

37.63

24.72

36

9.94

27

2.67

174

9.54

11.36

52

14.36

466

46.05

568

31.16

21

4.68

7

1.93

93

9.19

121

6.64

109

24.28

1

0.28

110

6.03

55

5.43

55

3.02

territory

31

6.90

1

0.28

14

1.38

47

2.58

time

2

0.45

23

6.35

37

3.66

62

3.40

Total

449

100.00

362 100.00

1012

100.00

1823 100.00

skill

Table 3:  Distribution of sense occurrence across the three suffixes under study (percentages calculated within senses). state collectivity position practice realm skill territory time

-dom 18.08 63.79 8.80 17.36 99.09 68.09 3.23

-hood 35.28 20.69 9.15 5.79 0.91 2.13 37.10

-ship 46.65 15.52 82.04 76.86 100.00 29.79 59.68

The description of the distribution of senses in the two tables shows several patterns. Table 2 shows that the most central sense, state, is the main sense in -hood, but it ranks second in -ship, and in -dom it stands in roughly the same position as collectivity and realm. By contrast, Table 3 shows that the highest number of derivatives for the expression of the sense state are derived by -ship, but it should also be noted that this is because of the higher number of -ship derivatives compared to -dom and -hood derivatives. Both Table 2 and Table 3 show a link between collectivity and realm and -dom: they are its major senses (see Table 2), and also seem to

136 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

be mostly specific to this suffix (see Table 3). A similar link can be found between position and -ship: it is one of the main senses for this suffix (see Table 2), and also seems to be associated mainly with it (see Table 3). Finally, Table 2 suggests that practice, skill and time stand as marginal senses in -ship compared with the rest of the senses, whereas Table 3 shows that they are predominantly or exclusively associated with -ship derivatives. Similarly, territory is a minor sense in -dom (see Table 2), but it seems to be predominantly associated with this suffix (see Table 3). 5.1 The polysemy of -dom This section shows the results obtained from quantifying the senses listed in section 4 above in the analysis of the 296 -dom derivatives in the study. Table 4 and Figure 1 show the diachronic distribution of the senses. The sense skill is not shown in the results because it is not attested for -dom in our analysis. Table 4:  Distribution of -dom senses in OE, ME and ModE based on the -dom derivatives attested in the OED and their definitions. The sense/derivative ratio for each period is also shown. OE state collectivity position practice realm territory time Total Sense/derivative ratio

n 7

% 31.82

8 5

36.36 22.73

ME n % 10 58.82 1 5.88 2 11.76 1 5.88

2

9.09

3

22 4.90 1.16

17.65

17 3.79 1.13

ModE n % 107 26.10 110 26.83 41 10.00 15 3.66 109 26.59 26 6.34 2 0.49 410 91.31 1.56

Total n % 124 27.62 111 24.72 51 11.36 21 4.68 109 24.28 31 6.90 2 0.45 449 100.00

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

137

90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00

State

State, 58.82

Collectivity

50.00

Position Practice

40.00 30.00

Practice, 22.73

20.00

Collectivity, 26.83 Territory, 17.65 Position, 11.76

10.00 0.00

Realm

Position, 36.36 State, 31.82

Territory, 9.09

OE

Collectivity, 5.88 Practice, 5.88 ME

Realm, 26.59 State, 26.10

Territory Time

Position, 10.00 Territory, 6.34 Practice, 3.66 Time, 0.49 ModE

Fig. 1: Distribution of -dom senses in OE, ME and ModE.

OE and ME register the lowest sense frequency as well as the narrowest sense range compared to ModE. In OE the two major senses are position (e.g. ealdordom, masterdom) and state (e.g. halidom, thraldom). Position is predominantly defined as ‘rule’ or ‘dignity’ (e.g. kingdom, richdom), and to a less extent as ‘office’ (e.g. masterdom, popedom). Practice is also present in this period (e.g. whoredom, witchdom). The sense territory also dates from OE, and co-occurs with position as a second sense in the same entry (e.g. earldom, lorddom), denoting the area over which a particular rule stretches. In ME the derivatives predominantly show the sense state (e.g. caitifdom, churldom). The senses position (specifically ‘rule’ or ‘dignity’), and territory continue to co-occur in the same entries (e.g. dukedom, sheriffdom). Collectivity emerges in this period, but it shows only in one derivative (e.g. brethrendom), which is listed in the OED as synonymous with a -hood derivative (e.g. brotherhood). This may be taken as an indication that collectivity is not a distinctive sense of -dom in this period.

138 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

ModE collects by far the highest number of -dom derivatives (88.51%, see Table 1), and also the highest sense frequency (91.31%). In addition, and unlike in previous periods, a large number of entries show more than one of the listed senses (47.71% of the derivatives). This can be seen in a higher sense/derivative ratio (1.56) compared to the previous historical periods. As to individual senses, all the senses listed for the suffix are recorded in this period, which means that the suffix not only develops new senses but also maintains senses from former periods (see also Baeskow 2010: 14 on this point), even if some senses occur only marginally (especially time and practice). Among all the senses, state (e.g. victordom, millioneiredom) will continue to be one of the most frequent senses. Unlike in OE and ME, state is no longer the only sense ranking highest: realm (e.g. puzzledom, beedom) and collectivity (e.g. roguedom, planterdom) become as frequent as state during this period. The rest of the senses, i.e. position (e.g. patriarchdom, squiredom), territory (e.g. princedom, bullydom), practice (e.g. metredom, trolldom) and time (e.g. sceptredom, puppydom) will decrease compared to the previous periods and may occur only marginally in this period. Position is again defined as ‘rule’ or ‘dignity’, as in the examples given in this paragraph. In ModE position can also refer to occupations, especially during the 19th century, in which case the sense co-occurs with realm (e.g. cookdom, poetdom) and/or collectivity (e.g. artistdom, stardom) in the definitions of the derivatives. A closer look into ModE reveals that the overall picture is actually provided by the figures in the 19th century. In terms of sense frequency, this century gathers 67.93% of the sense frequency in the study and 70.99 % of the sense frequency in ModE. The sense/derivative ratio in the 19th century is 1.64. Table 5 and Figure 2 show the distribution of sense frequency in ModE over three stages: first from the 16th century to the 18th century, i.e. approximately during Early Modern English; then during the 19th century, which is the period with the greatest activity by far; and finally during the 20th century, i.e. in contemporary English.

139

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

Table 5:  Distribution of -dom senses in ModE based on the -dom derivatives attested in the OED and their definitions. The percentages in the Total row are out of the total amount of -dom senses in Table 4, and not of ModE senses. The sense/derivative ratio for each period is also shown.

state collectivity position practice realm territory time Total Sense/derivative ratio

16th c.-18th c. n % 13 24.07 3 5.56 16 29.63 6 11.11 6 11.11 9 16.67 1 1.85 54 12.03 1.23

19th c. n 76 92 24 9 87 16 1 305 1.64

20th c. % 24.92 30.16 7.87 2.95 28.52 5.25 0.33 67.93

n 18 15 1

% 35.29 29.41 1.96

16 1

31.37 1.96

51 1.59

11.36

90.00 80.00 70.00 State

60.00

Collectivity 50.00

Position Practice

40.00 Collectivity, 30.16 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

Position, 29.63 State, 24.07 Territory, 16.67 Realm, 11.11 Practice, 11.11 Collectivity, 5.56 Time, 1.85 16th c.-18th c.

State, 35.29 Realm, 31.37

Realm, 28.52 State, 24.92

Collectivity, 29.41

Position, 7.87 Practice, 2.95 Territory, 5.25 Time, 0.33 19th c.

Territory, 1.96 Position, 1.96

Realm Territory Time

20th c.

Fig. 2: Distribution of -dom senses in ModE.

As to specific senses, just as in the overall picture for ModE, the three senses ranking highest in the 19th century are collectivity, realm and state. These three senses are not independent of each other. State co-occurs with collectivity and realm as many times as it occurs as the only sense for a given entry. Realm co-occurs with the other two

140 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

senses over twice as often as it stands alone, and collectivity over three times as often as it stands alone. As to the rest of the senses, position decreases sharply in the 19th century and will continue to decrease in the rest of the ModE period. As mentioned earlier, the number of derivatives associated with the nuance ‘office’ (e.g. clerkdom, monkdom) in this century is as high as those associated with ‘rule’ or ‘authority’. Up to now, the derivatives listed for state had been formed on stage-level predicates, i.e. on bases which denote properties acquired from society (Trips 2009: 169; also Aronoff & Cho 2001). In this century, however, the bases for -dom derivatives may be stage-level and, occasionally, also individual-level predicates, i.e. they may denote properties which are intrinsic to the entities (e.g. apedom, beastdom). From this we may conclude that the 19th century stands as a period of diversification in the range of the senses of the suffix, which may in turn have been caused by the increased activity of -dom during this period. The figures for the 20th century reveal interesting information about the development of the suffix. After the steep increase in the number of derivatives in the 19th century, the 20th century only gathers 10.81% of the derivatives and 11.36% of the sense ocurrences in the entire dataset. Despite this marked decrease with respect to the previous century, the occurrence of individual senses is consistent with the major tendencies recorded for the 19th century. The derivatives become even more limited to the senses state (e.g. cipherdom, outsiderdom), realm (e.g. gangsterdom, golfdom) and collectivity (e.g. picturedom, muzhikdom), which are evenly distributed in the 20th century data. State derivatives are formed on stage-level predicates (e.g. yuppiedom, megastardom) except for one derivative (e.g. teendom). Territory occurs in combination with collectivity and realm (e.g. lodgerdom), and position with state and collectivity. This means a relevant shift in the semantics of the suffix with respect to OE, when position ranked among the most frequent senses. A decreasing tendency for position could be noticed as early as in ME. This shift can be explained in that position was mostly present with the nuances ‘rule’ or ‘dignity’, which were dependent on a specific social structure which is no longer in practice in the 20th century. In addition, the sense/derivative ratio for the 20th century is 1.59, which is also similar to the ratio for the 19th century. Just as in the 19th century the figures suggest a close link between the three main

141

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

senses in the 20th century. State co-occurs with collectivity and realm almost as frequently as it occurs as the only sense for a given neologism. Realm co-occurs with the other two senses over 1.5 times as many and collectivity over three times as many. In addition, collectivity and realm do not always stand as second senses in the definitions, where state is the firstly cited sense. They can stand as first senses in the definitions (e.g. Afrikanerdom, lodgerdom, for collectivity), or as the only senses in the definitions (e.g. crookdom, golfdom, for realm). According to the above, one could say -dom is currently used for the simultaneous expression of states, collectivities and realms, except for the occasional use of other senses that remain from its past history. 5.2 The polysemy of -hood This section shows the results obtained from quantifying the senses identified in the analysis of the 296 -hood derivatives in the study. Table 6 and Figure 3 show the diachronic distribution of -hood senses. No records for skill have been found so this sense is not shown in the results: Table 6:  Distribution of -hood senses in OE, ME and ModE based on the -hood derivatives attested in the OED and their definitions. The sense/derivative ratio for each period is also shown. OE state collectivity position practice realm territory time Total Sense/derivative ratio

n 11 2 5   1   3 22 1.57

ME % 50.00 9.09 22.73   4.55 13.64 6.08

n 29 4 13 4

% 55.77 7.69 25.00 7.69

1 1.92 1 1.92 52 14.36 1.04

ModE n % 202 70.14 30 10.42 34 11.81 3 1.04

19 288 1.24

  6.60 79.56

Total n 242 36 52 7 1 1 23 362

% 66.85 9.94 14.36 1.93 0.28 0.28 6.35 100.00

142 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

90.00 80.00 State, 70.14

70.00 60.00

State

State, 55.77 50.00

Collectivity Position

State, 50.00

Practice

40.00

Realm Territory

30.00 20.00

Time, 13.64

10.00 0.00

Collectivity, 9.09 Realm, 4.55 OE

Time

Position, 25.00

Position, 22.73

Position, 11.81 Collectivity, 10.42

Practice, 7.69 Collectivity, 7.69 Territory, 1.92 Time, 1.92 ME

Time, 6.60 Practice, 1.04 ModE

Fig. 3: Distribution of -hood senses in OE, ME and ModE.

OE is the period with the lowest number of -hood derivatives (4.73%), and also with the lowest sense frequency (6.08%). The sense with the highest frequency is state (50.00%) (e.g. maidenhood, youthhood), and this will become even more marked in later historical periods. Another major sense in this period is position (e.g. apostlehood, priesthood), which refers to religion-related offices and ranks. The other derivatives are bishophood, godhood and monkhood. Time (e.g. knighthood, livelihood) is also recorded in this period referring to life stages (see, however, Trips 2009: 77, whose findings locate this sense in ME). Collectivity (e.g. monkhood, wifehood) is also present in OE. Interestingly, the sense/derivative ratio is higher than in any other period (1.57). This means that the four senses just cited have a tendency to co-occur in the same derivative with at least another sense. This is particularly the case of state, which co-occurs with the other three senses in over half of the entries. Realm is represented by worldhood (referring to the secular word, as opposed to the religious world). Overall, there is a tendency towards religious vocabulary in the OE -dom data.

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

143

In ME the number of derivatives (16.89%) is over three times as high as that recorded in OE. The sense frequency is over twice (14.36%) as high as that of OE, but no other relevant changes are noticed with respect to OE. State (e.g. husbandhood, traitorhood) collects over half of the sense occurrences in this period and remains as the most frequent sense. The nuance ‘relationship’ is firstly recorded in this period in one attestation (sisterhood). Position (e.g. deaconhood, sheriffhood) remains the second most frequent sense, also referred mainly to ‘social position’ or ‘rank’. The use of ‑hood derivatives as titles of respect appears in this period (e.g. fatherhood and motherhood).8 The occurrence of time (e.g. popehood) becomes almost negligible. collectivity (e.g. neighbourhood, womanhood) remains as one of the senses with the lowest frequency. There are only a few instances for the sense practice (e.g. apprenticehood, chapmanhood). In their definition, however, the OED refers to counterparts formed on competing suffixes for three of them: apprenticeship, chapmanship, heathendom. This may be interpreted as confirmation that practice is not a distinctive sense for -hood but may have been used in association with -hood only occasionally. Similarly, territory, which is a metonymic extension from collectivity, appears only in one -hood derivative (neighbourhood), even if this derivative is rather common in English. In ModE the senses follow the pattern obtained for ME despite a peak in the number of derivatives: 78.38% of the derivatives are recorded for ModE. State (e.g. novicehood, planethood) continues to collect even a higher proportion of the sense occurrences (70.14%). The nuance ‘relationship’ is attested in ModE again (e.g. cousinhood, familyhood) and appears exclusively referring to relationships among family members.9 Interestingly, the number of derivatives associated with permanent states during this period, and especially during the 19th 8

9

However, this use is not frequent (n=6) among -hood derivatives, and in most cases it is cited as a title of respect (e.g. fatherhood, motherhood, counthood, hellhood, squirehood). Only in one case there is evidence of use as a mock title: hellhood. Only five occurrences of this sense have been attested for this period (18th century and 19th century). In addition to the two examples above, the other three derivatives are aunthood, blood-brotherhood and blood-sisterhood.

144 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

century, is higher than in previous periods (e.g. bullhood, townhood), in both human and non-human bases. Position (e.g. baronethood, mayorhood) experiences a sharp decrease and again refers to social status. Collectivity (e.g. cousinhood, ladyhood) and time (e.g. babyhood, boyhood) show low frequencies. Probably the most interesting information from ModE is the specialization of the suffix for the sense state according to the general tendency recorded as early as in OE. Table 7 and Figure 4 show the distribution of sense frequency in ModE over three stages: the 16th-18th century, which roughly coincides with Early Modern English, the 19th century, which is the period with the greatest activity by far, and the 20th century, which represents contemporary English. Table 7: Distribution of -hood senses in ModE based on the -hood derivatives attested in the OED and their definitions. The percentages in the Total row are out of the total of -hood senses in Table 6, and not of ModE senses. The sense/derivative ratio for each period is also shown. 16th c.-18th c.

19th c.

20th c.

n

%

n

%

n

%

state

60

67.42

129

70.11

13

86.67

collectivity

7

7.87

22

11.96

1

6.67

position

15

16.85

19

10.33

practice

1

1.12

2

1.09

 

 

time

6

6.74

12

6.52

1

6.67

Total

89

24.59

184

50.83

15

4.14

realm territory

145

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

90.00

State, 86.67

80.00 70.00

State, 67.42

State, 70.11

60.00 State 50.00

Position Collectivity

40.00

Time Practice

30.00 20.00

Position, 16.85

10.00

Collectivity, 7.87 Time, 6.74 Practice, 1.12

0.00

16th c.-18th c.

Collectivity, 11.96 Position, 10.33 Time, 6.52 Practice, 1.09 19th c.

Collectivity, 6.67 Time, 6.67 20th c.

Fig. 4: Distribution of -hood senses in ModE.

The 20th century shows the outcome of the tendencies for -hood senses in previous stages. Despite a marked decrease in the number of derivatives in this century, which amounts to 4.39% of -hood derivatives in the study, state (e.g. hermithood, step-parenthood) is listed for all the 13 derivatives collected in the 20th century. These derivatives are formed on both individual-level predicates, and stage-level predicates. However, and rather remarkably, the -hood derivatives formed on stage-level predicates are defined in the OED as synonymous of -dom doublets (e.g. geekhood vs. eekdom, outsiderhood vs. outsiderdom, pariahhood vs. pariahdom and sahibhood vs. sahibdom), of ‑ness derivatives (e.g. machohood vs. manliness) or of -ship derivatives or doublets (e.g. matehood vs. companionship, hermithood vs. hermitship). The rest of the -hood derivatives in the 20th century are all formed on bases which are individual-level predicates (e.g. facthood, machohood, personhood, supermanhood, step-parenthood and toddlerhood). An exception is patienthood, which is defined both as collectivity and state. In contrast to state, collectivity and time (e.g. toddlerhood) show one occurrence each and are cited in the definitions in combination with state. Position, which covered almost one fourth of the OE sense

146 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

frequency, starts to decrease after the 18th century and is no longer listed in the 20th century. Again, this suggests a relevant semantic shift in the semantics of this suffix. As a result, it seems that, except for occasional traces of other senses, what is currently specific to -hood is the expression of states and, in particular, selection of individual-level predicates for their noun bases. There seems to be an overlap with -dom, -ship and -ness in the expression of states by derivatives formed on bases which are stagelevel predicates. Still, the OED provides a synonymous derivative in the definitions of the -hood derivatives in question, whereas a ‑hood derivative is not cited in the definitions of the synonymous counterparts. This suggests that the synonymous counterparts, formed on stage-level predicates, are more consolidated than the -hood derivatives in question. 5.3 The polysemy of -ship This section shows the results obtained from quantifying the senses identified in the analysis of the 822 -ship derivatives in the study. Table 8 and Fig. 5 show the distribution of -ship senses diachronically. No records for realm have been found so this sense is not shown in the results: Table 8: Diachronic distribution of -ship senses in OE, ME and ModE based on the -ship derivatives attested in the OED and their definitions. The sense/derivative ratio for each period is also shown. OE

ME 

state

11

50.00 77

56.20 232

27.20 320

31.62

collectivity

6

27.27 2

1.46

2.23

2.67

position

3

13.64 42

30.66 421

49.36 466

46.05

practice

2

9.09

10.95 76

8.91

93

9.19

skill

 

 

 

55

6.45

55

5.43

territory

 

 

0.73

13

1.52

14

1.38

time

 

 

 

37

4.34

37

3.66

Total

22

2.17

15 1

%

n

Total

%

Sense/derivative ratio 1.22

n

ModE

n

19

137

13.54 853

1.10

1.25

%

n 27

84.29 1012

%

100.00

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

147

Fig. 5: Distribution of -ship senses in OE, ME and ModE.

OE shows the lowest number of derivatives (2.19%) and sense frequency (2.17%). State (e.g. goodship, soship) stands as the most predominant sense. The nuance ‘relationship’ is already recorded in this period (e.g. brothership, friendship). Collectivity (e.g. boroughship, township) and position (e.g. alderdom, reeveship) are also among the most frequent senses in this period. Position gathers derivatives which refer to ‘rule’, ‘office’ and ‘dignity’ (e.g. aldership, lordship, reeveship). The two former derivatives cited form doublets with -dom derivatives (e.g. ealdordom and lorddom). The fact that ‘rule’ is more frequent in OE -dom derivatives and that the OED refers to ‑dom doublets in the entries of two of the -ship derivatives listed for ‘rule’ suggests that this nuance may not be a distinctive feature of OE -ship, but rather of OE -dom. Still, the number of derivatives is low in both cases. Practice is the sense with the lowest frequency and stands in the derivatives’ definitions as a second sense after state (e.g. witship, earlship). The sense/ derivative ratio is however low (1.22), which means that in most cases only one sense can be recorded per derivative. In ME the number of derivatives increases considerably (15.09% of all -ship derivatives), and also the sense frequency (13.54% of the

148 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

total sense frequency) with respect to the number of derivatives and senses listed in OE. State remains the most frequent sense (e.g. bondship, heirship). Interestingly, a large number of words are formed on adjectival bases and are defined in the OED with an equivalent abstract (-ness) noun (e.g. tendership vs. enderness, greenship vs. greeness). Position now stands as the second most frequent sense, and refers mainly to occupations (e.g. jailership, treasurership). Position as a form of address appears in this period (e.g. ladyship, mothership). As will become evident later, this seems to be a distinctive feature of -ship. There is a considerable decrease of collectivity (e.g. clerkship, shotship). Practice (e.g. housewifeship, mintrelship) stands as a minor sense, and territory (e.g. endship) is only marginal. Most instances of sense co-occurrence in the same entry apply to state and position. Still, sense co-occurrence is only marginal (sense/derivative ratio 1.10). ModE is again the period gathering the highest number of derivatives (82.73%) and, hence, of sense frequency (84.29%). Overall, the most relevant fact in this period is that state (e.g. bachelorship, ownership) ceases to be the most frequent sense, now replaced by position (e.g. managership, studentship). This is despite the fact that the range of nuances associated with state is now wider than in previous historical periods. The derivatives may refer to states associated with intrinsic characteristics (e.g. creatureship, soulship), including states acquired as a result of kinship (e.g. uncleship, nephewship), or states associated with characteristics acquired externally (e.g. guestship, recruitship). Position refers predominantly to occupations (e.g. assistantship, collectorship) and the derivatives are used as a (mock) form of address (e.g. whipship, Monsieurship) in about a quarter of instances for position (22.80%). State and position often co-occur in the same OED entry as in ME (see above). Time and practice often stand as extended senses of position, referring to terms of office (e.g. deputyship, emperorship) and the activities involved in a position or occupation (e.g. championship, pressmanship) respectively. Skill (e.g. boatmanship, soldiership) emerges as a new sense co-occurring in the same OED entry with position or practice, where skill is listed in second position. This is so up to the 18th century. In the 19th and the 20th centuries, skill is mostly listed as the only sense of the derivative. Derivatives defined as

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

149

skill are often formed on -man bases. Collectivity and territory continue to be marginal senses. Collectivity may stand alone (e.g. contributionship) and co-occur similarly with the three senses which gather the highest sense frequency in this period: state (e.g. soulship), position (e.g. pimpship) and practice (e.g. followership). The figures point at a reactivation of collectivity with respect to the decrease of ME, but only marginally. Territory co-occurs in the same OED definition mainly with position (e.g. mormaorship, voivodeship). A closer look into ModE reveals that the above description of the whole period holds for all the senses and throughout the period, except for some interesting findings with respect to the 20th century shown in Table 9 below and in Figure 6: Table 9: Distribution of -ship senses in ModE based on the -ship derivatives attested in the OED and their definitions. The percentages in the Total row are out of the total of -ship senses in Table 8 and not of the ModE senses. The sense/derivative ratio for each period is also shown.

state collectivity position practice skill territory time Total Sense/derivative ratio

16th c. n % 61 27.60 3 1.36 117 52.94 12 5.43 6 2.71 3 1.36 19 8.60 221 21.84 1.35

17th c. n % 80 29.41 6 2.21 142 52.21 24 8.82 6 2.21 5 1.84 9 3.31 272 26.88 1.28

18th c. n % 29 23.58 7 5.69 62 50.41 11 8.94 9 7.32 4 3.25 1 0.81 123 12.15 1.26

19th c. n % 54 27.27 2 1.01 91 45.96 24 12.12 20 10.10 1 0.51 6 3.03 198 19.57 1.15

20th c. n % 8 20.51 1 2.56 9 23.08 5 12.82 14 35.90 2 5.13 39 3.85 1.15

150 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

Fig. 6: Distribution of -ship senses in ModE.

State shows constant figures throughout ModE, except for a slight decrease in the 20th century. This tendency is similar to that of position up to the 19th century. Collectivity and territory are marginal senses during this period and gather (almost) no instances in the 20th century. Time peaks at the beginning of the period and ends up showing low sense rates in the 20th century. In contrast to the rest of the senses, practice increases steadily during ModE and skill increases sharply in the 20th century, ending up as the most frequent sense in this century. In the 20th century, the number of derivatives shows a marked decrease with respect to the previous centuries in the same period (5% of the derivatives in ModE). A decrease in the sense frequency is therefore expected (4.57% of the senses in ModE). In the 20th century, unlike in the previous ModE centuries, skill (e.g. plantsmanship, roadmanship) becomes the sense that gathers the highest sense frequency, while position (e.g. dealership, millionaireship) now stands as the second most frequent sense. The pronounced decrease in position may be partially due to a decrease in the use of -ship derivatives as (mock) forms of address in the 20th century (only one such occurrence is recorded in this century), and also due to the rise of skill. State ranks third and

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

151

the derivatives showing this sense are formed on stage-level bases (e.g. cocksmanship, donorship). There is only one state derivative formed on an individual-level predicate in the 20th-century data (sibship). According to the above, we may say that -ship currently specializes in the denotation of positions and skills associated with occupations. The strong tendency of this suffix to be associated with senses which are related with transitory characteristics acquired socially may be responsible for the type of bases selected by the suffix, i.e. stage-level predicates.

6. Discussion 6.1 Summary of findings The suffixes -dom, -hood and -ship select nominal bases and form nouns denoting abstract states. They also have another property in common: they are polysemous and sometimes their semantic content stretches over the same sense(s). As concluded by Trips (2009), the development of the suffixes’ polysemies and the general semantic specification of each suffix is driven by the original meaning of the suffixes since OE, as it is outlined below for each of the suffixes. OE dōm is defined as ‘jurisdiction, state, statute’ (Marchand 1969: 262). This definition encompasses the major sense attested for the suffix in OE, position, in particular the nuance ‘authority’. In OE the sense territory emerges metonymically from position referring to the area over which a specific rule stretches. Practice is a minor sense in -dom extending metonymically from position. It is more frequent in OE but soon starts to lose ground in ME and ModE. Collectivity extends metonymically from state, and realm metaphorically from territory. Both collectivity and realm are major senses in ModE, even if collectivity is already recorded in ME. As to realm, Aronoff (2017) claims that its emergence is culturally grounded because there were no realms 10,000 years ago. This paper supports this interpretation and develops it further. As has just been mentioned, -dom has been associated since OE with ‘authority’ and territory. So it seems

152 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

feasible to argue that the socio-political organization of OE, strongly based on rules over territories, has been replaced by socio-cultural realms in ModE. This is seen in the clear drop of position after OE and in the metaphorical extension of territory to realm. The types of states conveyed by the suffix are in accordance with the society-oriented character of the suffix. This is also consistent with the fact that -dom predominantly selects bases which are stage-level predicates. Overall, the most outstanding fact about the development of ‑dom is the ModE reinterpretation of territory as realm in ModE, and the subsequent activation of the closely connected sense collectivity. OE hād is defined as ‘state, rank, order, condition or character’ (Marchand 1969: 293). Position is already present in Marchand’s definition of the suffix, arguably as a metonymic extension from state. The analysis in this paper associates position with social rank or status, in OE acquired by occupying a position in a religious hierarchy. This sense, however, loses ground in ME and becomes marginal in ModE. State also extends metonymically to collectivity to refer to entities defined by the same state or condition. In ME state also extends metonymically to time, referring to the time period during which the properties denoted by the base stretch. Since OE, -hood has selected bases which may be individual-level predicates or stage-level predicates. Overall, probably the most outstanding fact about ‑hood is its specialization in the central sense state and, in particular, the tendency to select bases which are individual-level predicates, especially in the 20th century. -ship goes back to OE -scipe/-scype which shares the same root with OE scyppan ‘shape’, i.e. -skap meaning ‘create, ordain, appoint’ (Marchand 1969: 345). In OE the senses disclosed by the analysis are state, collectivity and position, the latter two extended metonymically from the former. position specifically refers to ‘occupation’ and ‘status’ mainly from ME onwards. This sense comprises lexicalized derivatives used as (mock) forms of address. State and position extend metonymically also to practice, and in ModE to time, referring to terms of office. Skill, referring to expertise or art in a particular activity or occupation, emerges in ModE as well. Territory arises in ME and shows a slight increase in ModE as a metonymic extension from position. Territory is an example of a sense which arises naturally due to the semantic character of the suffix but only marginally,

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

153

showing a slight overlap with -dom. Trips (2009: 174) argues that ‑scype preserves the original resultative meaning of the root and this is what makes -ship semantically different from the former two suffixes. Indeed, as we can see, -ship is strongly associated with occupations and more predominantly with skill in the 20th century. Thus, overall, the most relevant fact about -ship is its increased specialization in the denotation of occupations and skills which are (nuances of) senses which are closely associated with the original meaning of the suffix. 6.2 Appraisal of competition among -dom, -hood and -ship The competition among polysemous suffixes should be explored in terms of their individual senses. This is justified in that, even if one and the same sense may be conveyed by more than one suffix, there are also senses which are conveyed by just one suffix and therefore stand outside the competition, e.g. realm in ‑dom and skill in -ship. The emergence of convergent senses across suffixes is due to the semantic closeness of the latter, as in the three suffixes under study here. In this respect, Rainer (2014: 349) explains that nouns denoting status are inherently polysemous readily denoting time, territory and collectivities of persons involved, which is consistent with our data. As a result of their semantic relatedness, doublets or triplets arise for the same sense. Still, in these cases, the survival of the doublets and of the suffixes in general is explained in that, in addition to overlapping for one sense, each suffix specializes in at least another sense which make(s) the suffix distinct. We will illustrate this point with the derivatives in Table 10, which shows examples of two sets of -dom, -hood and -ship derivatives which share the same bases (baby and sheriff). The second column shows the OED definition for each of the derivatives and the third column the senses that have been assigned in our analysis. In Table 10, babydom and babyhood stand as a doublet for collectivity. However, collectivity is cited as rare in babyhood, which is consistent with the fact that collectivity is a dominant sense in -dom, but not in -hood. Babyhood and babyship also stand as a doublet, here for state and time, but babyhood is cited as a dominant derivative for these senses as gathered from its citation in the entry for babyship. These senses

154 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

are also marked as rare in babyship. Baby is an individual-level predicate, so the preference for -hood is consistent with the fact that -hood has a tendency to select bases which are individual-level predicates, while -ship shows a tendency towards bases which are stage-level predicates. As can be seen, each of the derivatives represents a different sense: • babydom, realm and collectivity; • babyhood, state and time; and • babyship, position. Table 10: An illustration of -dom, -hood and -ship triplets. Derivative babydom babyhood

Definition The world of babies; babies collectively. 1. The state of being a baby; the time of life during which one is a baby. 2. Babies considered collectively. Now rare. babyship 1. = babyhood n. 1. Now rare 2. With preceding possessive adjective: a mock title of respect given to a baby. sheriffdom 1. A district or territory under the jurisdiction of a sheriff. 2. The office of sheriff. 3. The realm or order of sheriffs. sheriffhood Obs. The office of sheriff. sheriffship The office of sheriff.

Sense specification realm; collectivity state; time collectivity state; time position (title of respect) territory position ‘occupation’ realm; collectivity position ‘occupation’ position ‘occupation’

Similarly, sheriffdom, sheriffhood and sheriffship seem to form a triplet for position, in particular ‘occupation’. Still, this sense is cited as obsolete in sheriffhood, which is once again consistent with the tendency of -hood towards bases which are individual-level predicates and -dom and -ship towards bases which are stage-level predicates. This limits the competition to sheriffdom vs. sheriffship. Interestingly, as shown in the definitions, in addition to referring to position, sheriffdom denotes territory, realm and collectivity, which are distinctive senses for -dom, and this is why the derivatives survive. In addition to the situation outlined above, a diachronic analysis across senses also shows that, when two or more suffixes coexist for the same sense, the set of derivatives produced by each suffix may

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

155

refer predominantly to different nuances of the same sense, and that the nuances are in accordance to the general semantic specialization of each suffix. Thus, for the sense position, -dom derivatives tend to denote ‘authority’ or ‘dignity’, -hood derivatives social position, and -ship derivatives ‘occupations’ and titles of respect. These differences allow coexistence of more than one type of derivative during the same period, as witnessed by their historical development. position was a prominent sense in OE in -dom derivatives, where it referred to ‘authority’ or ‘dignity’ in the political domain, but it was also present in -hood derivatives where it denoted social ‘status’, mostly acquired by a particular position in a religious hierarchy. In ME, -hood and, especially, -ship took over and coexisted associated with different nuances: ‑hood referred to ‘rank’ and social ‘status’ and -ship to ‘occupation’. Finally, in ModE, -ship is the most prominent suffix for position, referring mainly to occupations, while the other two suffixes became specialized in the expression of other senses. Another example is the minor sense time which predominantly shows in -hood and -ship, in particular in ModE: while in -hood derivatives time is associated with life stages, in -ship derivatives it refers to terms of office, which is again consistent with the individuallevel and stage-level distinction assigned to each of the suffixes. 6.3 Competition among -dom, -hood and -ship in the 20th century The semantic distinctiveness that has been claimed in the suffixes before the 20th century is clearly present in the 20th century. The suffix -dom specializes in the denotation of states or conditions acquired externally, and in the expression of socio-cultural realms and collectivities associated with these realms. Similarly, -ship specializes in the denotation of skills associated with activities or professions, and states or conditions which are socially acquired. In contrast, -hood produces derivatives based on nouns denoting properties of human entities which are intrinsically acquired. When a -hood derivative expresses a state or condition which is externally acquired, the OED cross-refers to an alternative -dom or -ship doublet or counterpart derivative. This is consistent with the fact that -dom and -ship derivatives express socially-acquired states or conditions in the 20th century.

156 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

The picture yielded by the 20th century data contributes towards Aronoff & Cho’s (2001) constraints for -hood and -ship. From a synchronic perspective, Aronoff & Cho claimed that -hood selects bases which are both stage-level and individual-level predicates, while -ship selects bases which are stage-level predicates only. Also synchronically, Lieber (2004: 160) remarked that this constraint is not as robust as stated and she listed a number of -ship derivatives from Lehnert (1971) based on individual-level predicates, which stand as counterexamples to Aronoff & Cho’s constraint. The data in this paper shows that in the 20th century -ship has a strong tendency to select stage-level predicates and -dom to select individual-level predicates. The counterexamples listed by Lieber all date back to the period between the 17th century and the 19th century which, incidentally, is when -ship is more active. It may be hypothesized that, during periods of increased activity, the distribution of the suffix becomes more diversified and extends to new types of bases and senses but that new distributions do not necessarily remain over time. This would explain -ship’s unexpected selection of individual-level predicates as bases during the period from the 17th century to the 19th century. In the 20th century, however, -ship shows a marked decrease in the number of OED derivatives as well as specialization in what has been shown to be specific to the suffix over time with respect to -dom and -hood: the denotation of occupations, and in the related senses skill and practice. In addition, when it comes to the expression of states, the suffix -ship shows a tendency to abandon the selection of individual-stage predicates and a strong tendency to select stage-level predicates for the expression of externally acquired states. The latter is consistent with the general character of the suffix and is also consistent with Aronoff & Cho’s claim regarding -ship. Diversification in the distribution of a suffix during periods of greater activity and later abandonment of novel distributions can be seen elsewhere in the data too: -hood generally selects human bases and, only marginally, non-animate bases. However, during the 19th century, which is the period of greater activity for this suffix, it selects bases denoting non-human animate bases in addition to the typical bases selected by this suffix. In the 20th century, all the bases of -hood derivatives denote human entities and, only marginally, non-animate bases, just as before the 19th century. Therefore, it may be argued that greater morphological activity may give rise to new

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

157

senses which may contribute to the general specialization of the suffix in question and which may remain as major senses (e.g. realm and skill for -dom and -ship respectively), just as it may also give rise to a diversity that is later on abandoned by the suffix in periods of limited morphological activity. As to ‑hood, after a period of increased activity in the 19th century, the suffix shows a sharp decrease in the number of derivatives in the 20th century, as well as a marked specialization in what has been shown to be specific to the suffix over time: the denotation of states and, specifically, what makes it distinct from the other two suffixes, namely a tendency to select individual-level predicates as bases for the expression of intrinsically acquired states. This finding may contribute towards a refinement of Aronoff & Cho’s claim on -hood in that, while the suffix has both selected individual and stage-level predicates since OE, it may have abandoned the selection of stage-level predicates and may have specialized in the selection of individual-level predicates.

7. Conclusion This paper shows that exploration of competition among polysemous affixes should be in terms of the various senses denoted by the suffixes. In particular, it unveils the following picture of -dom, -hood and -ship as potential competitors: i) there are senses which only show in one of the suffixes, namely, realm in -dom and skill in -ship, and this makes the suffixes distinct from one another; ii) when there are senses shared by two suffixes or by the three of them, the nuances may be different and conform to the general semantic character of the suffix in question. This paper support Trips’ (2009) claim that the suffixes’ original meaning determines the semantic development of the suffixes over time and that, as a result, the suffixes remain as specialized forms in different semantic areas; and iii) the suffixes’ long history and their polysemous nature seem to have feedbacked each other: their capability to develop new senses has favored the survival of the suffixes in that it made it possible for the suffixes to specialize in one sense or another over their history and therefore survive and co-exist as distinct suffixes; at the same

158 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

time, the suffixes’ semantic relatedness and their potential rivalry have fostered the development of new senses in an effort to remain different, therefore consolidating the suffixes’ polysemous makeup.

References Arndt-Lappe, Sabine 2014. Analogy in Suffix Rivalry: The Case of English ‑ity and -ness. English Language and Linguistics. 18/3, 497–548. Aronoff, Mark 2017 (submitted). Competitors and Alternants. To appear in a volume of selected papers from IMM 17, Vienna, 2016. Aronoff, Mark / Cho, Sungeun 2001. The Semantics of -ship Suffixation. Linguistic Inquiry. 32/1, 167–173. Baeskow, Heike 2010. His Lordship’s -ship and the King of Golfdom. Against a Purely Functional Analysis of Suffixhood. Word Structure. 3/1, 1–30. Baeskow, Heike 2012. -Ness and -ity: Phonological Exponents of n or Meaningful Nominalizers of Different Adjectival Domains? Journal of English Linguistics. 40/1, 6–40. Bauer, Laurie 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, Laurie 2006. Competition in English Word-formation. In Kemenade, Ans van / Los, Bettelou (eds.) The Handbook of the History of English. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 177–198. Bauer, Laurie / Huddleston, Rodney 2002. Lexical Word-Formation. In Huddleston, Rodney / Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1621–1721. Bauer, Laurie / Lieber, Rochelle / Plag, Ingo 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beard, Robert 1988. On the Separation of Derivation from Morphology. Quaderni di Semantica. 9, 3–59.

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

159

Beard, Robert 1990. The Empty Morpheme Entailment. In Dressler, Wolfgang U. / Luschützky, Hans C. / Pfeiffer, Oskar E. / Rennison, John R. (eds.) Contemporary Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 159–169. Beard, Robert 1995. Lexeme-morpheme Base Morphology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Beard, Robert / Volpe, Mark 2005. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. In Štekauer, Pavol / Lieber, Rochelle (eds.) Handbook of Word-Formation. Dordrecht: Springer, 189–205. Berg, Thomas 2015. Locating Affixes on the Lexicon-Grammar Continuum. Cognitive Linguistic Studies. 2/1, 150–180. Booij, Geert 2007. Polysemy and Construction Morphology. In Moerdijk, Fons / Santen, Ariane van / Tempelaars, Rob (eds.) Leven met woorden. Leiden: Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie, 355– 364. Booij, Geert 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Embick, David / Marantz, Alec 2008. Architecture and Blocking. Linguistic Inquiry. 39, 1–53. Guz, Wojciech 2009. English Affixal Nominalizations across Language Registers. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. 45/4, 447–471. Kastovsky, Dieter 1986. The Problem of Productivity in Word-Formation. Linguistics. 24, 585–600. Lara-Clares, Cristina. This volume. Competition in Present Day English nominalization by zero-affixation vs. -ation. Lehnert, Martin 1971. Rückläufiges Wörterbuch der englischen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie. Lehrer, Adrienne 2000. Are Affixes Signs? The Semantic Relationships of English Derivational Affixes. In Dressler, Wolfgang. U. / Pfeiffer, Oskar E. / Pöchtrager, Markus A. / Rennison, John R. (eds.) Morphological Analysis in Comparison. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 143–154. Lehrer, Adrienne 2003. Polysemy in Derivational Affixes. In Nerlich, Brigitte / Todd, Zazie / Herman, Vimala / Clarke, David D. (eds.) Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 217–232.

160 

Ana Díaz-Negrillo

Lieber, Rochelle 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieber, Rochelle 2005. English Word-Formation Processes. Observations, Issues and Thoughts on Future Research. In Štekauer, Pavol / Lieber, Rochelle (eds.) Handbook of Word-Formation. Dordrecht: Springer, 375–427. Lieber, Rochelle 2009. Introducing Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lindsay, Mark 2012. Rival Suffixes: Synonymy, Competition, and the Emergence of Productivity. In Ralli, Angela / Booij, Geert / Scalise, Sergio / Karasimos, Athanasios (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting ‒ Morphology and the Architecture of Grammar. Patras: University of Patras, 192–203. Lindsay, Mark / Aronoff, Mark 2013. Natural Selection in Self-Organizing Morphological Systems. In Montermini, Fabio / Boyé, Gilles / Tseng, Jesse (eds.) Morphology in Toulouse: Selected Proceedings of Décembrettes 7. Munich: Lincom Europe, 133–153. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics. 4/2, 201–225. Marchand, Hans 21969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. Munich: Beck. Palmer, Chris C. 2015. Measuring Productivity Diachronically: Nominal Suffixes in English Letters, 1400–1600. English Language and Linguistics. 19/1, 107–129. Plag, Ingo 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Plag, Ingo 2003. Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plank, Frans 2010. Variable Direction in Zero-Derivation and the Unity of Polysemous Lexical Items. Word Structure. 3/1, 82–97. Proffitt, Michael 2016. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. . Last accessed 25 Nov 2016. Rainer, Franz 2003. Semantic Fragmentation in Word-Formation: The Case of Spanish -azo. In Singh, Rajendra / Starosta, Sol (eds.) Explorations in Seamless Morphology. London: Sage, 197–211.

On the identification of competition in English derivational morphemes

161

Rainer, Franz 2014. Polysemy in Derivation. In Lieber, Rochelle / Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 338–353. Riddle, Elizabeth M. 1985. A Historical Perspective on the Productivity of the Suffixes -ness and -ity. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) Historical Semantics – Historical Word-Formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 435–461. Trips, Carola 2009. Lexical Semantics and Diachronic Morphology the Development of -hood, -dom and -ship in the History of English. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ullmann, Stephen 1962. Semantics. An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell. Wentworth, Harold 1941. The Allegedly Dead Suffix -dom in Modern English. PMLA. 56/1, 280–306.

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation1

1. Introduction This paper explores what affixes are available for derivation of verbs with a view to identifying to what extent the language system of English selects certain forms to the detriment of others. To that end, it compares which verbal derivatives have been attested in the past but are recorded as no longer in use and which are attested to remain in use. The paper is thus concerned in the main with which verbal affixes are available for which base and which are not, along with some potential implications. Availability is first described by Corbin (1987: 177) as the discrete variable of productivity and defined as the “potential for repetitive rule-governed morphological coining” (Bauer 2001: 211). Availability interacts with a continuous variable, profitability, which refers to the extent to which an available morphological process can be used in language to create new words (Corbin 1987: 177; Carstairs-McCarthy 1992: 37; Bauer 2001: 49), and which can be measured in several ways (for an overview of the specific literature see Fernández-Domínguez this volume). Availability is therefore determined by the language system in that a form is available or unavailable, and depends on the range of possibilities offered by a certain language. Thus, e.g. in English, the suffix -ation is available with bases in -ize (e.g. organization), but -ment is not (e.g. *organizement) (Bauer 2001: 205).

1

Author’s email address: [email protected]; affiliation: University of Granada (Spain).

164 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

The availability of a form is also a result of a lexical need. Whether the new word is used by an individual or needs to be accepted by a community of speakers to be considered available, as in the profile outlined above, has been an open question for some time (see Bauer 2001: 206). It is generally assumed that availability must be regarded as a phenomenon occurring at the level of the speech community and that the introduction of new creations by individuals must be guided by other purposes, e.g. the creation of a new form may be a consequence of the search for a certain stylistic effect, rather than by the need to meet a linguistic necessity. In some cases, it is not clear what determines the speakers’ acceptance of one out of two well-formed synonymous candidates. The competition between two or more forms has been wellattested in language. Due to the universal nature of the concept of competition, the term is not restricted to morphology, but it can occur in other linguistic levels (e.g. phonetics or syntax, see Štekauer this volume) and can be approached from various perspectives. Given the heterogeneity of the phenomena covered by the concept of competition and the different uses of the term (e.g. in language use and language processing, see Štekauer this volume), this chapter focuses on the competition between affixes that may form synonymous derivatives with the same base. Specifically, this chapter focuses on verbal derivatives classified by semantic category based on the assumption that the various meanings or senses of a form “[…] may be assessed independently for availability and profitability” (Bauer 2001: 211). Unlike other works on competition (e.g. Plag 1999, where the pairs of affixes are selected for research according to the competition described in the literature on the issue), the patterns of coexistence (and potential competition) identified here have been collected from a sample extracted from the entire frequency list of the British National Corpus (hereafter, BNC; Davies 2004–) and described in terms of form and meaning (for a description of data collection and data selection, see Fernández-Domínguez this volume). This chapter is structured as follows: section 2 is a brief review of the methodological limitations of the study of competition. Section 3 provides a description of the method used. Section 4 is an overview of

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

165

the most common patterns found in coexisting verbal affixes as well as an account of the profile displayed by verbal affixes. Section 4 also contains an analysis of the terms of the coexistence between the suffix -ize and zero-derivation when both affixes express a causative meaning. To the best of my knowledge, no specific descriptions of the behavior of these affixes when they compete for the expression of a particular meaning are available in the literature. Section 5 summarizes the main conclusions of this analysis.

2. The study of morphological competition and its limitations The universal character of competition makes it an undeniable characteristic of language rather than a specific feature of a particular phenomenon (see Štekauer this volume for a detailed account of the concept competition or rivalry in general and for a bibliographical review of related concepts). At the more specific level of morphology, the description of coexisting derivatives synonymous in meaning but formally distinct is also problematic. The range of definitions available may be partly a consequence of a set of intertwined factors, both synchronic and diachronic (e.g. formal and semantic restrictions described in Lara-Clares this volume), and partly caused by the difficulty of delimiting the degree of semantic similarity between the two forms and the very definition of synonymy. The diversity of approaches to the issue of competition proposed in the 17th International Meeting of Morphology (2016) illustrates that there is no agreement about the necessary conditions for competition to take place in derivational morphology regarding the relation of synonymy between the competing forms. Aronoff (2016) states that the competition between two forms takes place when they share the same meaning and distribution. Such coexistence does not last for long because the forms tend to find a niche of specialization. Similarly, Fradin (2016) argues that in their distribution doublets “often present differences that might subsequently become institutionalized in meaning distinctions, i.e. niches”

166 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

and, therefore, “truly competing doublets do not exhibit free variation.” Dressler, Barbaressi, Schwaiger, Ransmayr & Korecky-Kröll (2016) classify synonymy following the typology established by Natural Morphology. Others, such as Chiba (2016), use the term “near-synonyms” to refer to Finnish derivatives that coexist and how they are distributed in corpora. However, these approaches usually refer to the synchronic competition between two forms, but there is no specific diachronic account of the resolution of competition. The study of competition is hampered by the impact of some mechanisms involved in language change. Apart from the role played by phonological, morphological, semantic and pragmatic restrictions, by way of specific processes like blocking or analogy (see Lara-Clares this volume). Competition is viewed in this volume as the coexistence of two or more affixes for the same base and for the expression of the same semantic category, if restrictions (e.g. phonological, morphological) do not apply and no semantic or distributional differences are observed. The study of competition is also affected, among others, by the influence of lexicalization and borrowing (Bauer 2009: 182). In the case of lexicalization, the resulting loss of transparency usually obscures the analysis of words making it almost impossible to distinguish the word-formation process through which the word has been created and whether a process is still available. Similarly, borrowing may affect the analysis of competing patterns, especially in the case of English morphology, as it is strongly influenced by systematic borrowing, mainly from French and, to a lesser degree, directly from Latin and Greek. For example, Lindsay & Aronoff (2013) analyzed the effect of borrowing on the competition between -ment, -ity and -ation and showed that the decrease in the productivity of the suffix -ment results, among other things, from the borrowing of the suffix -ation at a higher rate than the borrowing of -ment.2 In other cases of borrowed suffixes in competition, such as -ic vs. -ical and -ize vs. -ify, competition is resolved by the complementary distribution of the suffixes into specialized niches: the suffix

2

This factor alone does not explain the lower productivity of -ation, as a decrease in the number of borrowed verbal bases that can combine with -ment is also cited in this respect (Lindsay & Aronoff 2013).

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

167

-ic is more productive than -ical and preferred in general use, whereas -ical is restricted to the domain of bases ending in -ology. In the case of the verbal suffixes, -ify is preferred in monosyllabic bases (Lindsay & Aronoff 2013). Like other branches of linguistics, especially research on linguistic morphology, the study of morphological competition has benefited from the increased data availability offered by electronic dictionaries and corpora. Although the advantages are many, there are also disadvantages that are intrinsic to the compilation and later use of etymological dictionaries and that are not easily circumvented, e.g. the reliability of the data for research on competition available in dictionaries has been questioned because the earliest and latest dates of attestation recorded might not correspond with reality (see Anshen & Aronoff 1988; Bauer 2001; 2009; see also Kaunisto 2009: 78 on analysis of data of the Oxford English Dictionary, hereafter OED). Similarly, the range of use and distribution of the dictionary entries (e.g. whether they are in use or not) might not represent faithfully real use or may be outdated. This is mainly because dictionaries follow usage and, as a result, may lie behind as regards the validity of a given word for a given meaning in a given context and within a given regional variety, to mention only some variables. Lexicographic records are intended for illustration of meanings and use and cannot be taken as an index of frequency of use, or the semantic descriptions might be biased by lexicographic decisions (Bauer, Valera & Díaz-Negrillo 2010: 6) and, thus, vary substantially from one dictionary to another. The use of corpora also presents a series of drawbacks that affect the study of certain linguistic phenomena and, specifically, of zeroderivation. Although widely referred to at present as a highly productive process in English (see, among others, Plag 2016), zero-derivation has been often ignored in research on competition as its corpus-based analysis is problematic (Kjellmer 2001: 189). The choice of the corpus can also have an effect on the results obtained. Aspects such as corpus size, the span of time covered by its samples, and the register or the variety of English represented may bias the results, as noticed by Kaunisto (2009: 85) for his analysis of -ive and -ory adjectives. However, despite the problems mentioned above, etymological dictionaries and corpora are

168 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

two of the main sources of data available for the study of competition, as described in the following section.

3. Data selection Based on the sample retrieved from the entire BNC frequency list (see Fernández-Domínguez this volume), this section describes how the pairs that are diachronically described in this chapter have been selected (-ize vs. -ate and -ize vs. zero-derivation). 3.1 Pattern identification and selection In order to account for the diachronic development of the affixes in competition for the expression of the same meaning, two or more forms are grouped as clusters, i.e. sets of synonymous derivatives morphologically related by their bases but formed with a different affix that can be grouped into doublets, triplets, etc. When two or more clusters share the same morphological and semantic profile by listing the same type of derivatives with respect to the same counterparts, then they can be grouped as larger sets of examples, or patterns.3 Thus, example (1) is a pattern in which the affix -en and zero-derivation express a causative meaning in all the clusters according to the information provided by the OED: (1) closen vs. pinken vs. weaken vs. sadden vs. freshen vs. smarten vs.

3

close pink weak sad fresh smart

(‘make close’) (‘make pink’) (‘make weak’) (‘make sad’) (‘make fresh’) (‘make smart’)

The term “pattern” is then a convenient label to group the clusters with a recurrent profile as they have fewer probabilities to be just an isolated phenomenon.

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

169

These two considerations mentioned above, i.e. formal contrast and semantic identity, pose some problems. The first limitation regarding the affixes that form a cluster is their presumed relation of synonymy. As pointed out in section 2, there is no agreement on the definition of synonymy, at least in this field and this affects the consideration of two affixes as synonymous. The relation of synonymy can also be hard to identify according to the lexicographic data. However, and despite the problems (etymological) dictionaries pose, they are one of the few sources of data for the study of morphological competition. In order to overcome this methodological problem as far as possible, synonymy has also been considered between one or more senses of each of the competing derivatives (e.g. in the pair of derivatives union and unionize, the former has only the sense of ‘join in a union’, whereas in the latter this sense is marked as “obsolete” by the OED, but keeps other senses related to trade). The second consideration about semantics is that the delimitation of senses into semantic categories is sometimes blurry. Thus, the literature on the issue has attested the problems in the division of the categories causative and resultative. Plag (1999: 132) opts for considering them within the same category as he argues that the only difference between the two categories is the word-class of the base of the derivative with such meanings. The unclear distinction between reversative and privative is also a common drawback in the study of semantics and there are even cases in which no agreement can be reached (Bauer, Lieber & Plag 2013: 369). For the purpose of this paper, the semantic analysis relies on the categories put forward by Bagasheva (this volume). According to the above, Table 1 shows the nominal and verbal patterns identified from the sample collected:

170 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

Table 1: Classification of nominal and verbal class-maintaining and class-changing affixes based on their semantic category, with specification of the total number of clusters obtained for each sense and the number of patterns identified. Word-class

Nouns

Verbs

Affix type

Semantic category Number of clusters Class-maintaining augmentative 1

Number of patterns 0

action

34

5

state

16

2

agent instrument

9 6

0 0

4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 10 8 6 2 55 11 8 3 2 2 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 10 4 2 0 0 0 0

resultative abstraction Class-changing entity process occupation patient feminine collectivity ability privative reversative Class-maintaining augmentative manner causative instrument resultative Class-changing action location process state

As Table 1 shows, certain differences can be identified in nouns and verbs: the 944 nominal clusters obtained from the conditions specified 4

The number of nominal and verbal clusters differs from the figures given by Fernández-Domínguez (this volume) because the classifications of the type agent/entity, reversative/privative or doubts cannot be computed here for the calculation of the modal dispersion. Therefore, the clusters that lie under these categories have been excluded here.

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

171

above are distributed into 16 different semantic categories (one for class-maintaining affixes and 14 for class-changing affixes), and the total of 108 verbal clusters are organized into eleven semantic categories (three for class-maintaining affixes and three for class-changing affixes). In statistical terms, the dispersion shown by the two wordclasses can be measured by the modal dispersion.5 The modal dispersion in the case of nouns (10.21) is twice as high as the dispersion of verbs (5.60). This means that the identification of clear patterns is more difficult in nouns due to the semantic diversity of the affixes selected. The patterns that are more suitable for the analysis pursued here are those with the higher number of cases of resolved competition. This is because, in principle, and out of probabilities, the more clusters a pattern contains, the higher the distance to find instances where the affixes have ceased to coexist and can serve as a starting point for the study of competition. Unfortunately, the nominal patterns obtained do not allow an analysis of this type, and for that reason this chapter will focus only on the competition between verbal affixes in what follows (see section 4). 3.2 The OED and the study of morphological competition Once the patterns with the clearest cases of resolved competition were identified, additional instances of such patterns were searched for in the OED (see section 4). The OED was searched for all the units with a certain affix contained in some of the patterns by using the command *affix. In order to automatically discard other word-classes, the data were filtered by word-class (e.g. verb) and the search was restricted to derivatives formed in English to avoid as many lexicalized forms as possible by excluding derivatives from other languages. In order to limit the search to forms expressing a certain meaning, the definitions were also filtered (e.g. ‘make into’ usually appears in the definition of causative). 5

The results obtained from the modal dispersion formula (Total number of casesCases in the mode) / (Total number of cases vs. Total categories used) must not be interpreted according to a scale, but the higher the value obtained, the greater the dispersion is, e.g. the modal dispersion for nouns is 10.26, which means that nouns show a higher variability in their classification into semantic categories.

172 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

The use of etymological dictionaries for the study of diachronic change poses several problems (see, among others, Görlach 1991; Nevalainen 1999; Kastovsky 2000), such as the reliability of the dates of earliest and latest attestation in general, some lack of consistency between the lexicographic definition and the quotations provided, sometimes as a consequence of the lack of contextual information, the time gaps observed in the dating of the quotations (e.g. mongrel, with a long gap between the attestations of its four records: 1602, 1635 and 1662 to 1941), and the low number of quotations in some lexemes (e.g. sableize, only one record). Besides, forms recorded as in use by the dictionary may not always reflect the use of such forms at present, as they are not recorded in corpora (e.g. ghettoV, attested in the OED but not recorded in the corpora), partly because of the limitations inherent to corpora. These and other issues hinder the identification of competition patterns solely based on lexicographic data. Even so, the use of etymological dictionaries is one of the methods most frequently used for the study of morphological competition. The information in the OED regarding the present use of the forms analyzed was contrasted with the information supplied by the BNC (Davies 2004–), considering only those occurrences with the sense of the derivative that is in competition. The information provided by the Corpus of Contemporary American English (hereafter, COCA) (Davies 2008–), and the Google Books Ngram Viewer6 (hereafter, Google Ngrams) is only illustrative of the attestation of the forms in other corpora. Note, however, that, unlike the BNC data, the data in the latter two cases do not consider senses, i.e. those data are used here only as indicative of the present availability of the forms studied. It should be highlighted that the (non‑)availability in the corpora of forms with only one sense attested in the OED is not as problematic as those cases in which the competing sense is recorded as obsolete but the form continues to exist with other meanings and with a high frequency (e.g. equal vs. equalize, where, according to its collocations, equal is attested in 6

The data taken from the Google Books Ngram Viewer is used here only insofar as it may be indicative of the current frequency of the derivatives that are attested to coexist in the OED and exclusively in order to confirm the information provided by the corpora, or when no data are available in the BNC or in the COCA.

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

173

corpus data but not for the sense under study here). The distribution of senses into domains is sometimes in line with the information provided by the OED regarding the specific use of a sense e.g. the verb factor is used in ‘Business and Finance’, and this is reflected in the corpora. Occasionally the information of the dictionary and the uses in the corpora do not match, especially regarding use in varieties, e.g. femininev is attested as in use in American English by the OED, but it is not recorded in the COCA.

4. Competition in verbal derivation This section presents the results obtained from the sample described by Fernández-Domínguez (this volume) after use of the method described in section 3. Specifically, section 4.1 reviews verbal competition based on the clusters obtained from the abovementioned sample. In order to account for the possible ways in which competition can be resolved, it also focuses on the competition between the suffix -ize and zero-derivation for the expression of causative meaning. This choice is motivated by the profile displayed by the pair of affixes regarding both the number of clusters and the inconsistency in the outcomes after a period of coexistence of the two types of derivatives. 4.1 Competition in class-maintaining and class-changing affixes Based on the lemmas collected from the sample and their competing forms attested in the OED, 117 clusters were identified as groups of derivatives etymologically related by their bases, but formed with various affixes that express the same meaning (see Fernández-Domínguez this volume). For easier analysis, the clusters were divided into two groups: one for class-maintaining and another for class-changing affixes. This separation appears to be relevant only for presentation of results, because both groups display in the main a similar profile as regards resolved competition regardless of the function of the

174 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

affix. Various patterns of past competition can also be identified both as regards the number of competitors and also as regards the patterns of coexistence attested in the OED. In what follows, and within the groups of class-changing and class-maintaining affixes, these patterns are described according to the number of competitors. In general, 83 clusters (around 70.9%) consist of two members for the expression of the same meaning without any difference in use according to the data sources. The forms in (2) and (3) are attested forms in use according to the OED: (2) ghetto (1936-)7 (‘put people in a ghetto’) Jews, who are ghettoed under the racial legislation. (Times. 15 Feb. 11 vs. 3, 1936) (3) ghettoize (1939-) (‘put people in a ghetto’) Arcand’s attempt..to ghettoize a minority. (Canadian Jewish Chron. 4 Aug. 3, 1939)

Based on the information provided by the OED, the two-term clusters show three possible profiles of competition. Over half of the clusters with two members (44 clusters) remain active in Present Day English (hereafter, PDE) (for a review of this type of competition see Fernández-Domínguez and Lara-Clares this volume), as in the case of ghetto vs. ghettoize, whereas competition has been resolved in 6 clusters by means of semantic specialization (e.g. union vs. unionize, where the zero-derived form is preferred in trade), in 26 by the decay of one of the forms (e.g. coom vs. becoom, where the first form is obsolete since the 19th century) and in 3 cases by the decay of both forms (e.g. annal vs. annalise are both marked as “obsolete” by the OED since the 17th century). A total of 30 clusters (around 25.6%) contain three members, especially in the group of class-changing affixes. A cluster is considered to have three members if the OED records attest their coexistence simultaneously at any given period of time. In that case, it may be said 7

The dates of earliest and latest attestation provided here are extracted from the OED. As this chapter considers competition between senses, the dates of attestation belong to the dates provided for the sense in competition, and not to the dates of the lexeme in general without sense separation. An open hyphen means that the form is still in use.

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

175

that, unless the dictionary records specify different conditions of use, they may have been in competition for the expression of the same meaning and, in principle, can thus be described as competitors. The threeterm clusters present three possible profiles of competition based on the information provided by the dictionary. The first possibility occurs in six of the clusters: three members may be in present competition, as in the following examples, in which the three forms contained in the clusters with the base syllable mean ‘divide into syllables’: (4) (5)

syllable (c1633-) The first prayer those lips had ever syllabled. (M. E. Braddon. One Thing Needful v, 1886) syllabize (1656-) Every word is syllabized, and every syllable protracted to three times its due quantity. (Examiner 694 vs. 1, 1831) (6) syllabify (1926-) If one assumes that ø is the alternative to syllabifying -s, then one can establish a graded gamut of markedness among the three alternants. (Language 48 357, 1972)

The second option is that, of the three forms that compete for the same meaning, one has ceased to exist, i.e. one of the affixes is recorded as obsolete, whereas the other two are not and are therefore assumed to remain in competition. This happens in twelve clusters, e.g. in the forms dull, dullify and dullen (‘make dull’): (7) (8) (9)

dull (c1374-) Man is dull’d by an evil habit. (R. Barclay. Apol. True Christian Divinity v. §21. 165, 1678) dullify (1657-) Watry humidity doth..dullify the strength of every sapour. (R. Tomlinson tr. J. de Renou. Physical Inst. i, in Medicinal Dispensatory sig. F3v, 1657) dullen (1832–1832) His glossy brown locks were now dullened and mixed with grey. (L. Hunt. Sir Ralph Esher III. xii. 254, 1832)

176 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

A similar case is found in nine clusters, where three forms have been competing for the same meaning, two of the forms have decayed in use and, therefore, only one of the forms is in current use. The following cluster meaning ‘do missionary work’ exemplifies this: (10) mission (1692–1994) Parties, each led by its own captain, and missioned to its separate duty, began to go forth. (Temple Bar Sept. 32, 1887) (11) missionate (1815–1966) Our missionaries should at least know what they are talking about before they set out to missionate. (Publ. Mod. Lang. Assoc. 81 ii. 8 vs. 1, 1966) (12) missionize (1826) Some Italian nuns were going around trying to missionize the small children in Rrëshen. (C. de Waal. Albania Today viii. 118, 2005)

The third possibility is that, in a cluster formed by three forms, two have never coexisted at the same time because one of the derivatives is recorded as obsolete before the earliest attestation of a third derivative and, therefore, they are in fact two separate clusters of two separate competitors. Below there is an example of one of the six clusters that show this profile: (13) (14) (15)

mislike (eOE-1874) If thou thinkest that thou..mayest take what thou likest, and leave what mislikes thee. (E. B. Pusey. Lenten Serm. 56, 1874) unlike (c1275-c1380) He haþ sorwe of þe synne, bi resoun þat it unlikiþ God. (Wyclif Sel. Wks. II. 267, c1380) dislike (1575–1814) If the thing dislikes you, use it accordingly. (‘Coriat Junior’ Another Traveller! II. 208, 1769)

The forms in (13) to (15) compete for the expression of the meaning ‘displease’ (privative). Although in principle this may appear to be a three-term cluster, the earliest attestation of dislike dates back to 1575 whereas unlike is marked as “obsolete” since 1380. This suggests that dislike and unlike have never coexisted for this semantic category and, therefore, this triplet should be split into two distinct clusters: one

177

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

formed by mis- and un- (as attested by their coexistence since the date of the latest attestation of the latter term, in this case 1380), and a second cluster where mis- and dis- have coexisted since the date of the earliest attestation of the later term, in this case, 1578. This profile brings competition to a two-member cluster and suggests that, even if three elements are attested simultaneously for the expression of one semantic category, the potential competition within this three-term cluster is resolved first between two of the units or, in other words, one of the competitors is discarded as obsolete according to the OED records, and the other two remain, at least, for a time. Clusters with more than three members are rare (3.4%): e.g. chaste (c1200–1621), chastise (c1325–), chasten (1526–) and chastify (1540–), for the meaning ‘make better’. Competition has been completely resolved only in one of the clusters, i.e. there is only one form attested as in use: embolden (1503–) (‘make bold’) has prevailed over the forms bold (OE–1887), embold (1400–1618) and bolden (1526–1864). In what follows, this chapter focuses on the most common patterns, i.e. the pattern with two affixes attested for the expression of the same meaning (83 clusters, 70.9% of the clusters obtained from the sample). A list of the competing affixes ordered by the number of clusters contained in each pattern, their sense and an example of each are presented in Table 2: Table 2: Patterns of competition between two affixes in class-maintaining and class-changing affixes that are formed by two or more clusters with the same competing affixes. Affix type

#

Affixes

Clusters Semantic category

Example

1

un- vs. dis-

5

reversative

unnest,disnest

2

out- vs. over- 4

augmentative

outachieve, overachieve

Class3 maintaining 4

dis- vs. un-

3

privative

dispossess, unpossess

dis- vs. de-

3

privative

disflower, deflower

5

un- vs. de-

2

reversative

unconsecrate, deconsecrate

178  Affix type

Classchanging

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina #

Affixes

Clusters Semantic category

Example

1

-ize vs. Ø

8

causative

mongrelize, mongrel

2

-ize vs. -ate

8

causative

objectivize, objectivate

3

-en vs. Ø

6

causative

pinken, pink

4

-ate vs. Ø

4

causative

gyrate, gyre

5

-ize vs. Ø

4

resultative

factorize, factor

6

en- vs. Ø

3

instrument

embalm, balm

7

be- vs. Ø

3

instrument

becoom, coom

8

-ize vs. -ify

2

causative

objectize, objectify

9

-ate vs. Ø

2

resultative

differentiate, difference

2

instrument

acidize, acidify

10 -ize vs. -ify

The classification into semantic categories proposed in Table 2 is only illustrative of a basic distinction among senses. Although it may be controversial to consider two clusters as a pattern based on the competing affixes and the sense expressed, the purpose is not to set a series of established patterns, but to present a general picture of the patterns identified in the sample. Thus, Table 2 shows that, in class-maintaining affixes, reversative is the semantic category with the highest number of clusters with two affixes: un- and dis-. The second most frequent semantic category is augmentative (out- vs. over-) and the third is privative (dis- vs. un-). In class-changing affixes, causative is the most common category for the first four pairs of affixes (e.g. -ize vs. Ø). Apart from causative, the rest of the patterns has either a resultative (e.g. -en vs. Ø) or an instrumental meaning (e.g. be- vs. Ø). Regarding affixes, the zero-affix is the most common affix as it appears in seven of the ten patterns presented in Table 2 expressing various senses (-ize vs. Ø, -en vs. Ø, -ate vs. Ø, -ize vs. Ø, en- vs. Ø, be- vs. Ø and ‑ate vs. Ø). Table 3 specifies the contents of Table 2 by showing the number of clusters with resolved and unresolved competition, again in class-maintaining and class-changing affixes.

179

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

Table 3: Resolved and unresolved competition in class-maintaining and class-changing affixes. Affix type

Class-maintaining

Class-changing

#

Affixes

Resolved

Unresolved

Total

1

un- vs. dis-

2

3

5

2

out- vs. over-

0

4

4

3

dis- vs. un-

2

1

3

4

dis- vs. de-

2

1

3

5

un- vs. de-

0

2

2

1

-ize vs. Ø

4

4

8

2

-ize vs. -ate

3

3

6

3

-en vs. Ø

3

3

6

4

-ate vs. Ø

1

3

4

5

-ize vs. Ø

2

2

4

6

en- vs. Ø

0

3

3

7

be- vs. Ø

0

3

3

8

-ize vs. -ify

0

2

2

9

-ate vs. Ø

1

1

2

10

-ize vs. -ify

0

2

2

According to Table 3, most units remain attested as in use for the same semantic category, i.e. in three of the five patterns formed by class-maintaining affixes, (e.g. out- vs. over-), and according to the OED, no obvious preference for any of the affixes is observed in the four clusters identified for the category augmentative. The only pair of affixes where competition ends up with the same result is un- vs. dis-, in which there seems to be a preference for the former to express reversative with the bases bury and nest. Both un- derivatives date back to the early 15th century, whereas the earliest forms with dis- are recorded later. A similar situation is observed with horse, although both forms (unhorse vs. dishorse meaning ‘dismount’) remain in competition. The remaining two clusters uncover vs. discover, unrobe vs. disrobe remain attested for the expression of the same meaning since their earliest attestations in the 14th and 16th centuries, respectively. Regarding the remaining two patterns within class-maintaining affixes, competition can be viewed as resolved towards opposite

180 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

outcomes: de- remains an attested form with respect to dis- (privative) when the base is consecrate, whereas dis- remains as the attested form with respect to de- (privative) when the base is personalize. The low number of clusters obtained for each of the patterns listed in Table 3 does not allow a formal description of the possible restrictions that may affect the prevalence of an affix with respect to a particular base. Similarly, most of the records obtained for the clusters formed by class-changing affixes consist of forms attested as in use for the same sense. The following section focuses on the pairs of affixes -ize vs. Ø and -ize vs. ‑ate, because their data display the highest number of attestations of any one term recorded as obsolete within the pair, and also because they are the pairs with the highest number of occurrences. For this reason, they are also possibly the ones where clear patterns may be found, even if still within the low figures recorded in the sample. The third pair of affixes listed within class-changing affixes in Table 2, ‑en vs. Ø, is not considered in the following section even if it attests the same number of examples as -ize vs. -ate, because the patterns obtained do not hint a clear situation or a clear outcome: half of the clusters have their members in present competition, whereas -en prevails in two clusters and zero-derivation in another. This is in line with what has been described elsewhere (see Lara-Clares this volume). Figure 1 (opposite page) represents the diachronic development of the competing pairs in -ize and -ate extracted from the sample. The suffix -ate is recorded as obsolete in coexistence with -ize in vaporate vs. vaporize and fraternize vs. fraternate.8 In other pairs, a later derivative in -ize expressing the semantic category causative is attested to remain in use (energize vs. energate). Even when the dates of attestation suggest that both affixes still coexist in the 20th century (masculinize vs. masculate), the preference for the suffix -ize over -ate is explicitly remarked in the OED. This is further supported by corpus data: only the derivative in ‑ize is recorded in the BNC (4 attestations) and in the COCA (49 attestations). 8

The distinction between -ate derivatives and borrowings is problematic regarding the date attested in the OED. Although controversial, forms etymologically described as borrowings in the OED and without a previously attested possible base have been discarded to retain only the clearest possible cases.

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

181

Fig. 1: Timeline of the coexistence of the suffixes -ize (solid line) and -ate (broken line) in the clusters obtained from the sample for the expression of the semantic category causative.

No clear differences in meaning are observed in other clusters of the same affixes such as rusticize vs. rusticate and objectivize vs. objectivate, in which both units are attested to be in use. That said, it must also be remarked that neither rusticize nor objectivate are recorded in the BNC or the COCA. They also show lower frequencies in Google Ngrams: Table 4: Frequencies for -ize derivatives and their -ate competitors in the BNC, the COCA and Google Ngrams.9 Derivatives BNC objectivize9 objectivate rusticize rusticate

0 0 0 0

COCA 4 0 0 4

Google Ngrams (%) (Scale 1:1e-05) 1.0092 0.01358 0 0.09070

In summary and based on the clusters extracted from the sample, derivatives in -ize remain in use by contrast with their semantically comparable 9

A third form (objectify) with a different base (objectN) that conveys the same meaning (causative) displays higher frequencies in the BNC (42), in the COCA (399) and in Google Ngrams (3.30801). This term is not considered alongside the two forms described above because it derives from a different base, even if it is semantically comparable.

182 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

forms in ‑ate in all the patterns, except for rusticate. Despite the low number of clusters obtained, the results are in line with previous descriptions of -ize vs. ‑ate (specifically in Plag 1999: 104), where the -ate form is described as “much less frequent.” By contrast, the picture obtained from Figure 2 for -ize forms and their zero-derived equivalents is less clear than the one presented for -ize and -ate derivatives. Of the five clusters where one of the forms has disappeared, the -ize form is preferred in Latinize vs. Latin (‘turn into Latin’) and mongrelize vs. mongrel (‘make mongrel e.g. in character’), whereas zero-derivation remains in unionize vs. union (‘make into vs. join in a union’). Both clusters contain forms stressed in the first syllable. However, whereas -ize prevails in clusters where the bases of the derivatives are adjectival (Latinize, mongrelize), zero-derivation does in nominal bases (duel, union). The meaning or the sense expressed both by marginal and marginalize (‘make marginal notes upon’) becomes obsolete in both forms, although other senses of the -ize derivative remain in use.

Fig. 2: Timeline of the coexistence of the suffix -ize (solid line) and zero-derivation (broken line) in the clusters obtained from the sample for the expression of the semantic category causative.

The outcomes of the competition between the suffix -ize and zeroderivation do not shed light on the preference for one or the other affix, partly for the opposite results observed, but to a large extent again for

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

183

the small number of clusters obtained. In order to verify whether a larger sample would suggest a preference for one of the affixes and provide an in-depth analysis of the competition between both expressing causative, the OED was searched for units displaying the same profile. Derivatives in -ize were filtered by part of speech (verb) and language of origin (English). In order to reduce the number of clusters and remain within the limits of the semantic category under study, only the forms containing the words ‘make’, ‘cause’ and ‘render’ in the definitions were selected. Of the total number of 816 derivatives in -ize, a coexisting zero-derived form sharing the same base could only be attested in 45 clusters. They were then classified by century according to the date of earliest attestation of the derivative in -ize. Figure 3 shows the clusters in which an -ize derivative first attested in the 16th century and a zero-derived form coexist for the same sense:

Fig. 3: Timeline of the coexistence of the suffix -ize (solid line) and zero-derivation (broken line) obtained from the OED for the expression of the semantic category causative.

According to the OED, of the five -ize forms first attested in the 16th century, only womanize coexists with a zero-derived alternative for the same meaning (‘make woman-like’). However, an interpretation of the OED quotations provided by the dictionary seems to indicate that, whereas womanize (attested since 1586) usually appears in contexts in which a man has been given womanish features:

184  (16)

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina I want to womanize the Bible, rend it, render it homey, homemade. (B. A. Fennelly. Tender Hooks 66, 2004)

The OED quotations for woman (attested since 1611) refer, thus, to traditional features attributed to women: (17)

Her, who, in shewing thee her heart, unbound The sore oppressing chains that womaned her. (E. J. Brennan. Witch of Nemi 142, 1873)

Nevertheless, as woman is not attested in the corpora or in Google Ngrams, few firm conclusions can be drawn. In the clusters where competition has been resolved, zero-derivation prevails in three cases: gentilize vs. gentle (‘make mild’), melancholize vs. melancholy (‘make melancholy’) and serenize vs. serene (‘make serene, calm’). Nonetheless, of these clusters only the form gentle is attested as still in use: the latter two forms are recorded as obsolete since the beginning of the 19th century and have not been replaced by a third derivative with the same base. In the pair gentilize vs. gentle derived from the adjective gentle for ‘make gentle, mild’, the -ize derivative (attested since 1679) has decayed. The appearance of the homonymous form gentilize (from Gentileadj) (attested since 1593) meaning ‘to live as a Gentile or heathen’ may have had an influence on the decay of gentilize (‘make gentle’): (18) (19)

Those that are rich strive to Gentilize their Female Of-spring. (T. M. Life Satyrical Puppy 100, 1657) They began to Jewdaize, yea, and to Gentilize. (T. Lawson. Mite into Treasury 50, 1680)

The fact that gentilize is not recorded in any of the corpora used here is indicative of its obsolescence. This is also reinforced by its low frequency in PDE according to Google Ngrams (0.00316%). Nevertheless, the lack of information regarding its meaning and use in the texts collected by use of the latter search engine makes it impossible to distinguish whether this frequency is for gentilize (as a deadjectival verb from the base gentle), for its homonym gentilize (as a deadjectival verb from the base Gentile) or for both.

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

185

In the remaining cluster, the dates of the latest attestation of god (1592–1956) vs. godize (1592–1993) ‘make into a god, to deify’ are too close to allow any claim. Also, both are marked as “rare” in the OED. This may be a consequence of the existence of a third competitor in -ify, namely godify (1603-), which is apparently in use with the same meaning: (20) (21) (22)



How the good priest gods himself! (Tennyson Becket v. iii. 209, 1984) ‘There is nothing to fear but fear itself.’.. This approach ‘God-izes’ fear, making​ ‘it’ into a demon and not allowing what is real. (G. Eriksen. When Acceptance is Denial ii. 97, 1993) Nelson Mandela has been so effectively godified and saintified that his very role in letting apartheid criminals go scot-freehas remained unspoken of in public discourse. (Sowetan (Johannesburg) (Nexis) 23 Jan., 2012)

None of the forms is attested in the BNC, in the COCA, or in Google Ngrams and, therefore, it is difficult to tell to which extent the present situation matches the OED’s description. Figure 4 presents the derivatives in -ize formed during the 17th century and their zero-derived counterparts:

Fig. 4: Timeline of the coexistence of the suffix -ize (solid line) and zero-derivation (broken line) obtained from the OED for the expression of the semantic category causative.

186 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

Figure 4 suggests that competition has been resolved in eight of the eleven clusters presented. Of these, six clusters suggest a preference for the -ize form: (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28)

idolize vs. idol cowardize vs. coward grandize vs. grand mongrelize vs. mongrel equalize vs. equal carnalize vs. carnal

(‘make an idol of’) (‘make a coward of; render cowardly’) (‘make exaggeratedly great or grand’) (‘make mongrel e.g. in character’) (‘make equal’) (‘make carnal’)

Table 5 shows the number of occurrences for each form in the BNC and the COCA and the current frequency in Google Ngrams of the clusters with apparently resolved competition. In three of the six clusters, the corpus data agree with the information provided by the OED either because zero-derived forms are not recorded in any of the corpora used, or because their frequency in Google Ngrams is lower than that of the derivative in -ize (0.000116 and 0.83682). The only exception in which the -ize derivative has a smaller number of corpus attestations is the cluster equalize vs. equal. Nonetheless, the collocations of each form may serve as an indicator of semantic specialization because, whereas equalize collocates with words such as pressure or educational, equal appears mainly with words related to mathematical operations such as plus or total and is, therefore, an expression of a mathematical symbol. This is line with what Fernández-Domínguez (this volume) underlines about the importance of domains. Therefore, competition is equally resolved in this cluster as the suffix -ize prevails over the forms derived by zero-derivation, at least in the meaning considered here. Table 5: Frequencies for -ize derivatives and their zero-derived competitors in the BNC, the COCA and Google Ngrams. Derivatives

BNC

COCA

Google Ngrams (%) (Scale 1:1e-05)

idolize

59

553

1.10891

idol

0

0

0.27209

cowardize

0

0

0.000116

coward

0

0

0

grandize

0

0

0.0067

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

Derivatives

BNC

COCA

Google Ngrams (%) (Scale 1:1e-05)

grand

0

0

0

mongrelize

0

1

0.00298

mongrel

0

0

0.04300

equalize

105 

586

8.07726

equal

0

3273

23.83851

carnalize

0

0

0.00389

carnal

0

0

0.08338

187

In contrast, zero-derivation appears to prevail in only two of the clusters where a member of the pair is recorded as in restricted use in the OED: sableize vs. sable (‘make black’) and cuckoldize vs. cuckold (‘make a cuckold of’). Sable is now marked as “rare” and restricted to poetic use. In fact, it only appears in Google Ngrams (0.06165%), but frequency of use has markedly decreased since the 18th century. As to the other pair, no data for cuckoldize is available in any of the corpora, whereas cuckold is recorded 7 times in the BNC, 57 in the COCA and 2.1715% in Google Ngrams. The pair barrenize vs. barren (‘make barren’) is marked as “obsolete” by the OED and, except for barren, which is recorded in Google Ngrams (0.69803%), none of the units is attested in the corpora. As for the clusters where both members are recorded to be in use, disciplinize vs. discipline (‘make disciplined’) and wantonize vs. wanton (‘make someone wanton’), the data in Table 6 show that the zero-derived forms (especially discipline) appear to prevail over their -ize counterparts in both cases: Table 6. Frequencies for -ize derivatives and their zero-derived competitors in the BNC, the COCA and Google Ngrams. Derivatives

BNC

COCA

Google Ngrams (%) (Scale 1:1e-05)

disciplinize

0

0

0

discipline

56

1752

16.11426

wantonize

0

0

0.00020

wanton

0

0

0.019571

188 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

Figure 5 shows the competition between -ize derivatives first attested during the 18th and their zero-derived counterparts:

Fig. 5: Timeline of the coexistence of the suffix -ize (solid line) and zero-derivation (broken line) obtained from the OED for the expression of the same semantic category causative.

The OED records obsolete terms within this set in three of the nine clusters displayed in Figure 5. Competition can be resolved in several ways: •

•

•

as a consequence of the decay of the competing sense in one of the members of the cluster, e.g. the sense ‘make savage, fierce’ in savagize vs. savage becomes obsolete in the zero-derived form, but this form remains in use meaning ‘attack physically or verbally’ (and collocates with words such as sheep or dog in the BNC and critics in the COCA); by the complete disappearance of one of the coexisting members: e.g. baconize (‘make into bacon’) is recorded as obsolete in the 18th century, even if no corpus attestations of bacon are available either. Similarly, in the cluster quietize vs. quiet, the -ize derivative is marked as “rare” by the OED and no data for it is available in any of the corpora. Still, given the lack of data in corpora for these pairs, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the profile of competition; and by semantic specialization (Plag 1999; Bauer 2009; Lindsay & Aronoff 2013). This is exemplified by tender (1390–) vs. tenderize (1733–):

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation (29) (30)

189

The fibre (of flax) tendered by excess of moisture. (W. H. Patterson Gloss. Words Antrim & Down, 1880) Probably some tough old sheep, with lambs of her own, that I shall have to tenderize in the pressure cooker. (F. Swinnerton. Flower for Catherine, 1950)

As (29) and (30) show, the -ize derivative is used with the specific meaning ‘make (food) tender’, whereas its zero-derived counterpart for the same base keeps the original and more general meaning ‘make tender’.10 No clear distinctions between the members of the cluster arise from the analysis of the remaining pairs soberize vs. sober, fossilize vs. fossil, revolutionize vs. revolution, Englishize vs. English and proselytize vs. proselyte in the OED, but the data in Table 7 reveal that, in two of the five pairs where affixes coexist, only the zero-derived counterpart is recorded in the corpora used (sober and English). Figure 6 shows clusters where an -ize derivative created in the 19th century coexists with a zero-derived form for the same meaning. Table 7: Frequencies for -ize and zero-derivation forms in the BNC, the COCA and Google Ngrams.

10

Derivatives

BNC

COCA

Google Ngrams (%) (Scale 1:1e-05)

soberize

0

0

0

sober

16 

733

0

fossilize

2

119

0.3931

fossil

0 

0

0

revolutionize

220

1636

5.8705

revolution

0

0

0

Englishize

0

0

0

English

1 

7

0.06960

proselytize

16

480

1.86061

proselyte

0

0

0.06781

Although no systematic comparison has been made, collocations of tenderize with words such as meat (13 concordances) or marinade (three concordances) appear to be more frequent than those with e.g. pace (one concordance) or fabric (one concordance).

190 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

Fig. 6: Timeline of the coexistence of the suffix -ize (solid line) and zero-derivation (broken line) obtained from the OED for the expression of the semantic category causative.

Of the 13 clusters represented in Figure 6, the suffix -ize prevails over zero-derivation in six of them: (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36)

oxidize vs. oxide  (‘cause to combine with oxide’, where a third term in -ate, oxidate, is also attested as obsolete) romanticize vs. romantic (‘make romantic or idealized in character’) publicize vs. public (‘make public’) parallelize vs. parallel (‘make parallel’, even if the latter is still in use with various senses) immunize vs. immune  (‘make immune to’, where -ize also prevails over a third term in -ify) pemmicanize vs. pemmican  (‘make concise’, even though the prevailing form finally decays during the first half of the 20th century)

In contrast, zero-derivation prevails in uniform vs. uniformize (‘make a number of persons or things uniform, alike’), where the -ize derivative does not disappear but is restricted to the domain of Mathematics (‘to parametrize’). Similarly, unionize (‘make into a union’) remains in use restricted to trade (‘make a trade union’), whereas union keeps the more general sense (a third unit with a different base, unite, seems to be preferred to union; most of the OED quotations of unite date back to the 19th century and it is not attested in the corpus data). Table 8 shows the frequencies of the forms of the clusters with resolved competition.

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

191

Table 8: Frequencies for -ize derivatives and their zero-derived competitors in the BNC, the COCA and Google Ngrams. Derivatives

BNC

COCA

oxidize oxide romanticize romantic publicize public pemmicanize pemmican parallelize parallel uniformize uniform unionize union

27 0 27 0 564 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 1 0

375 0 571 0 1874 0 0 0 0 2115 0 0 203 0

Google Ngrams (%) (Scale 1:1e-05) 5.354 2.5804 2.74077 0 11.62679 0 0 0.004002 0.061431 18.90841 0.071 0 1.7223 0

Two alternative forms remain in use according to the OED in the following five clusters: (37) (38) (39) (40) (41)

canalize pauperize legendize femininize schematize

vs. vs. vs. vs. vs.

canal pauper legend feminine scheme

(‘make a body of water navigable’) (‘make a pauper of’) (‘make into the subject of a legend’) (‘make feminine in nature or character’) (‘make into a scheme’)

Table 9 shows, however, that the -ize derivative has higher frequencies compared to the zero-derived form in all the clusters: Table 9: Frequencies for -ize derivatives and their zero-derived competitors in the BNC, the COCA and Google Ngrams. Derivatives BNC canalize canal pauperize

17 0 1

COCA 11 0 4

Google Ngrams (%) (Scale 1:1e-05) 0.24115 0 0.11579

192 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

Derivatives BNC pauper legendize legend femininize feminine schematize scheme

0 0 0 0 0 6 0

COCA 0 0 0 0 0 27 613

Google Ngrams (%) (Scale 1:1e-05) 0.008453 0.00152 0 0.00241 0 0.42121 0

The pairs of coexisting derivatives formed in the 20th century are shown in Figure 7, which suggests that -ize prevails in two out of seven clusters in which competition with an alternative form can be considered to occur: paroxytonize vs. paroxytone (‘make a word paroxytonic’), in which both forms are marked as “obsolete” in the OED and ovalize vs. oval (‘make oval in shape’).

Fig. 7: Timeline of the coexistence of the suffix -ize (solid line) and zero-derivation (broken line) obtained from the OED for the expression of the semantic category causative.

The rest of the pairs in this group apparently remain in coexistence: (42) (43) (44) (45) (46)

finitize vs. finite glamourize vs. glamour aerosolize vs. aerosol ghettoize vs. ghetto slenderize vs. slender

(‘make finite’) (‘make glamorous’) (‘make into an aerosol’) (‘make someone belong to a ghetto’) (‘make something slender’)

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

193

Frequencies for each unit in the corpora are presented in Table 10. The clusters formed by -ize derivatives created in the 20th century display a different pattern of competition. Even in clusters where the OED marked both forms as in present use, the number of verbal creations in -ize decays during the last century, according to the data provided by corpora. Table 10: Frequencies for -ize derivatives their zero-derived counterparts in the BNC, the COCA and Google Ngrams. Derivatives

BNC

COCA

paroxytonize paroxytone finitize finite ovalize oval slenderize slender glamourize glamour aerosolize aerosol ghettoize ghetto

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 4 0

0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 254 0 5 0 68 0

Google Ngrams (%) (Scale 1:1e-05) 0 0.00471 0.005901 0.34234 0.00389 0.05885 0.01758 0 0.93261 0.02400 0.004084 0.30026 0.108149 0

4.2 Recapitulation The data in Figures 3 to 7 is represented based on the century of attestation of the -ize derivative because the competing pairs analyzed can only be extracted automatically by searching the OED for -ize forms. It has been observed in the timelines of the competition between -ize and zero-derivation that the zero‑derived form is usually attested before its -ize counterpart. Figure 8 represents the diachronic development of the competition between the two affixes ordered by the earliest date of attestation of the zero-derived form in order to obtain a clearer picture of the competition between the suffix -ize and zero-derivation as it allows to gain insights into the competition between the two affixes:

Fig. 8: Timeline of the coexistence of zero-derivation (broken line) and the suffix -ize (solid line) in the clusters obtained from the sample for the expression of the semantic category causative ordered by the date of attestation of the zero-derived form.

194  Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

195

With respect to the profile displayed by the 45 clusters in Figure 9, in most clusters (29), the first attested form is the zero-derived form (e.g. tender vs. tenderize, where the zero-derived form has been attested since 1390 and its -ize counterpart dates back to 1733), especially until the 18th century, whereas the -ize form appears before its zero-derived counterpart in 16 clusters. Depending on the century of attestation of their zero competitors, there seems to be two patterns regarding the appearance of the -ize derivatives: zero‑derived forms attested before the 16th century start to compete with -ize forms at the end of the 17th century and the 18th century, which is when a great number of doublets appear (e.g. sober is attested since 1726 and its -ize counterpart, soberize, is attested since 1707). This pattern continues to exist in the 19th and 20th centuries (e.g. pauper dates back to 1841 whereas pauperize appeared in 1834). By contrast, there is a group of -ize competitors that appear at the beginning of the 17th century, close to the dates of attestation of their zero-derived counterparts (e.g. the earliest date of attestation for idol vs. idolize is the same: 1605). Except for the pair discipline vs. disciplinize, where no differences in meaning have been observed and in which both forms are attested as available in the OED, the competition in the rest of the clusters (12) is resolved. In contrast, in the clusters where the -ize form is the earliest attested form, its zero-derived counterpart usually appears within a short lapse of time afterwards, e.g. the earliest and latest dates of attestation of uniformize belong to the same year (1889). Of the 45 clusters analyzed, only in 16 do the competing forms still coexist in English (e.g. glamour vs. glamourize appear in the 20th century and they remain in competition), in contrast to the 29 clusters (almost two thirds of the total number of clusters) where competition is resolved. In fact, in 23 of the 29 clusters in which competition no longer exists, the zero-derived form is attested between the 14th and the 17th centuries (e.g. tender dates back to 1390, whereas its counterpart tenderize is first attested in 1791). In the remaining six clusters, the zero-derived form is attested as early as in the 19th century (e.g. pemmican is first attested in 1837 and pemmicanize in 1845). Competition is mostly resolved via the decay of one of the forms. Of the 21 clusters where one of the forms is obsolete, the zero-derived form decays in eleven clusters (e.g. grandize, ‘make grand’ prevails over grand, which

196 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

is last attested in the 17th century), while the -ize derivative becomes obsolete only in four (e.g. cuckoldize becomes obsolete and the form cuckold remains in current English). In the remaining six clusters both forms have disappeared (e.g. the forms in the cluster melancholy vs. melancholize have disappeared in English). Another path of resolution competition can take is the semantic specialization of one of the forms. This can be attested in eight clusters and both the zero-derived and the -ize derivatives can take a specialized meaning (e.g. unionize is frequently used in trade, whereas its zero-derived counterpart keeps the general meaning of ‘make into a union’). The differences between the suffix -ize and zero-derivation are not only observable in the date of attestation of the forms and in the preference for one or the other form for the expression of a semantic category for which they have been in competition, but also in the time resolution takes to occur. The zero-derived forms attested in the 16th century whose -ize counterparts are attested in the same century show the largest time spans for resolution to take place, e.g. the competition in the pair mongrelize vs. mongrel takes approximately three centuries to resolve. In contrast, in those cases in which an -ize derivative has become obsolete in the presence of an attested zero-derived form, the -ize neologism is very often short-lived (e.g. the earliest and latest dates of attestation for baconize are the same). The OED usually provides only one or two quotations, sometimes from the same author, for these short-lived forms. This suggests that the forms do not get to spread to the speech community, and are instead individual innovations.

5. Discussion Based on the data provided in section 4 about the competition between the suffix -ize and zero-derivation, Figure 9 compares the number of -ize and zero-derived forms by century:

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

197

Fig. 9: Derivatives by zero-derivation (white) and -ize suffixation (grey) attested in the OED and classified by century (bars). The lines represent the number of derivatives attested by the OED in PDE for ‑ize (solid) and for zero-derivation (broken) based on the dates of attestation in the OED.

The number of derivatives with zero-derivation increases from the 14th century until the 17th century, when it reaches its highest point. However, from the 18th century onwards, the derivatives formed by zero-derivation decrease slightly, whereas the number of forms in -ize increase. The latter peak in the 19th century. The 17th century, therefore, means a turning point in the number of coinages by both affixes, with a peak of zero-derivatives. This is not to the detriment of -ize affixation, which increases for the same period too. From that point onwards, the forms created by zero-derivation decrease, and the forms created by -ize affixation do not appear to follow a clear pattern. Besides, even forms such as melancholy, serene and sable, i.e. the members of a pair that appear to prevail over their -ize competitors during the 16th and 17th centuries, are recorded as obsolete in the 18th and early 19th century. The above is a representation of word-formation patterns in each century, but not of the terms in which coexisting patterns behave after coinage. The latter is suggested by the lines in Figure 9, as they stand for the number of derivatives of each type that remain in use in PDE. According to these, zero-derivation prevails over -ize affixation, again until the 17th century: at that point, and up to the 20th century, more forms derived by zero-derivation are attested as in use than by -ize affixation. Figure 10 shows the number of -ize derivatives and zero-derived forms by century. In contrast to Figure 9, forms that are not recorded

198 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

in the BNC or in the COCA are not considered as in use, i.e. their use appears to be receding or has receded.

Fig. 10: Derivatives by zero-derivation (white) and -ize suffixation (grey) attested in the OED and classified by century (bars). The lines represent the number of derivatives attested by the OED in PDE for ‑ize (solid) and for zero-derivation (broken) based on the dates of attestation provided by the OED and considering as “obsolete” the forms that are not recorded in the BNC or the COCA.

Despite the differences observed in the attestations of forms in present use in the OED and the corpora, both Figures 9 and 10 display a similar picture in which the increase in the proportion of -ize derivatives in the 19th century parallels the decrease in the number of zero-derived forms. The evolution of zero-derivation obtained from the data represented in Figures 9 and 10 partly agrees with the specific diachronic development of conversion described, e.g. by classic references like Biese (1941: 32–49), whereby there is an increase in the number of zeroderived forms from the 13th century to the 17th century and followed by a decrease that lasts until the middle part of the 19th century. A new increase in the number of zero-derived forms is observed after this drop. Still, this needs to be regarded with caution, among other things because Biese (1941) distinguishes between denominal (Type A) and deadjectival vs. deadverbal conversions (Type B) but the same distinction cannot be drawn here (most of the bases of the derivatives analyzed are recorded in the OED as “noun” and as “adjective”, very often in the same entry, e.g. mongrel, savage). A similar profile of

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

199

zero-derived forms is offered by Bauer et al. (2010) in their analysis of the competition between zero-derivation and the suffix -en with adjectival bases. In contrast to the forms derived by zero-derivation with a causative meaning, an increase in the number of zero-derived forms in the 19th century is observed in Figure 11, where zero-derivation conveys a meaning other than causative:

Fig. 11: Zero derivatives with non-causative meanings (e.g. instrument or manner) classified by century of earliest attestation in the OED. The broken line represents the number of obsolete zero derivatives and the solid line refers to those in use in PDE.

The data from Figure 11 show that there is an increase of formations with zero-derivation during the 19th century with the same base of an -ize derivative, except that they do for the expression of manner (47) or instrumental meaning (49): (47)

I may safely positive it, and say, that neither his Highness..nor the Parliament.. might part with their. (S. Hunton. Golden Law 43, 1656) [manner] (48) Habitat breadth index contrasts and local abundance index contrasts for sunfishes, with the independent contrast positivized as suggested by Garland et al. (1992) (Jrnl. Biogeogr. 26 554 vs. 1, 1999) [causative] (49) Hair which in summer would bleach into golden streaks as though he had peroxided it. (D. Athill. Instead of Let. iv. 59, 1963) [instrument] (50) Fish oil is easily peroxidized to form hydroperoxides and increases oxidative stress. (Amer. Jrnl. Physiol. 282 g338, 2002) [causative]

200 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

These results are in line with Plag’s (1999: 232) claim that competition between the verbal affixes -ize, -ate and -ify usually reflect primary meanings such as causative or resultative, whereas zero-derivation is restricted to other meanings. The data presented here support this assumption by stating that, in the case of the competition between -ize and zero-derivation, the former appears to gradually replace the latter for the expression of causative meaning. Zero-derivation may have been restricted to secondary meanings such as instrument or manner as a result of this. If confirmed by additional data, this raises the question of why causative may prefer formalization as an overt affix compared with secondary categories within zero-derivation, like e.g. instrument or manner, as pointed out by Bauer et al. (2013: 283), who argue that non-causative meanings are frequently expressed through conversion. Arguments might then be raised on the immediacy of one or the other and, as a result, of the bigger need for the less immediate semantic category (with respect to the nominal base) to be explicitly realized by an affix compared with the more immediate semantic categories and their implicit realization. Furthermore, the appearance of competitors of the type Hellenize (1728) vs. Hellenicize (1852) or emotionize (1855) vs. emotionalize (1864) during the 18th and 19th centuries, both formed with the same suffix and different bases, may support the preference of the suffix -ize to express causative. Otherwise, the results presented here do not allow generalizations on the evolution of one process regardless of the others. In any case, it must be noted that the picture observed could be a consequence of the data selection, which was initially oriented to the description of the competition between -ize and zero-derivation.

6. Conclusion The analysis presented in this chapter is intended to account for the development of competition between two or more affixes for the expression of the same sense. The first conclusion that can be drawn from the

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

201

profile of competition is that it occurs in language on a smaller scale than initially thought: only 45 of the 816 derivatives in -ize extracted from the OED appear to have a zero-derived counterpart. Thus, the language system seems to efficiently manage redundant forms. This is also supported by the fact that there are few four-termed clusters and that three-termed clusters are usually reduced to two-termed clusters either because of the forms have decayed in use and the other two forms remain in competition or because of the three forms in competition, two of them are not attested at the same time but the latest date of attestation of one of the forms is prior to the earliest date of attestation of another form. This chapter also outlines a number of patterns based on the semantic category expressed by the affixes (Bagasheva this volume). When formal and phonological restrictions do not apply, the resolution of competition seems to favor the disappearance of the competing form when this has only one sense (46.6% of the total number of clusters). The time the resolution of competition takes can vary and, in fact, the resolution of competition may take four centuries to occur whereas, in other cases, the competitor that appears after an attested form is shortlived and, therefore, competition is resolved within a short lapse of time. The data analyzed in this chapter seem to indicate that whereas, in general, the prevalence of an -ize derivative to the detriment of its zero-derived competitor needs time to occur (although there are also clusters in which competition is resolved within the same century), in the cases where the -ize form becomes obsolete, competition does not last long. In fact, these -ize derivatives usually have one or two attestations that belong to one or two authors, what may indicate that they are innovations that did not become institutionalized. In contrast, semantic specialization occurs in 17.7% of the clusters analyzed. The remaining 35.5% of the clusters are in present competition and no semantic differences have been observed based on the data provided by the OED. A detailed description of the diachronic development of the competition between the suffix -ize and zero-derivation for the expression of the meaning causative shows that the introduction of the Greek suffix into English (mainly via French loans) has consequences for English verbal derivation. In line with Marchand (1969: 319), who observed an increase in the number of English-origin derivations in -ize

202 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

between 1580 and 1700, the results obtained in this chapter show that this increase is accompanied by a decrease in the number of zero-derived forms expressing the same meaning, a pattern that continues until the 20th century. This contrasts with the patterns found in zero-derived forms expressing a meaning other than causative, e.g. instrumental and manner. This preference for zero-derivation to express non‑causative meanings is also observed by Bauer et al. (2013: 283). The opposite behavior of zero-derived forms depending on the meaning the affix adds argues in favor of a description of competing forms by affixes and supports the polysemy presented in affixes leading to situations in which two affixes can overlap in the expression of one sense.

Acknowledgements This work has been supported by an initiation to research grant (Beca de iniciación a la investigación para estudiantes de Máster), funded by the Vice-Rectorate of Scientific Policy and Research of the University of Granada.

References Anshen, Frank / Aronoff, Mark 1988. Producing Morphologically Complex Words. Linguistics. 26, 641–655. Aronoff, Mark 2016. Competition and Variation. International Morphology Meeting. Vienna, 18–21 February 2016. Bagasheva, Alexandra. This volume. Comparative Semantic Concepts in Affixation. Bauer, Laurie 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

203

Bauer, Laurie 2009. Competition in English word-formation. In Kemenade, Ans van / Los, Bettelou (eds.) The Handbook of the History of English. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 177–198. Bauer, Laurie / Valera, Salvador / Díaz-Negrillo, Ana 2010. Affixation vs. Conversion: The Resolution of Conflicting Patterns. In Rainer, Franz / Dressler, Wolfgang U. / Kastovsky, Dieter / Luschützky, Hans Christian (eds.) Variation and Change in Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 15–32. Bauer, Laurie / Lieber, Rochelle / Plag, Ingo 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Biese, Yrjoe M. 1941. Origin and Development of Conversion in English. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. B XLV/2. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew 1992. Current Morphology. London: Routledge. Chiba, Shoju 2016. The Lexical Realization Patterns and their Relationship to Productivity: The Finnish Symbiotic Derivation. International Morphology Meeting. Vienna, 18–21 February 2016. Corbin, Danielle 1987. Morphologie Dérivationelle et Structuration du Lexique. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Davies, Mark 2004–. BYU-BNC (Based on the British National Corpus by Oxford University Press). Available at: http://corpus.byu.edu/ bnc/. Last accessed 10 Dec 2016. Davies, Mark 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/. Last accessed 10 Dec 2016. Díaz-Negrillo, Ana. This volume. On the Identification of Competition in English Derivational Morphemes. The Case of -dom, -hood and -ship. Dressler, Wolfgang U / Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia / Schwaiger, Sonja / Ransmayr, Jutta / Korecky-Kröll, Katharina 2016. Rivalry and Synergy among Italian and German Diminutives. International Morphology Meeting. Vienna, 18–21 February 2016. Fernández-Domínguez, Jesús. This volume. Methodological and Procedural Issues in the Quantification of Morphological Competition. Fradin, Bernard 2016. What Can we Learn from Doublets? International Morphology Meeting. Vienna, 18–21 February 2016.

204 

Cristina Fernández-Alcaina

Google Ngram Viewer Books. Available at: https://books.google.com/ ngrams. Last accessed 6 Dec 2016. Görlach, Manfred 1991. Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kastovsky, Dieter 2000. Words and Word-Formation: Morphology in OED. In Mugglestone, Linda (ed.) Lexicography and the OED. Pioneers in the Untrodden Forest. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 110–125. Kaunisto, Mark 2009. The Rivalry between English Adjectives Ending in -ive and -ory. In McConchie, Roderick W. / Honkapohja, Alpo / Tyrkkö, Jukka (eds.) Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX 2). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 74–87. Kjellmer, Göran 2001. Why weaken but not *strongen? On Deadjectival Verbs. English Studies. 82/2, 154–171. Lara-Clares, Alicia 2016. Scáthach BNC Frequency Tool. Available at: http://scathach.laraclares.com. Last accessed 8 September 2016. Lara-Clares, Cristina. This volume. Competition in Present Day English Nominalization by Zero-Affixation vs. -ation. Lindsay, Mark / Aronoff, Mark 2013. Natural Selection in Self-Organizing Morphological Systems. In Montermini, Fabio / Boyé, Gilles / Tseng, Jesse (eds.) Morphology in Toulouse: Selected Proceedings of Décembrettes 7. Munich: Lincom Europe, 133–153. Marchand, Hans 21969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. Munich: Beck. Nevalainen, Terttu 1999. Early Modern English Lexis and Semantics. In Lass, Roger (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume III 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 332–458. Plag, Ingo 1999. Morphological Productivity. Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Availability and unavailability in English word-formation

205

Plag, Ingo 2016. English. In Müller, Peter O. / Ohnheiser, Ingeborg / Olsen, Susan / Rainer, Franz (eds.) Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Vol. 4. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2411–2427. Proffitt, Michael 2016. The Oxford English Dictionary. Available at: http://www.oed.com. Last accessed 5 December 2016. Štekauer, Pavol. This volume. Competition in Natural Languages.

Cristina Lara-Clares

Competition in Present Day English nominalization by zero-affixation vs. -ation1

1. Introduction No unequivocal definition has been given of the concept of competition. This may be partly the cause and the consequence of the challenges that it presents. According to Hoekstra & Arjen (2016), “[c]ompetition is always between two different forms competing for roughly the same semantic content.” Although this definition captures the essence of what is usually understood to be competition, it is also at least relatively unclear, in that it does not specify what “two different forms” are and to what extent the semantic content should be “the same”. In this regard, Fradin (2016) states that two conditions must be satisfied for morphological competition to occur: •

•

lexemes morphologically correlated to the same lexical base have to present distinct exponents, i.e. the bases are the same if they have the same meaning and occur in the same construction or have the same distribution; and the derivational exponents have to express exactly the same semantic content, i.e. the semantic content is the same if “[…] the overall interpretation of the derived lexemes entails the same conclusions in similar contexts.” (Fradin 2016: 43).

This definition appears to be closer to what seems to be the general perception of what morphological competition is. Even so, it still raises questions, especially as regards meaning, e.g. should the derived 1

Author’s email address: [email protected]; affiliation: University of Granada (Spain).

208 

Cristina Lara-Clares

lexemes be absolute synonyms? (see Díaz-Negrillo and FernándezAlcaina, both this volume). Largely as a result of this, there is some heterogeneity in the ways in which competition is approached in derivational morphology and, thus, also in the results presented in this field. Within these limitations, this chapter is intended to identify clear competition patterns in Present Day English (hereafter PDE), and then go deeper into at least one of the potentially clearest cases. This chapter is structured as follows: section 2 provides an overview of competition, by looking at the factors influencing it that have been described in the literature (2.1) and by reviewing the literature regarding the competition of prefixation as well as class-changing and class-maintaining suffixation (2.2). Section 3 describes the method used. Section 4 presents the results, focuses on nominalizations in PDE (4.1) and specifically on zero-affixation and -ation (4.2). Section 5 draws some conclusions from the analysis.

2. An overview of competition This section reviews competition in derivational morphology, specifically in affixation. It first looks at a series of factors that have been described in the literature as influencing competing affixes (2.1) and then reviews previous studies of morphological competition, both in prefixation and suffixation (2.2). 2.1 Factors and processes that influence competition A series of factors or processes that influence morphological competition have been described in the literature (see Štekauer and Díaz-Negrillo, both this volume). Of these, phonology is particularly relevant, because it has been used to explain why apparently synonymous affixes coexist: if two given affixes are in complementary distribution, they occupy a different “niche”, following Lindsay & Aronoff’s (2013) terminology and, as a

Competition in Present Day English nominalization

209

consequence, cannot be viewed as being in actual competition. Still, some affixes are only partially in complementary distribution: e.g. -ize and -ify, which overlap exclusively with vowel-final trochaic bases, when doublets are expected (e.g. dandify and dandyize, Plag 1999: 228). Similarly, there seem to be morphological restrictions, as with -ic and -ical (Lindsay 2012: 193–194) and -ity and -ness (Arndt-Lappe 2014: 506; see also Bauer 1996: 248; Bauer, Lieber & Plag 2013: 501–502). Despite apparent morphological restrictions, Plag (2004: 194) claims that, in some cases, the selection of bases according to their syntactic category is only a result of the semantics of the process. The analysis of semantics in research on competition is mainly concerned with the semantic transparency of the derivatives, even though Dressler (2008: 464) argues against the claim that morphological rules need to be transparent in order to be productive. If a word is opaque, its semantic contribution to the derivative is not clear and, thus, it is not possible to analyse the competition between the word-formation processes in terms of their meaning. In some cases, it seems that it is the semantics of the base that governs affix selection. Thus, Kjellmer (1984: 18) claims that the dynamic quality of adjectives is a decisive factor for derivation of -ly adverbs (see also Aronoff & Cho 2001).2 However, other references are inconclusive as regards the influence of a semantic class or group with respect to affix choice, e.g. in the selection of -en suffixation or conversion (Bauer, Valera & Díaz-Negrillo 2010: 10). For Riddle (1985: 445), the semantics and history of suffixes require further study, a claim that leads to the influence of historical developments over affix selection. The weight of history is researched, e.g. also in Kjellmer (2001, where the argument is that there is a fair amount of agreement between the origin of the adjectival suffix and the origin of its base, as in e.g. the verbal suffixes -ize and -ify, which prevail in Romance bases. Similar historical arguments have been invoked on the evolution of the suffixes -ess, -ster and ‑ette: according to Bauer (2009: 180–181), the use of -ess increases when ‑ster decreases for the meaning female, whereas -ette starts to be used to derive female nouns just as -ess 2

This factor, however, did not seem relevant in the formation of deadjectival verbs: “[…] a semantic factor suspected of furthering deadjectival verb formation, viz. a dynamic element, turned out to be all but inconsequential” (Kjellmer 2001: 170).

210 

Cristina Lara-Clares

appears to be decaying. Still, in the competition between -en suffixation and conversion (Bauer et al. 2010: 12–13, see section 2.2.), historical factors do not explain completely the choice of one affix over the other. Pragmatic or social factors are equally relevant and, at the same time, difficult to assess with regard to competition too. In this respect, Riddle (1985: 437) states that pragmatic, social and historical factors sometimes take precedence over semantics, and that the productivity of lexical elements needs to be discussed with reference to meaning, context and history. Therefore, domains have taken on crucial importance, and ignoring them in the study of competition and productivity has been considered to lead to a “false impression” of word-formation (Bauer 2001: 194). One way of accounting for domains is to look at the specific register in which an affix is mostly used (see, e.g. Guz 2009; Bauer et al. 2013: 362), as is done in this chapter. Competing patterns under the influence of these and other factors are identified partly by examining the frequency and the productivity of pairs or groups of affixes for the expression of one and the same meaning. Productivity is sometimes assumed to disclose tendencies in the resolution of competition (Plag 2000; Kjellmer 2001; Bauer et al. 2013). However, no specific productivity measure for the analysis of competition has been made available in the specialized literature (see Fernández-Domínguez this volume). This is remarkable, considering that the distribution of frequencies, although to a large extent ignored in the literature3, can help explain dissimilarities in the use of one or the other affix over a period of time, as with in- vs. un- from the 14th to the 19th century (Kwon 1997), or synchronically, as with the distribution of nominalizing affixes across registers researched by Guz (2009). The issue is further entangled by the role that other processes like blocking or analogy may play in affix selection, although the extent to which they may affect competition is unclear. The concept of blocking in derivational morphology was defined by Aronoff (1976: 43) as “the non-occurrence of one form due to the simple existence of another.” There is a distinction between token blocking (e.g. thief blocks *stealer) and type blocking (e.g. -ity blocks -ness) (Plag 2000), in which this paper 3

“Many dispersion measures and adjusted frequency measures have been suggested but are neither widely known nor applied” (Gries 2008: 403).

Competition in Present Day English nominalization

211

is interested. The value or the relevance of blocking in this respect is viewed dissimilarly in the literature and, thus, e.g. some authors dismiss type-blocking as a morphological mechanism (Plag 2000; Giegerich 2001; Bauer et al. 2013: 380), in contrast to Aronoff (1976) and Rainer (1988), among others. Still, as claimed by Rainer (1988: 179–180), “[t]he main task for future research in type-blocking will be to try to find out to what extent it is predictable which one of the two word-formation rules with rival systematically restricted domains will supersede the other”. Few authors mention analogy explicitly in their analysis of competition, Arndt-Lappe (2014) being an exception. Arndt-Lappe (2014: 499) uses an analogical model for an analysis of the competition between -ity and -ness and states that analogy-based theories of word-formation are particularly useful for predicting productivity differences and diachronic change. Her results show a tendency towards a decrease in variability over time: -ity is more concentrated in particular domains, where it prevails over -ness, and -ness seems to be the default choice, because it can occur on almost any type of base. However, the extent to which analogy influences word-formation is still under debate, in that analogy clearly plays a role in word-formation, but does not necessarily underlie it (Bauer 2001: 83). 2.2 Competing affixes: a review Prefixation has received comparatively less attention than suffixation in research on competition. The few studies available usually focus on negative prefixes, although other groups of competitors can also be found in the literature (e.g. over vs. out, un- vs. in-, un- vs. dis- vs. de-, ante- vs. pre-, super- vs. hyper-, super- vs. trans-, super- vs. supra-, Marchand 1969: 134). The review of this area of competition reveals the relevance of semantic analysis. Although conflicts like in- and un- prefixation have been researched without regard of semantic differences in the past (e.g. Kwon 1997 on adjectives), the main contributions in this respect come from references which, like Lehrer (2003) and Bauer (2009), separate the senses removal or deprivation in English verbal prefixation. Further, Bauer et al. (2013: ch. 17) classify negative prefixation

212 

Cristina Lara-Clares

semantically into four groups: negative (‘not X’), privative (‘without X’ or ‘remove X from’), reversative (‘reverse action of VERBing’) and verbal pejorative (‘do X wrongly, badly’) (Bauer et al. 2013: 354). Nuances of meaning thus prove essential when, as in negative prefixes in verbal derivation, several senses may be conveyed (see also Díaz-Negrillo this volume). For example, regarding negative prefixes, Lehrer (2003: 227) points out that de-, dis- and un- convey the general meaning of producing the opposite state but that each affix has at least one specific sense. When they have the meaning deprive of, there is, still according to Lehrer (2003: 228), no systematic contrast between the prefixes un- and dis-. Similarly, Bauer (2009: 191) adds be- (with the meaning removal in behead) to this set, and claims that un- is the most frequent prefix for the expression of removal, even if doublets which are apparently synonymous are attested in the Oxford English Dictionary (Proffitt 2016; hereafter, OED). In fact, doublets and triplets are found in any type of base. An example of a triplet in which the three derivatives appear to have precisely the same meaning is uninvest, disinvest and deinvest (Bauer et al. 2013: 380). There seems to be some differentiation here, e.g. between dis- and un-: both generally attach to causative/ inchoative verbs which result in derived verbs with either a reversative interpretation or an indeterminate one between reversative and privative, except that dis- generally results in either negative or pejorative verbs when attached to non-causative verbs (Bauer et al. 2013: 375). Similar examples can be found in other areas, e.g. in the pejorative prefixes maland mis-. According to Bauer et al. (2013: 362–363), these affixes exhibit some degree of productivity, although mis- seems to be the most productive affix of the two and a-, partly restricted to specific registers, is also described as “surprisingly productive” in medical or academic writing. Overall, the challenging nature of competition becomes particularly apparent when the conclusions for such a specific semantic group of prefixes confirm that multiple readings are available and, what is more relevant, that no special constraints appear to affect the attachment of negative prefixes to bases of all kinds (Bauer et al. 2013: 366). In this respect, Bauer (2009: 193) holds that “[i]t is interesting that three competing processes have managed to survive side by side for 700 years without their bases being in complementary distribution and without the blocking principle apparently having had a great deal of effect.”

Competition in Present Day English nominalization

213

In contrast to class-maintaining affixes, research on competition in class-changing suffixes has been the subject of recent research, especially the nominal suffixes -ity and -ness and the verbal suffixes -ize and -ify. Partly for this reason, and because nominalizing suffixes are analysed in this chapter, the focus will be on this type of affixes in this review of nominal, verbal and adjectival derivation. Nominalizations are not as chaotic as has been said (see Bauer 2009: 183–189). Bauer (2001: 204) claims in this respect that the creation of derived nouns in English is far more constrained than it would initially be expected. In fact, few nominalizing processes are likely to be productive at any given period and, if they are productive, they will probably be in complementary distribution (Bauer 2001: 81). In general terms, non-native verbs tend to nominalize through affixation, while native verbs favor conversion, although there is some overlap in the base type both processes take (Bauer et al. 2013: 196). The default nominalizing suffix is -ing, especially where the nominalization form is neither lexically listed nor predictable from the general rule (Bauer 1996: 253), but it is not difficult to find doublets with the rest of nominalizing suffixes. Research on one pair of competing nominalizers will be reviewed here in view of the attention that they have attracted: -ity vs. ‑ness, even if other nominalizers have been found to compete (e.g. -dom vs. -hood vs. -ship, -ity vs. -ment, or zero-affixation vs. -ation; see Díaz-Negrillo this volume for the former pair, and section 4 below on the latter pair). The competition between -ity and -ness has been analysed by several authors, and altogether they provide quite a complete view on the state of the competition between these affixes. The distribution of -ity and -ness is reportedly “neither complementary nor fully random” in contemporary English (Arndt-Lappe 2014: 498). This is because bases with Germanic suffixes exclusively take -ness, whereas there is overlap in Latinate suffixes, as there is variability between -ity and -ness (Arndt-Lappe 2014: 501). Therefore, the type of base seems to influence the selection of one or the other affix significantly. The endings of the base with which -ity and -ness are said to prevail varies slightly for each author. For Arndt-Lappe (2014: 512–518), the suffix -ness is the only one that is used to nominalize bases ending in ‑ed, ‑ing, -ish, -less and -y, whereas -ity is preferred over -ness with bases ending in -ic,

214 

Cristina Lara-Clares

-able, -al, -ive4 and -ous. Lindsay (2012: 195–196) points to the total domination of -ness in bases ending in -ed, -ing, -ess, -ish and -ful, and also to the domination of -ity in bases ending in -able, -al, -ic and -ar. Furthermore, Lindsay (2012: 196) points to the competition of these affixes in bases ending in -ous and -ive. Be that as it may, -ity is more restricted in its application than -ness, and it also seems to be, in general, less productive than its competing counterpart (Bauer et al. 2013: 245–246; Arndt-Lappe 2014: 498, 516–517). The semantic analysis of these forms is not without problems: although both form abstract nouns (see, e.g. Marchand 1969: 312, 334), Riddle (1985: 437) maintains that there is a subtle semantic distinction between both affixes, such that the suffix -ness typically denotes an embodied attribute or trait, while -ity tends to denote an abstract or concrete entity. This claim was, however, rebutted later: Bauer et al. (2013: 257) argue that Riddle’s distinction is not entirely clear, but it seems to depend on the degree of reification of the quality in question (-ness derivatives show a lower degree of reification than -ity). Another way of looking into this semantic distinction and pragmatic factors is to analyze the register distribution of the suffixes. According to Guz (2009), -ness words are more informal and particularly common in fiction, whereas -ity dominates in the academic register. The author claims that the internal morphological make-up of the words reveals further register distinctions. He justifies this register contrast on the grounds that -ness is a “ ‘safer’ option when little editing time is available in online production” (Guz 2009: 454) because it is easily parsed out, whereas the factors of parsability and transparency may not be so relevant in academic texts (Guz 2009: 458). Remarkably, Saïlly (2011) points to a gender difference in the use of these affixes: -ity is used less productively by women, while there is no gender difference in -ness. In sum, it seems that -ity and -ness are in a process of specialization, be it because of the type of base, because of the resulting meaning of the derivatives, or because of their usage. 4

By contrast, Aronoff (1983: 166–168, cited in Bauer 1996: 248) claims that, if an adjective ends in -ive, the corresponding abstract noun will end in -ness, while, if the adjective ends in -ible, the noun will end in -ity, regardless of whether individual words ending in -ivity have a higher text-frequency than those in -iveness.

Competition in Present Day English nominalization

215

Regarding verbal derivation, two pairs are mentioned in this section: ‑ize vs. -ify and -en vs. conversion. The first pair, -ize vs. -ify, seems to be ruled by complementary distribution: derivatives in -ize allow both trochee and dactyls while -ify words must have a trochee before the last syllable of the derivative (Bauer et al. 2013: 271). Hence their selection only overlaps in trochaic bases ending in a high front vowel (Plag 1999: 195, 228; Bauer et al. 2013: 271). Besides, there is a correlation between the number of syllables of the stem and the productivity of each affix; specifically, the shorter the stem, the more likely -ify is preferred over -ize (Lindsay 2012: 197). That correspondence was explained by Plag (1999: 203): “[…] -ize is selected to make the main stress fall as far to the right as possible, whereas -ify is chosen to avoid the stress clash.” Otherwise, these suffixes have been claimed to be synonymous as regards meaning (Plag 2000; Bauer et al. 2013: 269) and the only meaning that is found in one suffix but not in the other is the simulative one, which seems to be restricted to -ize, even if not many examples of -ize derivatives convey this meaning (Bauer et al. 2013: 283). Finally, ‑ize seems to be more productive than -ify, as it shows a greater number of neologisms (Bauer et al. 2013: 270). Zero-affixation has not been analysed widely in the literature on competition, partly for the methodological difficulties its analysis presents. An exception is Bauer et al.’s (2010) study on the competition between -en suffixation and conversion. They look at three factors (phonological, semantic and historical), but the results are inconclusive for the first two. The historical evolution of these processes, however, shows an interesting pattern (Bauer et al. 2010: 12): -en affixation and conversion evolve oppositely, and the growing tendency up to contemporary English is for -en suffixation to be preferred, except in non-obstruent final adjectives, which tend to prefer conversion (Bauer et al. 2010: 13–15). Finally, research on adjectival derivation has focused on the competition between -ic and -ical. The pair starts out from what Marchand (1969: 241–242) described, at least initially, as “indiscriminate coexistence of two synonymous adjectives.” In this pair, it seems that it is the shorter form that will tend to remain in use, so the survival of the longer form depends largely on their semantic specialization, inasmuch as the distribution of meaning between the two forms establishes

216 

Cristina Lara-Clares

itself gradually (Kaunisto 2007: 298–300). Well-known semantic distinctions apply in pairs like historic and historical (Hamawand 2007: 159; Kaunisto 2007: 297) and, in other cases, the choice depends on the collocates of each member of the pair, as in electric and electrical (Kaunisto 2007: 298) or classic and classical (Hamawand 2007: 158). In any case, Hamawand’s and Kaunisto’s analyses are based on high-frequency pairs. Thus, it may be the case that the contrasts reflect patterns of lexicalization, rather than instrinsic semantic differences between the affixes (Bauer et al. 2013: 319). In fact, -ic and -ical can be viewed as alternate realizations of the same affix in contemporary English (Bauer et al. 2013: 320). All in all, it is clear that a number of competing patterns can be found and each of them seems to present a different profile. What seems to affect one pair may not affect another. Some patterns are close to being resolved due to phonological factors (e.g. -ity vs. -ness) while the resolution of others depends, for example, on semantic factors, of the base and/or of the affix (e.g. -ship vs. -dom vs. -hood, see Díaz-Negrillo this volume).

3. Method The data used in this study is based on a representative sample of competing patterns extracted from the British National Corpus (Davis 2004–; hereafter, BNC) and later analyzed according to their description in the OED (for a detailed description of the stages of data collection and data selection, see Fernández-Domínguez this volume). Corpus data was also analysed for attestation of senses (see Fernández-Domínguez this volume). The data collected led to the selection of a pair of competing affixes for the expression of one semantic category: zero-affixation and -ation for the expression of action. This pair was selected because -ation is claimed to be the only non-native deverbal nominalizing affix that displays clear productivity in Modern English, even if it attaches mostly to non-native verbs formed with the suffixes -ize, -ify and -ate (Bauer et al. 2013: 201, 264). Nominalization by

Competition in Present Day English nominalization

217

conversion, by contrast, is considered to be “not nearly as frequent as by suffixation of -ation,” and is limited to verbal bases not derived by -ize and -ify, or by conversion from adjectives or nouns (Bauer et al. 2013: 204). In principle, this would point to complementary distribution in nominalization by zero-affixation and nominalization by -ation. This is apparently confirmed by attestation of only four clusters5 of derivatives both by zero-affixation and by -ation for the expression of the sense action in the BNC sample: aliment vs. alimentation, dispute vs. disputation, exhort vs. exhortation and register vs. registration. This pattern, i.e. zero-affixation vs. -ation, is the target of this chapter. According to the morphological profile described above, the expectation is that nominalizations use zero-affixation rather than -ation, even if the former is claimed to be not as productive as the latter (Bauer et al. 2013: 204). In view of the limitations of the initial dataset, the sample was enlarged for further evidence of the same type (i.e. attestation of zero-affixation and ‑ation for the same bases with the sense action) by searching the OED. The search used the filters “part of speech” (noun), “language of origin” (English) and “definition” (i.e. the definitions had to contain the term “action”). A total of 930 -ation derivatives resulted from this search. Their potential competition with zero-affixation6 was attested by searching for derivatives with the same base listed in the OED. As the aim of this chapter is to look only at present competition, the clusters in which at least one of the potentially competing derivatives is not attested in the BNC were discarded (e.g. fidget vs. fidgetation, flutter vs. flutteration, scatter vs. scatteration were deleted because the derivative in -ation is not recorded). This process yielded four more clusters consisting in zero-affixation and -ation derivatives for the expression of action: cure vs. curation, experiment vs. experimentation, import vs. importation and transport vs. transportation. Thus, a total of 8 competing clusters were found by using both corpus and dictionary data. The clusters were analyzed according to their senses in the OED and their frequencies in the BNC. The OED was used for attestation of the

5 6

See Fernández-Alcaina (this volume) for a definition of “cluster” and “pattern”. Words were considered to be zero-affixed if the OED lists a word that is formally identical but of a different word-class.

218 

Cristina Lara-Clares

sense(s) in both derivatives (e.g. sense 2 of aliment is identical with sense 1 of alimentation). The BNC frequencies were analyzed in two ways: •

•

the frequency of occurrence of each derivative was classified according to the categories of the samples contained in the BNC (e.g. exhortation has an absolute frequency of 18 in W_ac_polit_ law_edu), and then later classified into modes and registers7. The Index of Competition (C, see Fernández-Domínguez this volume) of the derivatives was then calculated, as well as their dispersion (hereafter, DP) with respect to the total size of each register in the corpus following Gries (2008) and Lijffijt & Gries (2012) (see below). The frequencies obtained were normalized for comparison; and the BNC concordances of each derivative were classified according to their meaning8 following Bagasheva’s (this volume) classification, in order to identify the instances of action for each type of derivative in every category and register of the BNC (see farther below). This allows comparison between the general frequency of derivatives and the frequency of a specific sense. The C value was then calculated for the derivatives with the sense action. The dispersion of that sense in each type of derivative with respect to the total frequency of the derivatives in each register was calculated following Gries (2008) and Lijffijt & Gries (2012). The frequencies obtained were normalized for comparison.

Dispersions can be measured using several formulas, but most of them are sensitive to the size of the parts in which a corpus is divided, in that they need to be equal. By contrast, Gries’s (2008: 415) formula “[…] 7

8

This classification was made specifically for this chapter, because the BNC (Davies 2004–) does not provide total frequencies (absolute or normalized) for some registers within the spoken mode, and also because two more written registers beyond the ones provided by the BNC “chart” option could be selected by classifying the categories (i.e. “essays” and “letters”, which are within the “miscellaneous” register in the BNC). For the spoken mode, the samples were therefore classified into “broadcast”, “interviews”, “lectures”, “speech” and “other”. There are some inherent difficulties in this type of analysis: “[o]ne difficulty in determining the senses of derivational affixes (and lexemes for that matter) lies in the fact that although the productive meanings change over time, the language retains many items with older senses.” (Lehrer 2003: 229).

Competition in Present Day English nominalization

219

does not rely on the unwarranted assumption of equally-sized corpus parts”, which makes it suitable for this study. The interpretation of DP and its normalized value, i.e. DPnorm, is as follows (Gries 2008: 415; Lijffijt & Gries 2012: 147): […] values close to 0 indicate that a is distributed across the n corpus parts as one would expect given the sizes of the n corpus parts. By contrast, values close to 1 indicate that a is distributed across the n corpus parts exactly the opposite way one would expect given the sizes of the n corpus parts.

The identification of the semantic category action in the concordances of the BNC proved difficult, as there are many instances in which one category appears to be merged with another, e.g. action and the instance of the action (or result) in disputeN or importation. The OED separates those senses in the definition. Although the difference is apparently clear, some concordances extracted from the BNC9 are ambiguous, e.g.: (1)

(2)

It is the lack of clear and unambiguous predictions from both theory and evidence that is the source of the dispute  over the nature of the approach to monopoly policy (HXN). We will insure you (other than as the result of a wilful act) for any enforced payment of Customs Duty after temporary importation of your motor cycle into any of the above countries provided the liability arises as a direct result of a claim under the policy (HB5),

where dispute and importation may refer both to the action or to the event that arises from the action. These examples were classified as ambiguous (“?”) and left out of the count for action, even if that could lead to an undercount of the sense in the derivatives under study. The need for a detailed analysis of the concordances is also justified by the number of instances of tagging errors found, e.g. 61 of the 4,413 concordances of disputeN and 54 out of the 2,808 concordances of importN are actually verbs. Overall, thus, only the instances that reflect only the sense action were counted for later analysis: 9

The data cited herein have been extracted from the BNC, distributed by the University of Oxford on behalf of the BNC Consortium. All rights in the texts cited are reserved.

220 

Cristina Lara-Clares

(3)

There was no real administrative virtue in both officers recording entries, and the Writer of the Tallies seems to have done the work in a more effective manner. But from 1555 to 1602 there was almost continuous dispute. Vincent Skinner, the Writer of the Tallies, complained that […] (EEY). (4) […] they can not prevent the importation of products that comply with Community essential standards even though they may fail to comply with the more stringent domestic standards (BP5).

The results thus obtained from all the concordances amount to a corpus-based set of different derivatives from the same bases, attested for the expression of the same sense (semantic category) and classified according to register.

4. Competition between nominalizing affixes This section presents the results obtained from the method described above regarding competition patterns in Present Day English (PDE). It overviews the nominalization competing patterns found in a sample of the BNC (section 4.1), and then an analysis of zero-affixation and -ation in the formation of deverbal nouns (section 4.2). In the latter, quantitative results are first presented for the entries under study, and then for the entries after separation of the sense action in the BNC concordances. This section closes with the analysis of zero-affixation vs. -ation after sense separation in two clusters: import vs. importation and experiment vs. experimentation. 4.1 Nominalizations in PDE The dataset contains 96 nominal clusters of complex nouns, identified and analyzed in terms of the form, meaning and number of occurrences following Fernández-Domínguez (this volume). Of these, 28 clusters amounting to a total of 61 derivatives are attested in the BNC for the expression of the competing sense. The clusters may consist of two derivatives (23 clusters, 82.14 % of the total number of clusters), or

221

Competition in Present Day English nominalization

of three derivatives (5 clusters, 17.86 %). Clusters of more than two derivatives are found more frequently in nouns than in verbs, maybe as a consequence of the wider range of nominal affixes that can realize the same meaning in comparison to verbs, where the set of choices appears to be more limited (see Fernández-Alcaina this volume). Table 1: Patterns of competition between two nominalizing affixes found in the BNC sample (The table does not show the 18 competing profiles that appear in only one cluster). # 1 2 3 4 5 6

Affixes Ø vs. -ing -ing vs. -ation Ø vs. -ation Ø vs. -al -ity vs. -ism -ity vs. ­-ness

Clusters 6 3 2 2 2 2

Meaning action action action action state state

Example venture, venturing coloring, coloration aliment, alimentation transfer, transferral minimality, minimalism viscosity, viscousness

The semantic category with the greater variety of competing patterns is action, followed by state. Some affixes are found in a number of categories, e.g. zero-affixation is found for the expression of state (contrary vs. contrariety vs. contrariness), instrument10 (sprinkle vs. sprinkler), resultative (advancement vs. advance), action (dispute vs. disputation vs. disputing), and entity (register vs. registry). By contrast, other affixes are found in only one category, e.g. -ee is only found for the expression of patient in one cluster: nomination vs. nominee. 4.2 Zero-affixation vs. -ation 4.2.1  Zero-affixation vs. -ation by entries Of the clusters listed in Table 1, this section goes deeper into deverbal nominalization by zero-affixation and -ation for the sense action, again because they are two of the most productive nominalizers cited in the literature (see section 3). Eight competing clusters were found, and later analyzed in terms of their meaning, frequency and dates of attestation. Table 2 lists the derivatives under study and the data collected about them. 10

Note that some of these clusters are not shown in Table 1 because they do not make up a pattern.

222 

Cristina Lara-Clares

Table 2: Derivatives in zero-affixation and -ation for the expression of the sense action. Sense Derivative (OED)   6 1 1 2 1 1a 1a 6 1 4 3 1a 1

Status (OED) In Obsolete/ use Dated register 8 3 registration 3   exhort   1 exhortation 3   aliment 1   alimentation 1   dispute 3 1 disputation 1 3 cure111 4 5 curation   2 experiment 3 3 experimentation 1   import 5   importation 2   transport 3 2 transportation 2 1

Freq. Dates (BNC) (OED) Dialectal Register/ BNC Earliest/† Domain 2 2 2,633 1563     2,302 ?1566     3 a1475/1829     187 1382   1 4 1563   1 1 1590     4,435 1638     23 1489   1 1,095 c1300/1891     5 c1374/1677     5,585 1362     361 1674     2,814 1548   1 172 a1558     7,996 c1485 1 1 552 1540

11

Although this chapter only aims at a synchronic analysis, a very brief account of the dates of attestation as provided by the OED is given below. As Figure 1 shows, all the competing derivatives are first attested between the 14th and the 17th centuries and the earliest date of attestation is usually similar for the two members of each pair. Most derivatives remain in use according to the OED, with the exception of exhort, cure and curation.12 This may be viewed as a hint of resolved competition, in which zero-affixation is attested as in use whereas -ation is not, as with the base cureV, or the other way around, as with the base exhortV. Corpus evidence is used to check 11 12

A number on the right of the derivative points to the number given to that derivative by the OED when homonymous. The entry for exhort is classified as “obsolete”, whereas in cure and curation only the identical senses under study are classified as “obsolete”.

Competition in Present Day English nominalization

223

whether that is the case or not (see below). It should also be pointed out that two of the bases are found with other affixes for the expression of the sense action too: register and registration compete with registering. The forms register and registration are first attested in the 16th century and remain in use according to the OED. Dispute and disputation coexist with disputing, first attested in the 13th century and also reported as in use in the OED.

Fig. 1: Timeline of the coexistence of the nominalizing suffixes zero (continuous line) and ‑ation (discontinuous line) in the clusters obtained from the sample for the expression of the sense action.

Figure 1 suggests that diachronic patterns are similar for derivatives in zero-affixation and in -ation for the expression of the sense action, even though some derivatives seem to be out of use according to the OED. After this diachronic digression, the current situation between zero-affixation and -ation is analyzed in terms of their respective Index of Competition (C) as defined by Fernández-Domínguez (this volume). This index, unlike other measures unspecific for competition, relies on the frequency of occurrence and the number of potential competitors within each cluster to quantify the likelihood that a derivative may prevail compared with other derivatives that express the same meaning in the same domain. The higher the C value, the greater the likelihood that the affix may prevail in that cluster. The maximum value is the Reference C, which is according to the number of derivatives within each cluster.

224 

Cristina Lara-Clares

Table 3: C value of the derivatives in present competition from the sample (The table only shows derivatives by -ation or zero-affixation). Derivative  register registration dispute disputation exhort exhortation aliment alimentation cure curation experiment experimentation import importation transport transportation

N 2,552 2,302 4,435 23 3 187 4 1 1,095 5 5,585 361 2,814 172 7,996 552

NC 5,408 5,408 4,468 4,468 190 190 5 5 1,100 1,100 5,946 5,946 2,986 2,986 8,548 8,548

VC 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

C 0.117973373 0.10641642 0.330871382 0.001715906 0.007894737 0.492105263 0.4 0.1 0.497727273 0.002272727 0.469643458 0.030356542 0.471198928 0.028801072 0.467711745 0.032288255

Reference C 0.33 0.33 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Table 3 presents the Index of Competition of the derivatives under study. Two of the clusters under study are part of clusters of three derivatives. As the purpose here is to look only at the competition between zero-affixation and ‑ation, their C value needed to be adapted for later comparison, even though the values do not vary greatly (see Table 4): Table 4: C values of the derivatives in present competition that are in a cluster of more than two members.  Derivative

Category N

NC

VC

C

register

action

2,552

4,854

2

0.262875979

registration action

2,302

4,854

2

0.237124021

dispute

action

4,435

4,458

2

0.497420368

disputation

action

23

4,458

2

0.002579632

Reference C 0.5

0.5

The calculations with C values vary according to the number of members of each cluster (see Fernandez-Domínguez this volume). Still, the conclusions are the same regardless of whether those clusters are considered as a whole

Competition in Present Day English nominalization

225

(i.e. counting all their members) or if only the pairs with zero-affixation and ‑ation are taken into consideration. Zero-affixation ranks substantially higher in dispute (0.5) vs. disputation (0.002), and in aliment (0.4) vs. alimentation (0.1), cure (0.49) vs. curation (0.002), experiment (0.47) vs. experimentation (0.03), import (0.47) vs. importation (0.03) and transport (0.47) vs. transportation (0.03). By contrast, -ation ranks higher in exhortation (0.49) vs. exhort (0.007). In all but one cluster, the difference in the C value of the derivatives in the cluster is considerable and may anticipate the further development of each derivative. The exception to this set is the close values of register (0.26) and registration (0.24), even though zero-affixation seems to be slightly favored over ‑ation. All in all, the data suggest that zero-affixation is more successful than ‑ation. It may also happen that the latter has found a niche in which it is especially productive, and where zero-affixation is less productive, but the data used this far cannot identify this. For this reason, the frequencies of one and the other affix were compared across registers after normalization, as presented in Figure 2:

Fig. 2: Distribution of zero-affixation (grey) and -ation (white) across registers in the BNC. “S” stands for the spoken mode and “W” for the written mode. Frequencies are normalized.

Figure 2 shows that the frequencies are consistently higher for zero-affixation than for -ation, regardless of the register in which they are attested. If we look only at the most marked differences, within the spoken mode, zero-affixation occurs more frequently in “speech” and in “broadcast”, whereas ‑ation does in “other” (miscellaneous) and “broadcast”. Where

226 

Cristina Lara-Clares

zero-affixation shows the highest frequency (S_speech), -ation shows the lowest. Something similar happens within the written mode: zero-affixation displays a great number of instances in W_essays, whereas the third lowest frequency of ‑ation is in that register. The rank of frequencies of zero-affixation and -ation is the same for three of the written registers: first, W_non-academic, then W_letters and finally W_news. In the miscellaneous register (W_other) zero-affixation shows its third lowest frequency, whereas -ation is most frequent there. Both affixes show especially low frequencies in both W_fiction and W_magazine, where other processes are expected to prevail. The dispersion of frequencies across registers here could be useful in that it may indicate whether the case under consideration falls in only one corpus register (minimum value = 0) or whether it is uniformly spread across the corpus registers (maximum value = 1). The calculation relies on Gries (2008) and Lijffijt & Gries (2012), because their approach can be used with unequal corpus parts. Table 5 and Table 6 show the computation of the formula on zero-affixed derivatives and derivatives in -ation, respectively. Table 5: Computation of DP of derivatives in zero-affixation from the sample with respect to the whole corpus (BNC). Mode

Register

Total freq. corpus broadcast 802,220 interviews 918,095 Spoken lectures 291,176 speech 241,496 other 7,047,619 academic 15,331,668 essays 200,518 fiction 15,909,312 letters 70,695 Written news 10,155,148 non-academic 16,495,185 magazine 7,261,990 other 20,517,290

Freq. Ø 223 123 25 91 687 6,205 110 753 22 2,826 6,494 1,178 5,670

Expected % Observed % Abs. diff. 0.00842293 0.00963956 0.00305721 0.00253559 0.07399665 0.16097522 0.00210534 0.1670402 0.00074226 0.10662422 0.17319159 0.07624744 0.21542178

0.00913672 0.00503954 0.0010243 0.00372844 0.02814766 0.25423034 0.0045069 0.0308518 0.00090138 0.11578645 0.26607121 0.04826484 0.2323104 Sum of abs. diff. DP

0.00071379 0.00460002 0.00203291 0.00119285 0.04584898 0.09325513 0.00240156 0.1361884 0.00015912 0.00916223 0.09287962 0.0279826 0.01688862 0.4333 0.2167

227

Competition in Present Day English nominalization

The DPnorm of derivatives in zero-affixation in the sample is 0.2167. This means that the derivatives in zero-affixation under study are unevenly distributed across registers in the corpus. This value does not reflect in which part(s) the process falls, but it should be expected to fall in W_ academic and W_essays, in view of the higher normalized frequencies of those registers. As for -ation, the DPnorm is 0.2243 (Table 6). This means that the derivatives in -ation in the sample are also unevenly distributed across registers in the corpus. In this case, the process is expected to fall in W_academic and W_other, for the higher normalized frequencies of those registers. Table 6: Computation of DP of derivatives in -ation from the sample with respect to the whole corpus (BNC).  Mode

Register

Total freq. corpus broadcast 802,220 interviews 918,095 Spoken lectures 291,176 speech 241,496 other 7,047,619 academic 15,331,668 essays 200,518 fiction 15,909,312 letters 7,0695 Written news 10,155,148 non-academic 16,495,185 magazine 7,261,990 other 20,517,290

Freq. -ation 18 10 4 1 171 980 2 118 3 290 736 195 1,062

Expected % Observed % Abs. Diff. 0.00842293 0.00963956 0.00305721 0.00253559 0.07399665 0.16097522 0.00210534 0.1670402 0.00074226 0.10662422 0.17319159 0.07624744 0.21542178

0.00501393 0.00278552 0.00111421 0.00027855 0.04763231 0.2729805 0.0005571 0.03286908 0.00083565 0.08077994 0.20501393 0.05431755 0.29582173 Sum of abs. diff. DP

0.003409 0.00685405 0.001943 0.00225704 0.02636433 0.11200528 0.00154824 0.13417112 9.3391E-05 0.02584428 0.03182234 0.02192989 0.08039995 0.4486 0.2243

Overall, the description of the C values, of the distribution of registers according to normalized frequencies in the BNC and of the DPs confirm that zero-affixation prevails over -ation. This is because it shows higher C values in all the clusters under study (except in exhort vs. exhortation). Register distribution is uneven for both, and sometimes

228 

Cristina Lara-Clares

may even be complementary (e.g. zero-affixation has the highest frequency within the spoken mode in “speech” and -ation shows its lowest frequency within that mode in that register). However, they seem to be in competition in some registers (e.g. “non-academic” and “news” within the written mode), and both show low frequencies in others (e.g. “fiction” within the written mode). 4.2.2 Zero-affixation vs. -ation after sense separation Further comparisons need to be based on figures that are sensible to sense specification, i.e. a comparison of the raw figures of each derivative on the assumption that they express the same sense may distort the results because not all the occurrences may actually express the sense under study. As described in section 3 above, the separation of the BNC concordances of each derivative for attestation of the sense action now allows data analysis following the same method as above, only replacing the frequencies of the whole corpus with the frequencies of each derivative, and the frequencies of each derivative for those of the sense action. Table 7 presents the Index of Competition of the sense action of the derivatives under study (zero-affixation and -ation). Again, the higher the C value, the greater the likelihood that the affix with that sense (or the sense of that affix) may prevail in that cluster. The maximum value is the reference C, which is according to the number of derivatives within each cluster. In this case, as only the competition between zero-affixation and -ation is accounted for, this value is always 0.5. Table 7: C values of the derivatives from the sample with the sense action (The table only shows derivatives by -ation or zero-affixation). Derivative 

N

Nc

Vc

C

register

71

2,163

2

0.01641239

registration

2,092

2,163

2

0.48358761

dispute

236

237

2

0.497890295

disputation

1

237

2

0.002109705

exhort

0

26

2

0

exhortation

26

26

2

0.5

Reference C 0.5 0.5 0.5

229

Competition in Present Day English nominalization Derivative 

N

Nc

Vc

C

Reference C

aliment

0

0

2

-

0.5

alimentation

0

0

2

-

cure

93

93

2

0.5

curation

0

93

2

0

experiment

157

513

2

0.153021442

experimentation 356

513

2

0.346978558

import

1,172

1,296

2

0.452160494

importation

124

1,296

2

0.047839506

transport

6,346

6,742

2

0.47063186

transportation

396

6,742

2

0.02936814

0.5 0.5 0.5

0.5

This table shows different results from those in Table 3, which considered the C value of the derivatives by entries, i.e. without sense separation. In that case, zero-affixation was higher in rank in seven clusters and -ation in only one. By contrast, in this finer analysis zero-affixation is higher in rank only in four clusters and -ation in three. One cluster, aliment vs. alimentation, cannot be computed for its low frequencies. Further differences with respect to conclusions drawn in 4.2.1 can be found in registration (0.48) and in experimentation (0.34), which are higher in rank compared with their zero-affixed counterparts (register (0.016) and experiment (0.15)) after sense separation. The suffix -ation also has the highest C value in exhortation (0.497), while exhort (0) shows no productivity with the sense action and may therefore be interpreted as resolved competition. By contrast, zero-affixation is higher in rank in dispute (0.49) vs. disputation (0.002), import (0.45) vs. importation (0.048) and cure (0.5) vs. curation (0) which, again, could be interpreted as resolved competition, only with the opposite outcome. Again, in order to look at the distribution of the meaning action across registers of the BNC, normalized frequencies are presented in Figure 3:

230 

Cristina Lara-Clares

Fig. 3: Distribution of the sense action in zero-affixation (grey) and -ation (white) across registers in the BNC. “S” stands for the spoken mode and “W” for the written mode. Frequencies are normalized.

As with the analysis of the entries without sense separation, the frequencies are still consistently higher for zero-affixation, both in the final picture and in each specific register. Within the spoken mode, frequencies are especially higher for zero-affixation in “speech”, followed by “other”. The suffix -ation shows the lowest frequency in “speech” and the highest in “other”. This suggests prevalence of zero-affixation within S_speech, but not in “broadcast”. Besides, both types of derivatives present relatively high frequencies in S_other and S_broadcast. Within the written mode, the frequencies are higher in zero-affixation, and both types of derivatives show the same frequency in W_fiction. Zero-affixation has its highest frequency in “letters”, followed by “news” and “other”. The suffix -ation, in turn, has its highest frequency in “academic”, followed by “other” and “letters”. Overall, their ranking by register is similar, but zero-affixation ranks much higher throughout. The computation of the dispersion of the sense action with respect to the frequencies of the derivatives in the corpus could point to the semantic specialization of one or the other affix. A value close to zero indicates that the distribution is uneven, and a value close to 1 implies that the affix is evenly distributed across the corpus parts. The calculation of the dispersion follows Gries (2008) and Lijffijt & Gries

231

Competition in Present Day English nominalization

(2012). Table 8 and Table 9 show the computation of the formula of zero-affixed derivatives and of derivatives in ‑ation, respectively, both with the sense action. Table 8: Computation of DP of derivatives in zero-affixation with the sense action with respect to the whole corpus (BNC). Mode

Register

Total freq. Freq. Ø Expected % Observed % Abs. Diff. Ø action

broadcast

223

15

0.00913672 0.00185759 0.00727914

interviews

123

12

0.00503954 0.00148607 0.00355347

Spoken lectures

Written

25

5

0.0010243

speech

91

32

0.00372844 0.00396285 0.00023441

0.0006192

0.0004051

other

687

216

0.02814766 0.02674923 0.00139844

academic

6,205

1,118

0.25423034 0.13845201 0.11577833

essays

110

10

0.0045069

0.00123839 0.00326851

fiction

753

167

0.0308518

0.02068111 0.01017069

letters

22

17

0.00090138 0.00210526 0.00120388

news

2,826

1,395

0.11578645 0.17275542 0.05696896

non-academic 6,494

2,055

0.26607121 0.25448916 0.01158204

magazine

1,178

422

0.04826484 0.05226006 0.00399522

other

5,670

2,611

0.2323104

0.32334365 0.09103325 Sum of abs. diff.

0.3069

DP

0.1534

The DPnorm of the sense action in the derivatives in zero-affixation from the sample is 0.1534 (Table 8). This means that the derivatives in zero-affixation under study are unevenly distributed across registers in the corpus. If this value is compared to that of Table 4 in 4.2.1, i.e. the dispersion of zero-affixation by entry, the semantic category under study (action) within the derivatives is even less evenly distributed. Although the dispersion measure does not reflect in which register the affix falls, the normalized frequencies of action lead to the expectation that the category where this type of derivation falls be W_letters in view of the higher normalized frequencies in that part of the corpus.

232 

Cristina Lara-Clares

Table 9: Computation of DP of derivatives in -ation with the sense action with respect to the whole corpus (BNC). Mode

Spoken

Written

Register

Total freq. Freq. -ation Expected % Observed % Abs. Diff. -ation action

broadcast

18

10

0.00501393 0.0033389

0.00167503

interviews

10

10

0.00278552 0.0033389

0.00055338

lectures

4

2

0.00111421 0.00066778 0.00044643

speech

1

0

0.00027855 0

other

171

114

0.04763231 0.03806344 0.00956887

academic

980

877

0.2729805 0.29282137 0.01984087

essays

2

2

0.0005571 0.00066778 0.00011068

fiction

118

91

0.03286908 0.03038397 0.00248511

letters

3

3

0.00083565 0.00100167 0.00016601

news

290

213

0.08077994 0.07111853 0.00966141

non-academic 736

598

0.20501393 0.19966611 0.00534782

magazine

195

160

0.05431755 0.05342237 0.00089518

other

1,062

915

0.29582173 0.30550918 0.00968745

0.00027855

Sum of abs. diff.

0.0607

DP

0.0304

The DPnorm of the sense action in the derivatives by the suffix -ation from the sample is 0.0304 (Table 9). This means that the expression of this sense by this type of derivative falls in one register of the corpus, because the value is very close to zero. If this value is compared to that of Table 6 in 4.2.1., i.e. the dispersion of -ation by entry, the sense action is less evenly distributed than the derivatives themselves. The normalized frequencies of action lead to the expectation that the category where the affix falls be W_academic. 4.2.3  Zero-affixation vs. -ation after sense separation in specific cases The results of the sections above suggest the terms of the competition between zero-affixation and ‑ation first by entry and after separation of the sense action. However, the analysis of specific cases proves that each competing pair should also be accounted for individually, as not all

233

Competition in Present Day English nominalization

show exactly the same pattern. For this reason, a more detailed analysis follows of two competing pairs: import vs. importation and experiment vs. experimentation. In the pair import vs. importation, the figures obtained seem to prime import, i.e. zero-affixation, due to its higher C values, both considering the derivative by entry (0.47 vs. 0.03) (see Table 3) and after sense separation (0.45 vs. 0.04) (see Table 7). However, it could be the case that importation is limited to a domain where -ation is preferred over zero-affixation. In order to verify if that is the case, a general profile of the frequencies of one and the other derivative is presented (Table 10 for import and Table 11 for importation) and their register distributions are then compared, using normalized frequencies (Figure 4) and calculating their DPnorm. Table 10: Frequencies of import in the BNC. Mode

Register

Total freq. import

Freq. action

Freq. “other”

Freq. “?”

Tagging error

broadcast

11

0

10

1

0

interviews

2

0

2

0

0

lectures

0

0

0

0

0

speech

4

1

3

0

0

other

29

8

16

4

1

academic

343

68

227

39

9

essays

0

0

0

0

0

fiction

49

7

32

9

1

letters

0

0

0

0

0

news

337

159

147

27

4

non-academic

864

342

286

226

10

magazine

229

97

96

29

7

other

940

490

313

115

22

Total

2,808

1,172

1,132

450

54

%

100

41.74

40.31

16.03

1.92

Spoken

Written

Table 10 shows that 41.74% of the total frequency of import conveys the sense action, whereas 16.03% is ambiguous (see section 3), and 1.92%

234 

Cristina Lara-Clares

is tagging errors (here, verbs tagged as nouns). The remaining 40.31% express a sense other than action. Importation shows quite a different profile (Table 11): 72.09% of the total frequency of importation conveys the sense action, whereas 5.81% is ambiguous (see section 3). There are no tagging errors, and the remaining 22.09% expresses a sense other than action. Table 11: Frequencies of importation in the BNC. Mode

Register

Total freq. importation

Freq. action

Freq. “other”

Freq. “?”

Tagging error

broadcast

0

0

0

0

0

interviews

0

0

0

0

0

lectures

0

0

0

0

0

speech

0

0

0

0

0

other

0

0

0

0

0

academic

41

28

12

1

0

essays

0

0

0

0

0

fiction

5

4

1

0

0

letters

0

0

0

0

0

news

11

10

1

0

0

non-academic

52

40

11

1

0

magazine

10

7

2

1

0

other

53

35

11

7

0

Total

172

124

38

10

0

%

100

72.09

22.09

5.81

0

Spoken

Written

The results presented above underline the need for sense separation in this field: import does not compete with importation as an entry; in fact, only 41.74% of its total frequency is for the sense action. By contrast, the sense action prevails in importation. Therefore, their frequency distribution signals semantic specialization of one or the other derivative (or affix) (Figure 4 and Figure 5). Figure 4 shows the distribution of import and importation, where import has higher frequencies. This derivative falls mainly in the written mode, specifically in “non-academic” and “other”. These are also

Competition in Present Day English nominalization

235

the registers in which importation shows highest frequencies, together with “academic”. In fact, the bulk of instances of both derivatives falls in 6 registers out of a total of 12, whereas neither derivative is attested in 4 registers (S_lecture, W_essays, W_fiction, and W_letters).

Fig. 4: Distribution of the derivatives import (grey) and importation (white) across registers in the BNC. “S” stands for the spoken mode and “W” for the written mode. Frequencies are normalized.

Separation of the sense action (Figure 5) suggests a similar distribution. However, importation has a normalized frequency 0 in all the registers in the spoken mode, and again has the highest frequencies in “academic”, “non-academic” and “other”. By contrast, import has the highest frequencies in “other” and “non-academic”. It may then be that the register in which there is more contention is W_academic, even if import seems to prevail overall and especially in the spoken mode. The sense action in both derivatives is unevenly distributed across registers, as shown in Figure 5, and as confirmed by use of Gries’s (2008) and Lijffijt & Gries’s (2012) formula. Import has a DPnorm of 0.1001, and importation’s DPnorm is 0.0401. This might be interpreted as a certain degree of semantic specialization, but the frequencies are too low to arrive at a definite conclusion.

236 

Cristina Lara-Clares

Fig. 5: Distribution of the sense action in import (grey) and importation (white) across registers in the BNC. “S” stands for the spoken mode and “W” for the written mode. Frequencies are normalized.

The pair experiment vs. experimentation might help illustrate a different profile to the one obtained from the comparison between zero-affixation and ‑ation suffixation. The following presents the distribution of senses as well as the register distribution (by entry and after sense separation), together with their dispersion. In experiment (Table 12, opposite), 94.95% of its total frequency conveys a sense other than action, so action is present only in 2.81% of the concordances. The rest of the data corresponds to tagging errors (1.70%) and ambiguous instances (0.54%;). By contrast, in experimentation (Table 13), 98.89% of its total frequency conveys the sense action, so a sense other than action is present only in 0.28% of the concordances. The rest of the data are for ambiguous instances (0.83%). There are no instances of tagging errors.

237

Competition in Present Day English nominalization Table 12: Frequencies of experiment in the BNC. Mode

Register

Total freq. experiment broadcast 56 7 interviews 17 Spoken lectures speech 8 other 79 academic 2,332 essays 62 fiction 165 letters 0 Written news 241 non-academic 1,656 magazine 237 other 722 Total 5,582 % 100

Freq. action 0 0 0 0 1 52 0 0 0 5 65 13 21 157 2.81

Freq. “other” 55 7 15 8 70 2,267 55 164 0 234 1,557 196 672 5,300 94.95

Freq. “?” 1 0 2 0 5 7 0 0 0 0 9 3 3 30 0.54

Tagging error 0 0 0 0 3 6 7 1 0 2 25 25 26 95 1.70

Table 13: Frequencies of experimentation in the BNC. Mode

Register

Total freq. experimentation broadcast 3 interviews 2 Spoken lectures 0 speech 0 other 1 academic 102 essays 2 fiction 17 letters 0 Written news 23 non-academic 76 magazine 34 other 100 Total 360 % 100

Freq. action 2 2 0 0 1 100 2 17 0 23 76 34 99 356 98.89

Freq. “other” 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.28

Freq. “?” 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0.83

Tagging error 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

238 

Cristina Lara-Clares

It is clear from Table 12 and Table 13 that the two derivatives show quite a different profile: one in which the sense action appears to prevail (experimentation) and one in which it occurs in a very low percentage with respect to the total (experiment). The question is whether senses overlap in a domain. To this end, the register distribution of the two derivatives is compared, first by entry and then according to the frequency of the sense action. Figure 6 shows that, as expected, experiment, i.e. zero-affixation, is more frequent overall. The highest frequency is in W_essays, twice as much as that of the second most frequent register of this derivative (W_ academic). In the spoken mode, the highest frequency is in “broadcast”, followed by “lectures”. By contrast, experimentation shows very low frequencies, the highest being in W_essays, followed by W_academic, i.e. two registers where competition with experiment may be expected to occur for the higher frequencies of experimentation.

Fig. 6: Distribution of the derivatives experiment (grey) and experimentation (white) across registers in the BNC. “S” stands for the spoken mode and “W” for the written mode. Frequencies are normalized.

If semantics, specifically the sense action, is taken into consideration, the profile changes radically (Figure 7). It is now experimentation that prevails throughout, even if the differences in frequency between the two derivatives are not as substantial as in Figure 6. The highest

Competition in Present Day English nominalization

239

frequencies fall again in W_essays and W_academic and -ation prevails completely over zero-affixation in the former. W_non-academic seems to be the register in which both derivatives may compete most clearly, perhaps along with W_academic and W_other. The figures also show that experimentation prevails clearly in the spoken mode, whereas experiment does when senses are not separated. The dispersion measures (Gries 2008, Lijffijt & Gries 2012) show again that the register distribution of action is uneven in both derivatives: the DPnorm of experiment is 0.1621 and the DPnorm of experimentation is 0.0051. The former is expected to fall in W_nonacademic and the latter in W_essays.

Fig. 7: Distribution of the sense action in experiment (grey) and experimentation (white) across registers in the BNC. “S” stands for the spoken mode and “W” for the written mode. Frequencies are normalized.

5. Conclusions This chapter is based on a sample collected using both data from the BNC and the OED, i.e. corpus and lexicographic evidence. Still, few clusters were found where the pair under study (zero-affixation vs.

240 

Cristina Lara-Clares

‑ation) coexists and may thus be potentially in competition. The few competitors that are found display different results according to whether: • • •

they are studied by entry; they are studied by sense; and specific pairs within entry and within sense are studied.

Overall, zero-affixation appears to prevail over -ation suffixation according to the Index of Competition (C, Fernández-Domínguez this volume), according to BNC frequencies, and according to Gries’s (2008) and Lijffijt & Gries’s (2012) DPnorm measure, but this is not always confirmed under closer scrutiny. The C values showed that the domination is not so clear when semantics is considered: with the sense action, zero-affixation is more likely to prevail in four clusters and -ation in three, whereas zero-affixation was expected to prevail in all clusters but one aside from semantic considerations, i.e. by entry. This is in line with previous studies that show that general semantic definitions of affixes may not be enough to capture differences in meaning between affixes (see Riddle 1985 and Baeskow 2012 on -ity and -ness; Aronoff & Cho 2001 on -dom, ­-hood and -ship; see also Díaz-Negrillo this volume). Normalized frequencies are consistently higher for zero-affixation, both in general terms and in each specific register, independently of semantics. The register distribution of these affixes is uneven, as demonstrated by the application of Gries’s (2008) and Lijffijt & Gries’s (2012) DPnorm measure to all the data available. Zero-affixation seems to prevail in “speech”, within the spoken mode, both overall and with the sense under consideration. However, the registers where they show higher normalized frequencies changes when sense separation is taken into account, e.g. zero-affixation has it highest frequency in W_essays by entry, but that register is among the least frequent of that affix within the written mode with the sense action. Although the approach here is synchronic, diachronic data give hints of resolved competition: zero-affixation appears to prevail over -ation for the base cureN and -ation over zero-affixation for the base exhortN. This seems to be confirmed by synchronic data, in that both cureN and exhortationN rank much higher than their counterparts in C values both by entry and by sense.

Competition in Present Day English nominalization

241

Overall, the conclusions have a limited value as regards the study of zero-affixation vs. -ation for the expression of action, first because the results were partly expected from the distribution of these affixes with respect to bases, and second because the evidence seems to suggest that solid claims on competition demand case-by-case research. This is illustrated by the cluster experimentation vs. experiment: the former showed higher normalized frequencies in all registers with the sense action, even though the zero-affixed derivative showed higher normalized frequencies overall.

Acknowledgements This work has been supported by an initiation to research grant (Beca de iniciación a la investigación para estudiantes de Grado), funded by the Vice-Rectorate of Scientific Policy and Research of the University of Granada.

References Arndt-Lappe, Sabine 2014. Analogy in Suffix Rivalry: The Case of English -ity and -ness. English Language and Linguistics. 18/3, 497–548. Aronoff, Mark 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Aronoff, Mark 1983. Potential Words, Actual Words, Productivity and Frequency.  Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Linguists. Tokyo, 29 August-4 September, 163–171. Aronoff, Mark / Cho, Sungeun 2001. The Semantics of -ship Suffixation. Linguistic Inquiry. 32/1, 167–173.

242 

Cristina Lara-Clares

Baeskow, Heike 2012. -Ness and -ity: Phonological Exponents of n or Meaningful Nominalizers of Different Adjectival Domains? Journal of English Linguistics. 40/1, 6–40. Bagasheva, Alexandra. This volume. Comparative Semantic Concepts in Affixation. Bauer, Laurie 1996. Derivational Paradigms. In Booij, Geert / Marle, Jaap van (eds), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Springer, 243–256. Bauer, Laurie 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, Laurie 2009. Competition in English word-formation. In Kemenade, Ans van / Los, Bettelou (eds.) The Handbook of the History of English. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 177–198. Bauer, Laurie / Valera, Salvador / Díaz-Negrillo, Ana 2010. Affixation vs. Conversion: The Resolution of Conflicting Patterns. In Rainer, Franz / Dressler, Wolfgang U. / Kastovsky, Dieter / Luschützky, Hans Christian (eds.) Variation and Change in Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 15–32. Bauer, Laurie / Lieber, Rochelle / Plag, Ingo 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davies, Mark 2004–. BYU-BNC (Based on the British National Corpus by Oxford University Press). Available at: http://corpus.byu.edu/ bnc/. Last accessed 30 Nov 2016. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2008. Transdisciplinary Aspects of Morphological Productivity. European Review. 16/4, 457–466. Fernández-Alcaina, Cristina. This volume. Availability and Unavailability in English Word-Formation. Fernández-Domínguez, Jesús. This volume. Methodological and Procedural Issues in the Quantification of Morphological Competition. Fradin, Bernard 2016. What Can we Learn from Doublets? In Book of abstracts. 17 International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 18–21 February 2016. Giegerich, Heinz J. 2001. Synonymy Blocking and the Elsewhere Condition: Lexical Morphology and the Speaker. Transactions of the Philological Society. 99/1, 65–98. Gries, Stefan Th. 2008. Dispersions and Adjusted Frequencies in Corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 13/4, 403–437.

Competition in Present Day English nominalization

243

Guz, Wojciech 2009. English Affixal Nominalizations across Language Registers. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. 45/4, 447–471. Hamawand, Zeki 2007. Suffixal Rivalry in Adjective Formation. A Cognitive-Corpus Analysis. London: Equinox. Hoekstra, Eric / Versloot, Arjen P. 2016. Frequency, Similarity and the Blocking Principle. 17 International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 18–21 February 2016. Kaunisto, Mark 2007. Variation and Change in the Lexicon. A Corpusbased Analysis of Adjectives in English Ending in -ic and -ical. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kjellmer, Göran 1984. Why great/greatly but not big/*bigly? On the Formation of English Adverbs in -ly. Studia Linguistica. 38/1, 1–19. Kjellmer, Göran 2001. Why weaken but not *strongen? On Deadjectival Verbs. English Studies. 82/2, 154–171. Kwon, Heok-Seung 1997. Negative Prefixation from 1300 to 1800: A Case Study in in-/un- Variation. ICAME Journal. 21, 21–42. Lehrer, Adrienne 2003. Polysemy in Derivational Affixes. In Nerlich, Brigitte / Todd, Zazie / Herman, Vimala / Clarke, David D. (eds.) Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 217–232. Lijffijt, Jefrey / Gries, Stefan Th. 2012. Correction to Stefan Th. Gries’ “Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13:4 (2008), 403–437. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 17/1, 147–149. Lindsay, Mark 2012. Rival Suffixes: Synonymy, Competition, and the Emergence of Productivity. In Ralli, Angela / Booij, Geert / Scalise, Sergio / Karasimos, Athanasios (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting ‒ Morphology and the Architecture of Grammar. Patras: University of Patras, 192–203. Lindsay, Mark / Aronoff, Mark 2013. Natural Selection in Self-Organizing Morphological Systems. In Montermini, Fabio / Boyé, Gilles / Tseng, Jesse (eds.) Morphology in Toulouse: Selected Proceedings of Décembrettes 7. Munich: Lincom Europe, 133–153.

244 

Cristina Lara-Clares

Marchand, Hans 21969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. Munich: Beck. Plag, Ingo 1999. Morphological Productivity. Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Plag, Ingo 2000. On the Mechanisms of Morphological Rivalry: A New Look at Competing Verb-Deriving Affixes in English. In Reitz, Bernhard / Rieuwerts, Sigrid (eds.) Anglistentag 1999 Mainz. Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 63–76. Plag, Ingo 2004. Syntactic Category Information and the Semantics of Derivational Morphological Rules. Folia Linguistica. 38/3–4, 193–225. Proffitt, Michael 2016. The Oxford English Dictionary. Available at: http://www.oed.com. Last accessed 30 November 2016. Rainer, Franz 1988. Towards a Theory of Blocking: The Case of Italian and German Quality Nouns. In Booij, Geert / Marle, Jaap van (eds.) Yearbook of Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris, 155–185. Riddle, Elizabeth M. 1985. A Historical Perspective on the Productivity of the Suffixes -ness and -ity. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) Historical Semantics: Historical Word-formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 435–461. Säily, Tanja 2011. Variation in Morphological Productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and Methodological Considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. 7/1, 119–141. Štekauer, Pavol. This volume. Competition in Natural Languages.

Subject Index

~able 120, 214 ~age 88 ~al 81, 88, 103–104, 120, 214, 221 ~ar 73, 120, 214 ~ary 88 ~ate 22, 168, 178–182, 190, 200, 216 ~ation 12, 21, 88, 120, 163, 166, 207–208, 213, 216–217, 220–230, 232–233, 239–241 a~ 73, 212 ante~ 211 ability 53, 170 abstraction 53, 72–73, 88, 91, 95, 99–101, 170 accusative 18 action 11–12, 51, 53, 56, 70, 73, 85–86, 88–95, 99–101, 103–107, 170, 216–224, 228–241 adjective 46, 56, 74, 81, 90, 119, 121, 123–125, 148, 154, 167, 182, 184, 198–199, 209, 211, 213–215, 217 see also under conversion, verb adverb 198, 209 see also under conversion affected 56 affixation 9–12, 20–24, 34–47, 49–50, 52–53, 57–59, 67–69, 73, 76–78, 81–83, 85, 87–88, 90, 93, 95–96, 110, 119–124, 126, 134, 157, 163– 166, 168–171, 173–175, 177–183, 189, 193, 197, 200–202, 207–218, 220–234, 236, 238–241 see also under zero agent 23, 43, 46, 53, 56, 84–86, 88, 91, 95–96, 99, 170 allomorphy 77 ameliorative 53 analogy 18, 22–23, 166, 210–211

animate 156 non-~ 156 attenuative 54 augmentative 53, 73, 88, 91–92, 94–96, 99–101, 106, 170, 177–179 availability 24, 82–83, 111, 163–167, 172, 195 base 18–19, 39–40, 42, 46–47, 50, 56–57, 69, 76–78, 81–83, 85–87, 90–91, 93–94, 98–99, 103–104, 119–121, 124–125, 129, 140, 144–146, 148– 149, 151–157, 163–164, 166–169, 173, 175, 179–184, 189–190, 198–200, 208–209, 211–217, 220, 222–223, 240–241 blocking 16, 19–23, 67, 100, 166, 210–212 token 21–22, 210 type 21–22 , 210–211 BNC 9, 11–12, 68–78, 90, 97–99, 164, 168, 172, 180–181, 185–189, 191–193, 198, 216–222, 225–240 borrowing 21, 119, 123, 166, 180 canonical 43, 47–49 category 10, 18, 25, 37, 40, 42–43, 45–46, 48–50, 52, 57, 81, 122, 126, 200, 218, 231–232 analytical 49 cognitive 51, 68, 87, 112 conceptual 38, 48, 51 derivational 43, 49 descriptive 10, 48–50, 58 formal 46–48 notional 45, 50 semantic 10–12, 24, 35, 37–38, 40–50, 57–59, 68, 70, 73, 78, 83, 85, 87–88, 92, 95–102, 110, 112, 164, 166,

246  169, 170–171, 176–183, 185, 188, 190, 192, 194, 196, 200–201, 216, 219–221, 224, 231 syntactic 209 causative 11–12, 43, 53, 70–71, 73, 92–96, 100–101, 107–109, 119, 165, 168–171, 173, 178, 180–183, 185, 188, 190, 192, 194, 199–202, 212 anti~ 53 non-~ 199–200, 202, 212 cluster 11–12, 69–75, 78–79, 84, 88, 90, 92–93, 102–106, 109–110, 168, 170–171, 217, 224, 228 nominal 11, 70, 72, 95–96, 105–106, 170, 217, 220–221, 223–225, 227, 229, 239–241 verbal 11, 70, 72, 95–96, 105, 107–108, 168, 170–171, 173–196, 201 COCA 9, 11, 68–75, 172–173, 180–181, 185–189, 191–193, 198 coinage 24, 26, 51, 81–84, 87–88, 96, 98, 100, 119, 127, 163, 197 collectivity 53, 74, 125, 129, 133, 135–155, 170 collocation 172, 186, 188–189, 216 comitative 53 composition 53 compositionality 19, 34–37, 44, 50 compounding 20, 24–26, 36, 41, 49–50, 77, 85, 124 parasynthetic 49 root 84 synthetic 21, 49, 84, 95 concept 24, 33–35, 37–38, 40, 48–49, 51–52, 57–58, 83–84, 87, 102 comparative 33, 47–58 lexical 37–38 see also under category connotation 21 constraint 24, 81, 120, 125, 156, 212–213 context 16, 26, 39, 42, 44, 49, 68, 96, 106, 120, 167, 172, 183, 207, 210

Subject index conversion 24, 36, 50, 85–86, 88, 91, 95, 103–108, 123, 198, 200, 209–210, 213, 215, 217 deadjectival 198 deadverbal 198 cumulative 54 ~dom 11, 82, 119, 121, 123–127, 129, 131, 134–142, 145–147, 151–157, 213, 216, 240 de~ 93–94, 177, 179–180, 211–212 dis~ 82, 93, 177–180, 211–212 desiderative 54 diachrony 9, 11–12, 15, 21, 23, 97, 102, 105, 110, 112, 121, 123–124, 126–127, 134, 136, 141, 146, 154, 165–166, 168, 172, 180, 193, 198, 201, 211, 223, 240 see also under distribution dialect 222 diminutive 54 directional 54 dispersion 12, 170–171, 210, 218–219, 226–227, 230–233, 235–236, 239–240 distribution 42, 67, 76, 78, 88–89, 92, 120, 156, 165–167, 171, 207, 210, 213, 215, 219, 230, 234, 241 complementary 17, 82, 166, 208–209, 212–213, 215, 217 diachronic 127, 136–137, 141–142, 146–147 frequency 210, 234 register 12, 70, 120, 214, 225, 227, 229, 231, 233, 235–236, 238–240 relational 24 sense 134–142, 144–147, 149–150, 173, 229–233, 235–236, 239 distributive 54 domain 21–22, 45, 81–83, 95–96, 102, 123, 125, 131, 155, 167, 173, 186, 190, 210–211, 222–223, 233, 238 doublet 145, 147, 153, 155, 165–166, 168, 195, 209, 212–213

247

Subject index durative 54 dweller 54

Germanic 81, 124, 213 granularity 45, 50, 58, 76, 88, 97

~ed 87, 98, 214 ~ee 24, 221 ~en 22, 168, 178–180, 199, 209–210, 215 ~er 24, 81, 85, 89 ~ery 88 ~esque 120 ~ess 73, 209, 214 ~ette 209 economy 9–10, 17–20, 26, 91, 111, 119–120 English Middle 124, 127–128, 133, 136–138, 140–143, 146–149, 151–152, 155 Modern 127, 133, 136–152, 155, 216 Old 121, 124, 126–127, 129, 131, 133, 136–138, 140–148, 151–152, 155, 157, 176–177 entity 54, 88, 91, 93, 96, 99, 170, 221 entrenchment 37, 45 etymology 78, 111, 134, 167, 169, 172–173, 180 experiencer 54 extension 49, 121, 123, 125, 131, 143, 148, 151–152

~hood 11, 119, 121, 123–127, 134–135, 137, 141–146, 151–157, 213, 216, 240 hyper~ 211 hapax 75, 97, 105, 111 head 24–26, 42, 50 left-~ 20 right-~ 20 homonymy 23, 77, 79, 123, 184, 222 hyperonymy 54 hyponymy 54

female 54, 209 French 74, 120, 166, 201 frequency 11–12, 18–19, 22–25, 68–77, 90, 95–97, 99–103, 105, 108–112, 120, 143, 151, 164, 167–168, 172, 181–182, 184, 186–187, 189–191, 193, 210, 212, 214, 216–218, 221, 223, 225–241 sense 137–138, 140–144, 146–150, 178, 218, 233–234, 236, 238 token 71, 97, 102, 104–106, 108, 110 type 97, 110 see also under distribution

~ian 24, 120 ~ic 22, 82, 119–120, 166–167, 209, 213–216 ~ical 22, 82, 119–120, 166–167, 209, 215–216 ~ify 22, 82, 93, 108, 119–120, 166–167, 178–179, 185, 190, 200, 209, 213, 215–217 ~ing 85, 88–89, 104, 213–214, 221 ~ish 120, 213–214 ~ism 88–89, 221 ~ist 85 ~ity 81–83, 88–89, 96, 119–121, 166, 209–211, 213–214, 216, 221, 240 ~ive 73, 167, 214 ~ize 12, 22, 82, 93, 119–120, 163, 165–166, 168, 173, 178–201, 209, 213, 215–217 in~ 18, 210–211 inceptive 54 infixation 50 inflection 34, 42–23 instrument 54, 70, 73, 84, 88–89, 91, 95, 99, 101, 170, 178, 199–200, 202, 221 intensive 53 iterative 55

gender 46, 214 German 123

~less 213 ~ly 81, 209

248  language ~-specific 10, 49–50, 57–58 extra~ 23, 109 inter~ 57 intra~ 57–58 Latin (-ate) 166, 213 lexeme 34–35, 41, 44, 49, 68, 70–73, 77, 80, 83–85, 87–90, 92–108, 110–111, 120, 123, 134, 172, 174, 207–208, 218 see also word lexicalization 40, 44, 49, 58, 98–101, 106, 110, 130, 152, 166, 171, 216 non-~ 36, 52 lexicography 9, 11–12, 69, 78, 109, 121, 167, 169, 172, 239 lexicon 23, 34, 36, 39, 97, 103, 107 see also under concept likelihood 102–104, 223, 228 linguistics 15, 35, 167 cross-~ 10, 35, 38, 40, 43, 45–50, 52, 57–59 neuro~ 109 psycho~ 24, 109 socio~ 24 cognitive 50 location 55, 73, 84, 170 ~man 149 ~ment 80, 89, 120, 163, 166, 213 mis~ 73, 177, 212 manner 51, 55, 84, 92, 94–95, 100–101, 170, 199–200, 202 mapping 15, 33, 36, 57, 122 metaphor 123–125, 128, 131, 151–152 metonymy 38, 123–124, 128, 143, 151–152 mode 218 spoken 218, 225–228, 230–240 written 225–228, 230–240 modification 24–26, 75, 85–86 motivation 15–16, 18, 21, 36, 52, 109, 120–121, 123, 128, 173

Subject index ~ness 82–83, 88, 90, 96, 119–121, 146, 148, 209–211, 213–214, 216, 221, 240 naming 23–24, 40, 47, 49, 83–85, 93–94 neologism 67, 74, 97–98, 141, 196, 215 niche 20–22, 82, 111, 120–121, 125, 165–166, 208, 225 nonce 74, 134 noun 11–12, 18, 22–25, 43, 46, 56, 69, 70–75, 78, 86, 88–91, 93–96, 98–101, 103–107, 109–111, 119, 121, 123–127, 129, 146, 148, 151, 153, 155, 169–171, 182, 198, 200, 209, 213–214, 217, 220–221, 234 denominal 88 deverbal 216, 220–221 nominalization 80–81, 86, 120, 207– 208, 210, 213, 216–217, 220–221, 223 see also under cluster, verb ~ology 120, 167 ~ory 167 ~ous 214 out~ 177–179 object 23, 33, 40, 54–55, 85–86 obsolete 12, 68, 73–74, 79, 154, 169, 172, 174–177, 180, 182, 184, 187–188, 190, 192, 195–199, 201, 222 obstruent 215 OED 9, 11–12, 68, 73–75, 77–79, 106– 107, 109, 121, 126–129, 133–134, 136–137, 139, 141, 143–149, 153, 155–156, 167–169, 171–174, 177, 179–180, 183–193, 195–199, 201, 212, 216–217, 219, 222–223, 239 onomasiology 9, 27, 38, 46–47, 51, 58, 68, 79, 83–85, 87–88, 90–91, 93–97, 99–102, 110 see also under type ontology 10, 33, 50–51 see also under type opacity 44, 46, 52, 58, 78, 209

Subject index Optimality 9 ornative 55 pre~ 211 paradigm 22–23, 36, 42, 51, 58 participant 27, 41, 53–54 patient 55, 86, 88, 91, 95–96, 99, 170, 221 pejorative 55, 212 perceptive 55 person 18 phrase 19–20, 35, 41 pluriactionality 55 polysemy 10–11, 52, 67, 121–126, 128, 134, 136, 141, 146, 151, 153, 157–158, 202 position 125, 129, 133, 135–152, 154–155 possessive 55 predicate individual-~ 121, 125–126, 140, 145–146, 151–152, 154–157 stage-~ 121, 125–126, 140, 145–146, 151–152, 154–157 predictability 10, 19, 23, 26–27, 40–41, 44, 86, 211, 213 prefixation 18, 50, 73, 76, 93–94, 107, 123, 208, 211, 212 privative 55, 70, 73, 92, 94–96, 100–101, 107, 169–170, 176–178, 180, 212 process 51, 55, 85, 88, 91, 96, 99–101, 170 productivity 10–11, 21–24, 39, 42, 44, 52, 58, 67–68, 79–83, 87–88, 95–102 109–111, 119–120, 123– 124, 127, 163, 166–167, 209–218, 221, 225, 229 profitability 40, 83, 88, 163–164 purposive 55 qualitative 71, 75, 81 quality 51, 55, 86–87, 89–90, 93 quantitative 70, 75, 81, 133, 220 rank 125, 129–130, 142–143, 152, 155

249 realm 131, 135–142, 144, 146, 151–154, 157 reciprocal 55 reflexive 56 register 21, 79, 120, 167, 210, 212, 214, 218, 220, 222, 225–228, 230–232, 234–241 see also under distribution regular 9, 18, 23, 41–42, 52 ir~ 9, 23 relational 56, 119 relationship 125, 129, 143, 147 resultative 56, 88–89, 91–96, 99–101, 108, 169–170, 178, 200, 221 reversative 56, 92–96, 100–101, 169–170, 177–179, 212 rule 23–24, 40–41, 44, 50, 58, 79, 81–84, 93–94, 97, 109, 163, 209, 211, 213, 215 ~ship 11, 82, 119, 212, 123–127, 134–136, 145–157, 213, 216, 240 ~ster 209 super~ 211 supra~ 211 Sanskrit 67 saturative 56 schema 40–41, 123 semasiology 9, 12, 46, 48, 58, 87, 96, 101, 110 semelfactive 56 semiotic 42 sense 10–12, 52, 69, 73–74, 79, 97–98, 106, 109, 121–126, 128–158, 164, 169–170, 172–174, 177–178, 180, 182–183, 188, 190, 200–202, 211–212, 216–223, 228–236, 238–241 see also under distribution, frequency similative 56 singulative 56 skill 125, 131, 135–136, 141, 146, 148–153, 155–157

250  state 51, 56, 72–73, 86–91, 95, 99–101, 124–126, 128–132, 135–157, 170, 212, 221 stress 81–83, 182, 215 un~ 82 subitive 56 substance 86 suffixation 11–12, 21–23, 50, 76, 84, 93–94, 107, 120–121, 123–129, 133–136, 138, 140, 143–144, 146, 151–158, 163, 165–167, 173, 180– 183, 185–186, 188, 190, 192–194, 196–201, 208–211, 213–217, 223, 229–230, 232, 236, 240 superfixation 50 syllable 82–83, 182, 215 synchrony 9, 11–12, 15, 52, 82, 105, 110–111, 123–126, 156, 165–166, 210, 222, 240 synonymy 20–23, 69, 73, 83, 119, 137, 145–146, 164–166, 168–169, 208, 212, 215 ~trix 73 trans~ 73, 211 thematic 24–25 temporal 56 terminative 56 territory 125, 131–133, 135–144, 146, 148–154 timeline 79, 127, 181–183, 185, 188, 190, 192–194, 223 token 97–99, 101, 105, 109, 210 see also under blocking, frequency total 56 transparency 9–11, 17, 19–20, 26, 42, 44, 111, 166, 209, 214 triplet 153–154, 168, 176, 212 trochaic 209, 215 type 40–41, 98–101, 109, 213–214 derivational 43 onomasiological 47, 84–87, 89–96, 111 ontological 10, 50–51

Subject index word-formation 84 see also under blocking, frequency typology 9, 40, 45–48 un~ 82, 93–94, 177–179, 210–212 undergoer 56 verb 11–12, 18, 20–23, 43, 46, 56, 69–74, 78, 81, 86, 88, 90, 92–96, 100–101, 103–105, 107–111, 119, 123–124, 163–167, 169–171, 173, 183–184, 193, 200–201, 209, 211–213, 215–217, 219, 221, 234 deadjectival 184, 209 denominal 23, 198 see also under cluster, noun viewpoint 55 word ~-class 10, 42–43, 46–47, 50, 76–78, 90, 169–171, 217 ~-formation 10, 17, 19–21, 23–24, 26, 34–38, 40–42, 44, 46–47, 50, 58, 67–68, 73, 75, 81–84, 87–88, 93–94, 96–97, 104, 107, 109, 112, 123–124, 163, 166, 197, 209–211 actual 21, 44, 58 complex 10, 18–20, 23–24, 26–27, 33–37, 41, 47, 51–52, 78, 84, 109, 124, 220 derived 19, 57 potential 21, 44, 58, 82, 84 simple 36 see also lexeme; see also under type ~y 213 zero 195 ~-affixation 12, 77, 178, 207–208, 213, 215–217, 220–233, 236, 238–241 ~-derivation 165, 167–168, 173–174, 180, 182–202

Notes on contributors

Alexandra Bagasheva has been an associate professor at Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridskkifor for 4 years to date (where she used to be a senior lecturer for 10 years). She has supervised a number of publicly funded PhD projects, has managed several other publicly funded research actions, and taken part in international and national research projects as both coordinator and participant. She has also organized several international scientific forums in Bulgaria and abroad since 2010. She is a member of the editorial board of Contrastive Linguistics and a member of the advisory boards of ExELL and Peter Lang’s new journal Zeitschrift für Wortbildung. She is a regular reviewer of international journals. She has published papers in the field of word-formation and cognitive linguistics and reviews with de Gruyter, John Benjamins and Peter Lang, and in their journals. She has been co-editor of issues of Italian Journal of Linguistics, Contrastive Linguistics and SKASE. Ana Díaz-Negrillo has been a lecturer in English linguistics at the University of Jaén (2005–2011) and at the University of Granada (2011 to date). She has been a member of the research team of a number of publicly funded research projects on a range of topics, from learner corpus annotation to the acquisition of morphemes in L2. She has also undertaken publicly funded research leave in the Department of several universities (University of Lancaster, supervised by Prof. Martin Bygate; University of Tübingen, supervised by Prof. Detmar Meurers; University of Edinburgh supervised by Prof. Heinz Giegerich). Her main field of interest is the morphophonology of English. She has published books and papers with some of the major European publishers. She has been SLE’s Conference Manager (2013–2016) and has also taken part in a number of conferences as an author. Cristina Fernández-Alcaina is a junior researcher at the University of Granada. She completed her MA on English Literature and Linguistics (2015–2016) at the University of Granada, where she was awarded

252 

Notes on contributors

a research scholarship. She has taken part in the organization of the 27th Spanish Society for Medieval English Language and Literature Conference (Granada, 17th-19th September 2015) and as a presenter in the 4th International Conference on Language and Literature (Santander, 20th-22nd June 2016) with the paper “Availability and unavailability in English word-formation”. In 2016, she has been part of the research project Economía y Transparencia en la Morfología y el Léxico del Inglés (Ref. 2012–39688) funded by the Spanish Ministry of Education. Jesús Fernández-Domínguez holds a PhD in English Linguistics and is currently a Lecturer at the University of Granada. He has been a guest researcher at P.J. Šafárik University, Košice (Slovakia), Swansea (Wales) and Patras (Greece), and has been engaged in the organization of a number of conferences and scientific events on English morphology and word-formation. He has also led two publicly funded research projects and has been a member of the research team in various others. His publications include a monograph (Peter Lang, 2009), several book chapters with leading publishers and articles in international journals like English Studies, Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics or Terminology. Cristina Lara-Clares is a junior researcher at the University of Granada. Her training has been funded by highly competitive scholarships. She completed her Master’s Degree on English Literature and Linguistics at the University of Granada and is currently working on her PhD. She has collaborated in the organization of the 27th Spanish Society for Medieval English Language and Literature conference in Granada (17th-19th September 2015) and has presented papers at several international conferences since the completion of her Master’s Degree. She has also worked for the research project Economía y Transparencia en la Morfología y el Léxico del Inglés (Ref. 2012–39688) funded by the Spanish Ministry of Education under a full-time contract. Juan Santana-Lario is Senior Lecturer in the Department of English and German at the University of Granada, Spain, where he has taught a variety of courses on English language and linguistics since 1987. He has also taught at a number of universities including, among others,

Notes on contributors

253

Williams College (Massachusetts) and the University of Delaware. His current main areas of research include English morphology and syntax, corpus linguistics and forensic linguistics. He has over 35 years of experience in corpus research and currently works on its application for research on morphological and syntactic patterns and also applications in the classroom. He is one of the organizers of Talc6 (2004, Granada). He is the author of La categoría grammatical de pronombre en inglés and co-editor of Corpora in the Foreign Language Classroom. Pavol Štekauer is Professor of English linguistics at P.J. Šafárik University, Košice (Slovakia). His research has focused on an onomasiological approach to word-formation, sociolinguistic aspects of word-formation, meaning predictability of complex words, and cross-linguistic research into word-formation. He has published papers and books about wordformation in all major journals and with all the major publishers. He has been the organizer of the Word-formation Conferences in Eastern Slovakia since 2005, a major event in the conferences in the field. He is the editor of the SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics. Salvador Valera has been senior lecturer at the University of Jaén (1998–2012) and at the University of Granada (2012 to date). He has supervised several publicly funded PhD projects, has managed a number of publicly funded research actions, and has organized international events in Spain and abroad since 2002. He has also undertaken publicly funded research leave in frontline Departments of several universities (Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand, Leeds and Vienna) under the supervision of such renowned scholars as Prof. Laurie Bauer and Prof. Dieter Kastovsky. He is a regular reviewer of international journals and conferences, and has published books and papers with some of the major publishers. He has been reviews editor of Edinburgh University Press’ journal Word Structure since 2008, and has edited books, among others, for Waxmann (with Laurie Bauer) and Peter Lang (with Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes).