4 Productivity in Word-Formation 4.1 THE OPEN-ENDEDNESS OF THE LEXICON One of the goals of morphological theorising is to account for the ways in which speakers both Understand and form, not only ‘real’ words that occur in their language, but also potential words that are not instantiated in use area erances. While itis true that a large percentage of ‘real’ words listed in dictionaries (such as pear and pair) are, and in fact Must be, memorised, _itis equally true, and of great theoretical interest, that countless Words t in conversation (and to a lesser extent in writing age ne eee aye new, made up . “the Spur of the moment. So, morphology has to throw light not on Structure of established words like par, but also on that of freshly coined neologisms like spam (unsolicited electronic mail)., vposted Coy “The consensus i appears to Be that the words of a language are listable ina way in which sentences are not (see Section 13.3.2). The meanings of many words (e.g., pear and pair) must be listed in the lexicon because there is “nothing about their sounds or morphological Structure that would enable one to work out their meaning. In this Tespect morphology differs from 3 Jf syntax. Syntax cannot be Festricted to cataloguing only those sentences that occur in some corpus (i.e., a body of texts), since Tanguage is vast and no list of sentences, no matter how long, could exhaust the set of possible well- formed sentences. Typically, speakers do not merely recycle sentences memorised from previous conyérsations. Rather, they tend to construct = / STresh sentences to suit the occasion, However, by and large, inely make up new words cach time they speak, Nonetheless, the lexicon cannot be seen as a static list, No dictionary, however large, (not even the ‘complete Oxford English | dionary, including all its supplements) can list every word in the English language. Why is this so? Until recently, word-formation rules have tended to be seen as ig largely passive in the sense that they are basically used to analyse esting / ‘Words rather than to create new ones. Itis significant in this connection that, sonably comprehensive dictionaries and wordlists for dozens of are no equivalent, all-encompassing sentence lists enten uch us those found in phrase-books for of being exhaustive. ju ot hat not morphology and the lexicon deal with ae ize. Lists of s ke no preten The verdict on whether « 0 oe iv effectively n closed list of worels will hinge, Lo sone extent, 068 Productivity in Word-Formation gE to nonce words (like uicomplicatedness), created by an individ, not catch on in the speech community. The more such words are ;" Mh 4, 4 part of the language, the bigger and more open-ended will be oa oie, But, perhaps, it will depend to an even greater extent on which fatten recognise as compound words and, hence, part of the Province of My phology and the lexicon, and which forms we treat as phrases fad the domain of syntax. Since both compounds and phrases are mage words, determining which combinations of words are compounds ang ic ot combinations are syntactic phrases is not always straightforward. "ch For instance, consider Lakeside Grammar School Former Pupils. We, here the compound nouns lakeside and grammar school. Is the large, *"* Lakeside Grammar School also a compound noun? It is even more yr whether the whole string Lakeside Grammar School Former Pups e°* compound noun. At first blush, we might decide that it is not a con !?* noun but a syntactic phrase. But we might change our minds if yeu" covered that Lakeside Grammar School Former Pupils is the name of a ry team that plays in the local league. If we recognise strings like Lakes Grammar School Former Pupils as compounds, we will have a Very Fe endcd lexicon. (See Chapter 13 for further discussion.) = Recall also that in the last chapter we mentioned another aspect productivity in word-formation. Although no word is infinite in lengi, | principle there is no upper limit to the length of forms that may functiog bases from which new words are formed. In many languages, if not all, we cannot state categorically what the longest possible word is: words Can by made longer, if the need arises, by the repetition of an affix or the Addition of yet another affix as we saw in [3.24]. Finally, it is also possible to add to the lexicon of a language indefinite) by pillaging the vocabulary of other languages. This is called borrovin English has borrowed from a great number of other languages with which ; has been in contact. There are Latitt loanwords i ot ‘harbour’); French loanwords like omelette; Italian loanwords like fre: and so on: In this book we will not deal*with th® expansion oh vocabulary by borrowing, for which see, for instance, Katamba (2003 We will only be concerned with productive word-creation using the inten! resources of a language (see Section 4.2.1.2), ‘The upshot of this discussion is that morphology is productive. These! no limit to the number of potential words in a language. Therefore, ae thal i! ipted to list the words of a language in some cor} Saath eae 4.1.1 What is Productivity? Bi ‘Sil jut what ; a 3 ia imply in ten nt 8 Productivity? We will provisionally view prot" ly in terms of generality. Th; os ¢ More general a word-formation Pw”‘The Open-Endedmess of the Lexicon the more es Productive it will be ~ Wearing elucidation; ———~ “Se to be. There are two key points () Productivity is a matter formation iy ProsesSes ate relatively more general than o& (ii) Productivity is subject to the dimension of ime. A —Seneral during one historical Period. Conversely, a ReW Process ent a tiny Fraction of eligible inputs bef of degree, I is nor a dichotomy, with some word- which is very may becomé less so at a subsequent tering a language may initially affect re eventually applying more widely. ' 7 Exercise Study the following data. [4.1] chartist morbid worker communist tepid ¢ Painter racist timid ‘swimmer Pianist splendid dancer anarchist horrid Jogger Divide the above words into List all the suffixes. their constituent morphs. “(iii) State the meaning of the morphemes represented in the data. (iv) Find five more words that are formed using each of the suifixes that you have identified. “A(v) State the word-class of the base to which each suffix is added. vi) To what class does the resulting new word belong? (vii) Was it equally easy to find more words which contain the different Suffixes? If not, comment on any problems that you encountered, ‘The words in [4.1] contain the roots listed in [4.2): 4.2] Noun Adj/Verb Verb art morb- work commun(e) tep- paint rac(e) tim- swim n(o) wen dane(e) chy) horr- jog The stittus of the bound roots in the second column is supported by additional examples such as tipiarous, splendour, horrify, ete. There are three sullixes prewent: id, def wa for All of them) are derivitional. v N v fs lack os tarfdene uf PeO — Sot @ oe he gt % | Productivity Im Word-Formation pases to form other nouns (typicay, “Fremay be added 10 NOUR» Tonal sulBX ISM, such they are noun ' ich can also take a ee ‘noun a vases whi a un | chrom, comm ate), I Sa view of thi WE oP distingu! ijectives (e.g. race In “Three meanings which ware realised by “sf in anarchist. communist, etc). in pianist, violinist. etc), _.N -ist: meaning Hie racist, Sexist, etG,). ( ii) NN «ist: meaning e a i Coa Hr meaning ‘advocating X" (3 in ; in origi red English via French. tt j yoo Lt oi 2 ati uy ect rin -id was used to derive attributive adjective timidus from timere ‘to fear’ gives us English tim id dividual the quality of being afraid) amd tepii us English epid (0. attributing the quality s suffixed to verbs to create ta bound the verb’. from verbs, for example, (i.e, attributing to an ind from tepere ‘to be warm gives of being warm) Pinally, the native Germanic suffix er t : i vcaning ‘Someone who does Whatever is designate tive nouns (ith, the my ne 4 some difficulty in finding five more uffix -id. The morpheme -id is at . It is Frozen. re have h ‘One would expect you to have ha adver hich contain he dr used actively (i such as frigid, lurid, wurbid, eur it is no longer . The words containing it, imply be listed in the lexicon ‘At the other extreme, agent nouns conti the er, ate. numerous and can be added to indefinitely. Most verbs can have a noun “formed from them in this way. So, no reasonable case could be made for listing all agentive nouns ending in -er in the dictionary. Rather, what is needed is a rule stating that, by suffixing -er, an agentive noun can be. _derived from virtually any verb. i “General derivational processes that apply more or less across the board (such as the formation of agentive nouns by using the -er suffix) and his- torical relics (like the formation of attributive adjectives using -id) excite little theoretical interest in discussions of productivity. What is fascinating s ee Pa in between occupied by morphemes like -ist. maid ae bata form a very large number of nouns with the Hicsgclos 6 mr follower of, supporter of or practitioner of whatev=' twit akin input noun’. But we do not have a carte blanche \o ly any noun. There are w inabfe gaps. For ¢ 8 follower of the prophet Moh: unexplainable gaps. For exampk: follower of Buddha is a Buddh; ammed is not a *Mohammedist though * st and an adherent to Calvin's approach |" Christianity is a Calvinis ‘alvinis ist. And, note also that a. Piano is played by a pianis'. ‘ by a drummer, not at *arwnnll guitar by a guitarist but the drums are playedThe Open-Endedness of the Lexicon n The innocent-looking question, ‘How productive is this particular pro- cess?” turns out to be very troublesome (cf. Bauer, 2001). This is because, as we mentioned at the beginning, the term productivity suffers from an _ inherent ambignity.On the one hand, a process is said to be productive if it is very general, that is, affects a vast namber of forms and creates very many words. In this sense, the agentive morpheme -er (as in worker, writer, etc.) is very productive, since an overwhelming majority of verbs can be turned into nouns by this suffix. It certainly is more p ive than the semantically ““Telated suffix -ent found in president, Sana, TT ponent, Oem i There are thousands of bases to which -er can as compared to the dozens which take -ent. If, on the other hand, we forget about the total number of words created using a given process and instead focus on the proportion of bases that are eligible to undergo a process compared to those which actually do undergo it, the results may be somewhat different. The chances of a particular affix appearing may crucially depend on char-_ . Thus, while it is true that _ ry (as in gravity, banality) in “the English language as a whole, in the case of an adjective ending in -ile (e.g., servile, docile, fertile, futile, etc.) -ity is the preferred suffix (Aronoff, 1976). This is an instance of the phonological properties of the base influ- encing the likelihood of a morphological process taking place (see Section 4.2.1.1 below). |. Sma Lt se Oo! Exercise Study the following: [4.3] appendicitis bronchitis vaginitis tympanitis hepatitis meningitis tis pneumonitis tonsillitis dermatitis neuritis sclerotitis pleuritis bursitis (i) What is the meaning of -itis? ‘i Is the -ités suffix comparable to -er, -ist or -id in productivity? ‘The suflix -itiv is borrowed from Greek, where it formed the feminine of adjectives. Already in Greek, it was used to form words referring to inflam- inatory diseases like arthritis. Ut is used in modern medical English to form hames of diseases, especially inflammatory ones. While it is true that the words formed by suffixin) Uhase veel by suflixing -er, nevertheless the sullh extremely high degree af regularity te mest suitable bu -itis are fewer than ie attaches with an ses. (And it can be vProductivity in Word-Formation inflammatory diseases. In vical ailments like skivertr oat R ic niche of neralised beyond the semantic nicl roe it is extended to even psycholo} Monday-morningitis.) sain refoing our ms, Furthermore, as we pote must "Sonsider_the time dimension. Lets _staliding of productivity T° © vord-Tormation process 18 Productive ry ‘assume, tO begin_with, that formation Fe the aE ~js in current use. i == y garded, for practica S Virtual, a A aaa Oe lah. in contrast, the sulfxation re “ave i hich is attached freely and unfussily ,, ‘agentive -er suffix as in eae asi a He sctgreml most eligible forms, is said to be very | lurks a milliard of possipy < St zone in which there ible trees en prey zone willbe investigated in much of the rest of ti Soa an oe apecrving that productivity is afected by fashion, For time, one method of forming words may be in vogue, but subsequently i; may become less fashionable, or be abandoned completely. On first emtering the language, an affix may affect only a fraction of bases to which it will eventually be attachable. For instance, the form loadsa~ laudza} (colloquia) for loads of) was used in informal British English in the late 1980s in the word loadsamoney, a noun referring to the nouveau riche with conspicuously unrefined manners and tastes. In 1988, it began being used as a prefix in few newly created words such as foadsasermons, loadsaglasnost, ctc., that appeared in London newspapers (Spiegl, 1987). Even if this prefix does survive, and even if it manages to spread to many other words, it remains true that it has only affected a handful of bases to which it could be potentially attached. Conversely, an affix that historically was used widely may atrophy or cease being applied to new forms altogether. Exercise Study the forms of the verb take in Early Modern English prior to 1800 and determine which inflectional endings are no longer productive. (4.4) Singular Plural T take we take thou takest ‘ou take he, she taketh The second- and third. : -person sin; realised by the regular suffixes have dropped out o| religious language ang ‘ON stage when Peer Present tense form of the verb wer Peteaaes re “eth Tespectively, but these sullises » They survive as relics in antiquate! 4 pre-18O0 play ix performed412 Some Knguists, like Matthews (1974), recognise « special category they call amen to cover idiosyncratic affixes which inexplicably fail 10 Term if apparently eligible forms. (Note the seeming incoherence of such a affixes are nxcPt that productivity is gradient.) Furthermore, where such Are used, the meaning of the resulting word may be unpredictable < ——_—__________—_: Sindy the following data and show thatthe sux -an! x capricious in these (1) ip the selection of bases to which it (i) im the meaning of words which rel from sulfaing it. 14S] a. communicant defendant apphcant The Open-Endedmess of the Lexicon " Ta ae ee eR Semé-Productiviey Servant supplicant entrant Contestant — participant claimant accountant assistant dependant inhabitant consultant b. Swrit(ejant —*buildant — *shoutant citer The suffix -ane turns a verbal base into an agentive nominal (it is similar in meaning to -er.) But it is very fussy. Mt accepts the bases in [4 Saj but not those in [4.5b]. The reasons for the particular restrictions on the bases to which -amt may be suffixed are, at least in part, historical This suffix is descended from the Latin present participle ending -antem/-eniem Hence, it attaches to Latinate bases only. Germanic bases hice write. build and shows are ineligible. Even then, attachment to Latinate bases is unpredictable For no apparent reason many bases of Latin (or French) descent fail to combine with -anr 14.6] destroy *destroyant (Old French destruire, Modern French dérruire) adapt *adaptant (Old French adapter) Somantigally -a has unpredictable effects. The meaning of words created by sullixing -cn? is inconsistent. For instance, a defendant has the narrow tmterpretation of a person sued in a law court, not just any one who defends ooel!, an accountant is not merely anyone who renders an account or calculation, but a professional who makes up business accounts, and so on (inhke Matthews, we shall not give theoretical recognition to the Come ef scmi-productivily in this book hogs: im practice i woeld be— os Productivity in Word: Formation processes are properly classeq s ich word-formation see ree ee ae not a neat three-way Oe coast an mend prestietre T uigretve PICO ee otroore godine 3 ‘eden of pecs with some processes being relatively Producti. than others. 4.1.3 Produetivity and Creativity ; hse roductivity has sometimes been used to refer to creativity, that ae est ‘of all human languages to use re ame aes i infinite number of words and utterances (see Sect fepancae ee n of morphology, creativity manifests a in two distinct ways: rule-governe ivi rule-bending creativity. Tracie a part words are formed following general rules and Principle, internalised by speakers in the process of language acquisition which moy of this book is devoted to exploring. For instance, if the suffix -ly is added t, an adjective (¢.g., quick), an adverb (quickly) is produced; if the prefix po: is attached to a noun base (as in post-war), an adjective with meaning ‘aftey is formed, and so on. bd However, speakers have the ability to extend the stock of words idio. matically by producing words without meticulously following the standard rules of word-formation. This can be seen in the way in which certain compounds are constructed: [4.7] a. stool pigeon (police informer) b. redlegs (poor whites in Tobago) ee deadline No synchronic rules can be devised to account for the meaning of a semantically unpredictable compound like stool pigeon. But, in some cases. delving into history might show that some of these compounds originally had a literal meaning that was superseded by later metaphorical extensions. To take one example, during the American Civil War, a deadline was the lint round the perimeter fence beyond which soldiers were not allowed to ¢°. A soldier who wandered beyond that line risked being shot dead fer desertion. (Thankfully, today, going beyond a deadline is unlikely 0 & fatal.) As for redlegs, it may be true that poor whites working in the hot su as labourers on plantations in Tobago did literally have legs that were nevertheless, the compound redlegs is semantically opaque. It is ¥“ unlikely that anyone could work out the meaning of redlegs from ‘i meaning of the words red and leg. Comparable examples in present English are not difficult to find. Consider words like walkman and lll ae a is not a kind of man but miniature personal stereo equip" © latter is not a boy but a piece of Furniture,Constraints on Productivity 15 ‘Our primary concern in this book will be synchronic rule-governed word-formation. One of the perplexing problems we will deal with b the fact that a word-formation process rarely applies consistently across the board to all the forms which, on the face of it, qualify for the application of a particular rule. 4.2 CONSTRAINTS ON PRODUCTIVITY Although there is no limit to the number of words that can be produced ina language, not every conceivable word that could be formed is allowed. In this section we examine the factors that limit productivity. 4.2.1 Blocking Virst, we outline in general terms some of the factors which frustrate the application of a word-formation Process whose conditions of application ‘appear to be met. The cover term blocking is used for these factors. Blocking may be due to the prior existence of another word with the meaning that the putative word would have (Aronoff, 1976). Usually perfect synonyms are avoided. Thus, it may be because thief already exists that suffixing the otherwise very productive agentive suffix -er to the verb steal in order to form *stealer is blocked. See Section 6.2.4.2 for further discussion. Interestingly, where there exist two semantically similar morphemes, one of which is more productive than the other, the more productive morpheme is less susceptible to blocking than its less productive counterpart. This can be seen in the behaviour of the suffixes ~ity and -ness. Aronoff (1976) has shown that the suffixation of -ness is more productive than the suffixation of -ily. He goes on to point out (cf. Aronoff, 1976) that where there is an existing noun derived from an adjective base ending in -ous, it is not possible to create a new noun by adding -ity. However, the existence of an estab- lished noun does not stop the derivation of a fresh noun using the more productive suffix -ness: 14.8] X + ous Pre-existing Noun (ity) Noun (-niess) (Adjective) Noun acrimonious acrimony *acimoniosity acrimoniousness glorious glory “gloriosity gloriousness fi fallacy *fallacity fallaciousness space *spaciosity spaciousness fury *furiosity furiousness concept of blocking can be further refined by highlighting a ne ot ors that play a role in it, ‘These factors may be phonological, morpho- logical, or semuntiv,