Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:55:24.547Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Matching productivity indexes and diachronic evolution: The Old English affixes ful-, -isc, -cund, and -ful

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2016

Raquel Mateo Mendaza
Raquel Mateo Mendaza*
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Rioja
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article measures the productivity index of the Old English suffixes -cund, -ful, and -isc as well as the prefix ful- and checks the results against the diachronic evolution of the affixes. The frameworks brought to the discussion include Type frequency measurement, as well as productivity indexes proposed by Baayen (1992, 1993, 2009) and Trips (2009). The sources are both textual (The Dictionary of Old English Corpus) and lexicographical (the lexical database of Old English Nerthus). The conclusion drawn is that Baayen's (1992, 1993, 2002) index of Global Productivity provides the most consistent results with the diachronic evolution of the affixes.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article a pour but de mesurer la productivité des suffixes -cund, -ful, et -isc et du préfixe ful- de l'ancien anglais et de considérer les résultats face à l'évolution diachronique de ces affixes. Les cadres théoriques considérés incluent la mesure de la fréquence du type ainsi que les indices de productivité proposés par Baayen (1992, 1993, 2009) et Trips (2009). Les sources des données sont à la fois textuelles (The Dictionary of Old English Corpus) et lexicographiques (Nerthus, la base de données lexicale de l'ancien anglais). Cette étude conclut que l'indice de la productivité globale de Baayen (1992, 1993, 2002) donne les résultats les plus cohérents avec 1'évolution diachronique des affixes.

Keywords

Old Englishproductivityword formationaffixationcorpus-based approachancien anglaisproductivitéformation des motsaffixationapproche de corpus
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association. 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anshen, Frank and Aronoff, Mark. 1981. Morphological productivity and phonological transparency. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 26:63–72. Cited in Scherer 2005.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark and Anshen, Frank. 2001. Morphology and the lexicon: Lexicalization and productivity. In The handbook of morphology, ed. Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold M., 237–247. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1989. A corpus-based approach to morphological productivity: Statistical analysis and psycholinguistic interpretation. Doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Yearbook of morphology 1991, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 109–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1993. On frequency, transparency and productivity. In Yearbook of morphology 1992, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 181–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1994. Productivity in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 9:447–469.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2001. Word frequency distributions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Corpus linguistics. An international handbook, ed. Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Merja, 900–919. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald and Lieber, Rochelle. 1991. Productivity and English word-formation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29:801–843.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald and Neijt, Anneke. 1997. Productivity in context: A case study of a Dutch suffix. Linguistics 35:565–587.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald and Renouf, Antoinette. 1996. Chronicling The Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72:69–96.Google Scholar
Baker, Paul. 2006. Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2004. A glossary of morphology. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2005. Productivity: Theories. In Handbook of word-formation, ed. Štekauer, Pavol and Lieber, Rochelle, 315–334. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1977. Dutch morphology: A study of word formation in generative grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Google Scholar
Bosworth, Joseph and Toller, Thomas Northcote. 1973. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [1898]Google Scholar
Brown, Rebecca. 2001. Modifying Baayen: Can a corpus count provide a reasonable measure of morphological productivity? Ms., UCLA. Available at: http://www.personal.psu.edu/xxl13/ teaching/sp07/apling597e/resources/Scarborough_2001.pdf.Google Scholar
Cannon, Garland. 1987. Historical change and word-formation. New York: Lang.Google Scholar
Ciszek, Ewa. 2008. Word derivation in Early Middle English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Clark Hall, John R. 1996. A concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. [1896]Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 1996. The French influence on Middle English morphology: A corpus-based study of derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fernández-Domínguez, Jesús, Díaz-Negrillo, Ana, and Štekauer, Pavol. 2007. How is low productivity measured? ATLANTIS 29:29–54.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey Steven. 1976. Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North Holland. Cited in Bauer 1983.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2011. Typological changes in the lexicon: Analytic tendencies in English noun formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2003. Causes and consequences of word structure. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer and Baayen, Harald R.. 2002. Parsing and productivity. In Yearbook of morphology 2001, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 203–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer and Harald Baayen, R.. 2003. Phonotactics, parsing and productivity. Italian Journal of Linguistics 1:99–130.Google Scholar
Healey, Antoinette diPaolo, Wilkin, John Price, and Xiang, Xin, eds. 2012. The dictionary of Old English web corpus. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto. Available at: http://doe.utoronto.ca/pages/pub/web-corpus.html.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, Risto. 1983. The decline of the prefixes and the beginnings of the English phrasal verb. Turku: Tutun Yliopisto.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1992. Semantics and vocabulary. In The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. I: The beginnings to 1066, ed. Hogg, Richard M., 290–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaunisto, Mark. 2007. Variation and change in the lexicon: A corpus-based analysis of adjectives in English ending in -ic and -ical. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Kurath, Hans. 1998. Middle English dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. [1961]Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1994. Old English: A historical linguistic companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2005. English word-formation processes: Observations, issues and thoughts on future research. In Handbook of word-formation, ed. Štekauer, Pavol and Lieber, Rochelle, 375–427. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Cynthia. 2011. Semantics and word formation. The semantic development of five French suffixes in Middle English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maíz Villalta, Gema. 2011. Assessing the productivity of the Old English -lœcan . Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies 43:55–72. Thematic issue: Language and linguistics. Google Scholar
Maíz Villalta, Gema. 2012. Low productivity indexes: The Old English verbal suffixes -ettan and -lœcan . Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 25:117–132. Available at: http://dialnet.uninoja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4102062.Google Scholar
Majtényi, Melinda. 2012. The productivity of the prefix über- in English and Hungarian: A cross-linguistic, corpus-based study. Argumentum 8:244–261.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of Present-Day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach. 2nd ed. München: C.H. Beck. [1960]Google Scholar
van Marle, Jaap. 1992. The relationship between morphological productivity and frequency: A comment on Baayen's performance-oriented conception of morphological productivity. In Yearbook of morphology 1991, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 151–163. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martín Arista, Javier. 2011. Adjective formation and lexical layers in Old English. English Studies 92:323–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martín Arista, Javier. 2012. The Old English prefix ge-: A panchronic reappraisal. Australian Journal of Linguistics 32:411–433.Google Scholar
Martín Arista, J. 2014. Noun layers in Old English: Mismatches and asymmetry in lexical derivation. Nordic Journal of English Studies 13:160–187.Google Scholar
Mateo Mendaza, Raquel. 2012. The Old English adjectival suffixes -cund and -isc: Textual occurrences and productivity. ES. Revista de Filología Inglesa 33:197–213.Google Scholar
Mateo Mendaza, Raquel. 2014. The Old English adjectival affixes ful- and -ful. A text-based account on productivity. NOWELE: North-Western European Language Evolution 67:77–94.Google Scholar
McSparran, Frances, Schaffner, Paul, and Latta, John, eds. 2001. Middle English dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Available at: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/rn/med/.Google Scholar
Mühleisen, Susanne. 2010. Heterogeneity in word-formation patterns: A corpus-based analysis ofsuffixation with -ee and its productivity in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nerthus Project. 2009. Nerthus: An online lexical database of Old English. Department of Modern Languages, University of La Rioja, Spain. Available at: http://www.nerthusproject.com. Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2006. Productivity. In Handbook of English linguistics, ed. Aarts, Bas and McMahon, April, 537–556. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo and Harald Baayen, R.. 2009. Suffix ordering and morphological processing. Language 85:106–149.Google Scholar
Pustylnikov, Olga and Schneider-Wiejowski, Karina. 2009. Measuring morphological productivity. In Issues in quantitative linguistics, ed. Köhler, Reinhard, 1–9. Lüdenscheid: RAM (Richter-Altmann Medienverlag).Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph and Wrenn, C.L.. 1994. An Old English grammar. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. [1955]Google Scholar
Rainer, Franz. 2005. Constraints on productivity. In Handbook of word-formation, ed. Štekauer, Pavol and Lieber, Rochelle, 335–352. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Scherer, Carmen. 2005. The role of productivity in word-formation change. In Historical linguistics 2005: Selected papers from the 17th international conference on historical linguistics, Madison, Wisconsin, 31 July–5 August 2005, ed. Salmons, Joseph C. and Dubenion-Smith, Shannon, 257–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schultink, Henk. 1961. Produktiviteit als een morfologisch fenomeen. Forum der letteren 2:110–125. Cited in Plag 1999.Google Scholar
Stein, Gabriele. 2007. A dictionary of English suffixes: Their function and meaning. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol. 2000. English word-formation: A history of research (1960–1995). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlagubingen.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1976. The student's dictionary of Anglo-Saxon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Trips, Carola. 2009. Lexical semantics and diachronic morphology: The development of -hood, -dom and -ship in the history of English. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Vea Escarza, Raquel. 2012a. Structural and functional aspects of morphological recursivity: Old English affixal adjectives. NOWELE: North-Western European Language Evolution 64/65:155–179.Google Scholar
Vea Escarza, Raquel. 2012b. Syntactic and semantic rules in Old English adjective formation. Miscelánea 45:75–92.Google Scholar
Vea Escarza, Raquel. 2013. Old English adjectival affixation: Structure and function. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 48:5–25.Google Scholar
Welna, Jerzy. 2000. Grammaticalization in Early English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 35:43–51.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Karl. 1964. Affixal negation in English and other languages: An investigation of Restricted Productivity. Supplement to Word 20. New York. Cited in Aronoff 1976.Google Scholar