- Productivity -

PBI 2018 Class B

Viston Jaya Wardana Muhammad Ghofur

(18202241041) (18202244041)

Afiah Sofyana Yunita Nur Effendi Indra Wakhidatul A

(18202241042) (18202241050) 18202241080
On the contrary, once the various senses are teased apart, the outcome
turns out to shed light on the relationship between word formation and
lexical listing, and to highlight an important respect in which word-
structure differs from sentence-structure.

Some points of productivity:

• Productivity in shape: formal generality and regularity
• Productivity in meaning: semantic regularity
• Semantic blocking
• Productiviy in compounding
• Measuring productivity: the significance of neologisms

Indra Wakhidatul A
Muhammad Ghofur
(18202244041)
 Formal Generality
Usually it appears with suffix –ness
when attached most adjectives an
forms an abstract noun such as
greyness and richness or would not
need to be listed as a lexical item
because its existence is predictable,
given the existence of the adjective.
Formal Regularity
Suffix –ness also formally regular in the
sense that one can specify what sort of
structure an adjective must have in
order to be a possible base for it
namely, any structure whatever. The
example such as sensitiveness, pureness,
and longness. Although it sounds not a
word that usually people use, but
usually they will understand what
speaker means.
 In fact, -ity is formally quite regular, in
Both suffix –ity and –th are much less
the sense that possible bases for it are
general. It is because an actual noun
easy to specify, adjectives in –ive
but also not a possible noun, the
(selective, passive), -able or –ible
example such as greyth and richity.
(capable, visible), -al (local, partial ), -
Both of them sound not merely
ar (insular, polar), -ic (electric,
unconventional, in contrast with
eccentric), id (liquid, timid) and -ous
longness that we would understand
(viscous, various). Formally irregular
effortless.
are the relatively few nouns in -ity
formed from adjectives outside this
range, e.g. dense, immense, pure, rare.
The behaviour of -ness and -ity shows that regularity does not imply
generality. Even with the bases where -ity is regular, it is by no means
totally general. The examples such as offensive, aggressive, social, chemical,
lunar, nuclear, strategic, allergic, languid, horrid, gracious, devious. The
important point, however, is that a noun in -ity does not exist automatically
just through the existence of a suitable base adjective, as with
dioeciousness and dioecious
Viston Jaya Wardana
(18202241041)
 Productivity in meaning:
semantic regularity
❖ A derivational process is semantically regular if the
contribution that it makes to the meaning of the lexemes
produced by it is uniform and consistent.
Ex: -Xly (adverb forming) always mean “in an X fashion” or “to an X
degree”
Semantic irregularity
Think about:
Xable: doable, loadable, breakable, …..
Xer: teacher, worker, painter,…
inX: inappropriate, insane, ineffective,…
Xal: pedagogical, occupational, educational, …
=> What is the meaning of –able, -er, in-, -al
It is important to contrast formal regularity and
semantic regularity.
Formal regularity versus
semantic regularity
Yunita Nur Effendi
(18202241050)
▪ Semantic factor also brings the case of blocking for some word-formation
processes.
▪ For example, the suffix ‘–ed’ is added to noun, which then becomes the part of
a compound word with a ‘participle form’.
▪ Ultimately, this compound word brings an adjective to us.
▪ This process is governed by a semantic requirement of ‘inalienable
possession’
▪ But in case of a compound-word which lacks such relation does not take this
suffix ‘-en’.
▪ Another instance of the semantic factor blocking the productivity takes place
when there is an equivalent linguistic items for a word and thus there is no
need obtain similar words through some word-formation processes
Indra Wakhidatul A
▪ Much of the common kind of compound in English is the compound
noun: primary (hairnet) or secondary compunds (hair restorer).

• It is on compound nouns of the NN type that I will concentrate here. It

turns out that primary and secondary compounds are both highly
regular formally, but only secondary compounds are highly regular
semantically.

• How is it most useful to define the term ‘secondary compound’: more

narrowly, so that the first component must be the object of the verbal
element, or more widely, so as to permit the first component to be
related to the verbal element in some other way, for example as
instrument (machine-washing) or location (globe-trotter).
• Primary NN compounds are thus intrinsically irregular semantically, in
that their exact interpretation is unpredictable without the help of this
sort of real world knowledge.
• The semantic irregularity of primary compounds does not entail any
formal irregularity. In fact, any two nouns whatever can be juxtaposed in
English to produce a formally acceptable root compound.

However, the obstacle is smaller than it

For example, boat moon and bridge cloud,
Are possible English nouns even though
neither has ever been used and it is not
clear what either of them would mean
except in the vaguest terms (‘moon
associated somehow with boats’ and ‘cloud
associated somehow with bridges’).
may at first seem, for two reasons.
Firstly, the elements in a new root
compound XY may be such that even the
vague interpretation.
Secondly, even in more obscure cases, we
instinctively grasp at contextual clues to fill
in semantic gaps.
Afiah Sofyana
(18202241042)
➢ Comparison between the actual frequency of a process and its potential
frequency, appropriately defined is needed when we takk about measuring
productivity in Morphology.
➢ Because The more closely the ‘actual’ figure approaches the ‘potential’
figure, the more productive the process is, in some sense.
➢ For a process to be productive, in one sense, it should be a process that can
be used to form brand new lexemes, or neologisms.
➢ An alternative that is both appropriate and feasible is to identify words
that are extremely rare, especially those that appear only once in the whole
corpus: so-called hapax legomena (singular hapax legomenon), a Greek
expression
borrowed from classical studies, meaning ‘said (only) once’.
➢ The suffix -ness rates high both in the number of words that
contain it (words as types, that is, not tokens), and in its
availability for neologisms.

➢ The suffix -ity ranks high by the first measure but low by the
second.

➢ The Cobuild corpus contains relatively few word-types with the

suffix -ian (as in Canadian, Wagnerian), yet a very high proportion
of these are of low token-frequency.
The most important findings to bear in mind are two.
1.A process can be formally regular without being semantically regular, as is illustrated by
the suffixation of -ion to produce nouns from verbs with the root -mit.
2.Semantically regular relationships between lexemes (that is semantic relationships that
have more or less widespread parallels involving other lexemes) can subsist without
morphological support.

Lexemes so constructed will be relatively easy to learn and will provide the most natural
models on which new lexemes can be created; but it is oversimplifying to classify as simply
‘irregular’ or ‘unproductive’ any morphological relationship that is not in all respects
straightforward.
Afiah Sofyana
(18202241042)
Any Question?