Group 8

Member’s name: 1. Fitta verolina(2005126076)

2. Rizka Amelia Asri (2005125861)

3. Salsabilla Neva Larissa (2005125152)

4. Sarah Zetiarah Simatupang (2005135791)

Class : 3C- Morphology

Summary Chapter 8

Productivity.

8.1 Introduction: kinds of productivity.

In this chapter we will learn :
 Section 8.2, 8.3 : The relationship between productivity and regularity.
 Section 8.4 : A dislike of exact synonyms, and the implications of this for word
formation.
 Section 8.5 : Deals with some semantic implications of the freedom with which
compound nouns are formed in English.
 Section 8.6 : Numerical measures of productivity.
 Section 8.7 : Draws attention to the lack of any comparable notion in syntax.

8.2 Productivity in shape: formal generality and regularity.

From previous chapter we know that some processes of inflection and derivation are
more widely used than others. Example, change adjectives into abstract noun –ness (ex.
Happiness, richness, brightness, playfulness) is widely used than –ity (as in sensitivity, purity,
responsibility, productivity, expressivity) or -th (as in depth, length, strength).

The suffix -ness is formally general in the sense that, when attached to most adjectives,
it yields an abstract noun which is either in common use (greyness, richness etc.) or would not
need to be listed as a lexical item because its existence is predictable. The suffix -ness is also
formally regular, whatever adjective -ness is attached to, the result sounds like a possible noun,
even though it may not be one that is conventionally used (e.g. sensitiveness, pureness,
longness). By contrast, both -ity and -th are much less general. With most adjectives, the result
of attaching either of these is something that is not only not an actual noun but also not a possible
noun. Also, -th is formally quite irregular, in that the adjectives that choose it share no common
structural characteristic beyond the fact that they are monosyllabic (deep, wide, broad, long,
strong)
 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 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. The suffix -ity has more gaps in its
distribution, even in the domain where it is regular, than the suffix -ness has.

If a derivational process can be formally regular without being highly general, it is

natural to ask whether the reverse situation can obtain: can a process be general without being
formally regular? This would be the situation of a process that is used in the formation of
relatively many lexemes, but so randomly that one cannot discern any formal or structural
characteristics shared by the bases that undergo it. Example : ‘invently’ (meaning ‘inventively’)
and ‘gloomly’ (meaning ‘gloomily’) – but that the existence of such noun-derived and
verbderived adverbs (as well as of adjective-derived ones) is haphazard and unpredictable, so
there happens to exist no word ‘selectly’ (meaning ‘selectively’), nor ‘cheerly’ (meaning
‘cheerily’).

8.3 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. Similar behaviour is exhibited
by the adjective-forming suffix -able. This is formally regular and general; the bases to which it
can attach are transitive verbs, and there is scarcely any transitive verb for which a corresponding
adjective in -able is idiosyncratically lacking, including a brand-new verb such as de-Yeltsinise.

Another illustration of how semantic and formal regularity can diverge is supplied by
verbs with the bound root -mit. In Chapter 5 we noted that the three nouns
commitment, committal and commission all have meanings related to meanings of the verb
commit, but the distribution of these meanings among the three nouns is not predictable in a way
that would allow an adult learner of English to guess it. Also, there is no way that a learner could
guess that commission can also mean ‘payment to a salesperson for achieving a sale’, because
this is not obviously related to any meaning of the verb. It follows that the suffixation of -ion is
by no means perfectly regular semantically.

That being so, it seems natural to expect that the meanings of these nouns should be
entirely regular. So the fact that a noun in -mission is guaranteed to exist for every verb in -mit
does not mean that, for any individual such noun, a speaker who encounters it for the first time
will be able to predict confidently what it means. The converse of the situation just described
would be one in which a number of different lexemes exhibit a regular pattern of semantic
relationship, but without any formally regular derivational processes accompanying it. Not many
areas of vocabulary have such a tight semantic structure as this. However, the existence of just a
few such areas shows that reasonably complex patterns of semantic relationship can sustain
themselves without morphological underpinning. Example : An example is adverb-forming -ly.
This is not only formally regular (like -ness) but also semantically regular, in that it almost
always contributes the meaning ‘in an X fashion’ or ‘to an X degree’.
8.4 semantic blocking

Let us define semantic blocking as the phenomenon whereby the existence of a word with
a particular meaning inhibits the morphological derivation, even by formally regular means, of
another word with precisely that meaning. For a nice illustration of the operation of semantic
blocking, consider the nouns corresponding to the adjectives curious and glorious. In fact,
-curiosity is in regular use but ‘gloriosity’ is not.

The nouns are formed in a variety of ways, including conversion, but semantically they
are regular. ‘despisement ’ or ‘despisal ’. The relationship between despise and contempt looks
rather like the relationship in inflectional morphology between go and went, which we called
‘suppletive’. This a formally regular and general process; even so, the idiosyncratic existence of
an adverb without -ly may block it, as with the adjective fast, whose corresponding adverb is
simply fast, not ‘fastly’. The existence of went means that *goed will never be used, unless by a
young child or an adult learner.

8.5 Productivity in compounding

In chapter6, we noted that much the most common kind of compound in English is the
compound noun, whether primary or secondary . It turns out that primary and secondary
compounds are both highly regular formally, but only secondary compounds are highly regular
semantically. Again, therefore, the distinction between formal and semantic regularity turns out
to be useful. All the secondary compounds given at in Chapter 6, namely sign-writer, slum
clearance, crime prevention, wish-fulfilment, are semantically regular.

Primary 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, however.
This semantic vagueness may seem to present an intolerable obstacle to the creation of new root
compounds.

8.6 Measuring productivity: the significance of neologisms

What we need is a comparison between the actual frequency of a process and its potential
frequency, appropriately defined. The more closely the ‘actual’ figure approaches the ‘potential’
figure, the more productive the process is, in some sense. This has the advantage that a non-
existent noun such as ‘richity’ can be classed as formally irregular, but the disadvantage that it
entails that actual nouns such as purity, sanity, oddity and severity must be irregular too. If we
dislike this outcome, we must extend the range of adjectives that count as potential bases for -ity
suffixation so as to include at least pure, sane, odd and severe.

If the new potential bases are taken to be just those unsuffixed adjectives for which
corresponding nouns in -ity exist, then the ratio of actual to potential -ity nouns will remain high
– but only because we have contrived that it should be so. If, at the other extreme, we let pure,
sane, odd and severe persuade us that any adjective whatever can be a potential base, then the
actual-to-potential ratio dwindles to almost zero, and our measure fails to capture the difference
in ‘feel’ between ‘gloriosity’ and *richity .

In fact, all will be rare except those that quickly become fashionable. We can now focus
on the morphological processes that are used in hapax legomena, and compare them with
processes that are used in more frequently occurring words. Such studies shed interesting new
light on the relationship between the familar pair -ity and -ness. In the Cobuild corpus of about
eighteen million English word-tokens , the number of word-types exhibiting -ity is not greatly
less than the number exhibiting -ness.

However, most of the -ity words are of common occurrence , while many more of the
types exhibiting -ness have low token frequency, including hapax legomena. That is, although by
one measure -ness seems to be not much more productive than -ityis, it is far more likely than
-ityto be used in the creation of neologisms.

The suffix -ness rates high both in the number of words that contain it, and in its
availability for neologisms. The Cobuild corpus contains relatively few word-types with the
suffix -ian , yet a very high proportion of these are of low token-frequency. Rather surprisingly,
therefore, for an affix to be suitable for use in a brand new word, it does not have to appear in a
large number of existing words. To understand it in greater depth presupposes some knowledge
of statistical techniques, however.

Example :

Suffixation :

 -ity : popular-ity, secur-ity, insecur-ity, selebr-ity, activ-ity

 -ness : happi-ness, kind-ness, busy-ness, aware-ness, ill-ness
 -ian : arab-ian, mediteran-ian, music-ian, magic-ian, vegetar-ian

8.7 Conclusion: ‘productivity’ in syntax

The most important findings to bear in mind are two :

 First, 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.
 Secondly, semantically regular relationships between lexemes (that is semantic
relationships that have more or less widespread parallels involving other lexemes) can
subsist without morphological support, as is illustrated by the terms for domestic animals
at (2).
For example, there is no obvious reason why the construction illustrated at (6), in which a verb
has two objects, should be acceptable in those examples but unacceptable (or less readily
acceptable) in the examples at (7):

(6) (7)

a. They gave us a drinks. a. *They donated us some clothes.

b. They wrote us the letter. b. *They applied us the sanctions.

c. They allocated us food packages. c. *They planned us a picket.

d. They baked us couple clothes. d. *They spoiled us with foods.

It may simply be that the propensity for words to become lexical items, and thus to acquire
idiosyncrasies, inevitably compromises the generality of the processes whereby complex words
are formed ; on the other hand, the propensity for phrases to become lexical items is relatively
weak.
 Exercise

3. For each verb or verb phrase (X) in the following list, give (i) the word you would most probably
use to mean ‘someone who Xs habitually or as an occupation’ and (ii) the meaning of the noun of
the form Xer. How do these examples illustrate the relationship between formal regularity, semantic
blocking, and semantic regularity?

(a) sing (e) spy

(b) cook (f ) clean

(c) steal (g) pray

(d) cycle (h) play the flute

Answer :

(a)

(i) singer

(ii) ‘someone who sings’

(b)

(i) cook (formed by conversion from the verb)

(ii) ‘appliance for cooking’

(c)

(i) thief

(ii) The word stealer is not often used on its own, but occurs in metaphorical contexts, such as
scene-stealer ‘actor who attracts the attention of the audience to himself or herself, at the expense
of other actors’.

(d)

(i) cyclist

(ii) The word cycler is not used except in contexts specifying a destination or location, such as
She is a regular cycler to work meaning ‘She regularly cycles to work’.

(e)

(i) spy
 (ii) It is hard to think of any context where ‘spier’ might naturally occur.

(f )

(i) cleaner (with the sense ‘clean buildings, e.g. offices, as an occupation’)

(ii) The word cleaner can also mean a substance used in cleaning, as in oven-cleaner.

(g)

(i) There is no word that means ‘someone who habitually prays’.

(ii) The word prayer exists, but is normally pronounced as one syllable rather than two, in which
case it has the meaning ‘activity of praying’ or ‘utterance used in praying’ rather than ‘person
who prays’.

(h)

(i) flautist, flutist or flute-player

(ii) flute-player means ‘someone who plays the flute’

The suffix -er is the most general and regular of the agent suffixes (meaning ‘someone who Xs’).
However, for words of the form Xer, the agent meaning is blocked if some other word exists
with that meaning, as in (b), (c), (d) and (e). The term flautist at (h) might be expected to block
flute player or flutist, but flautist is rather technical and not in wide common use, so the three
terms exist side by side. The divergence between formal and semantic regularity is illustrated by
cooker and cleaner. Both are regularly formed, but are more or less irregular semantically in that
cooker never means ‘someone who cooks’ and cleaner does not always mean ‘someone who
cleans’.

4. Compare in respect of formal and semantic regularity the suffix -ish when used in forming
adjectives from adjectives (e.g. greenish) and when used in forming adjectives from nouns (e.g.
boyish).

Answer :

With adjectival bases, the suffix -ish creates adjectives with the consistent meaning ‘somewhat
X’. It is therefore semantically regular. The fact that some such derivatives are often listed in
dictionaries (e.g. greenish, whitish) while others are not (e.g. longish, slowish) tends to suggest
that these adjectives lack formal regularity. However, in my speech (though not in writing)
almost any adjective can be a suitable base, as in fastish, toughish, boringish, importantish. For
me, therefore, when suffixed to adjectives, -ish is both semantically and formally regular.

With noun bases, -ish usually means ‘resembling X’ (e.g. boyish, babyish) or ‘appropriate for X’
(e.g. slavish, bookish, tigerish), often with a derogatory connotation, but it can also mean ‘of
nationality or group X’ (e.g. Swedish, Amish), with no such connotation. It is therefore not
entirely regular semantically. Formally, too, it is irregular in that some of its bases are bound
allomorphs (e.g. English, Irish, Spanish), others free (e.g. Scottish, Finnish); also in that some
nouns that one might expect to serve as bases for -ish suffixation do not. e.g. *snakish, *armyish,
*Chinish, *Greecish. What is more, these examples sound (to my ear) less plausible, or more
contrived, than e.g. aggressivity and languidity, discussed in the chapter. Suffixation of -ish to
nouns, unlike suffixation of -ity to adjectives, thus displays no evident formal regularity. With
respect to both kinds of regularity, therefore, -ish words formed from adjectives differ from ones
formed from nouns.

 
 

HUBUNGI KAMI

Apakah Anda memiliki pertanyaan, butuh bantuan dengan sebuah masalah? atau Anda ingin