MORPHOLOGY

& its Theoretical Foundation

(EL7463)

Prepared by
Dr. M. Athar Khurshid

MS Applied Linguistics (Semester I)

Introducing Morphology
By Rochelle Lieber [rɔˈʃɛl ˈliːbɐ]
 Chapter 4
Productivity and Creativity
 Chapter 4

OBJECTIVES KEY TERMS

1. What factors contribute to productivity; what
restricts the productivity; how we can measure productivity
productivity; transparency
lexicalization
2. How the productivity of a word formation? compositional
frequency
3. And we will consider how speakers of a language creativity
can use even unproductive word formation
processes to create new words for humorous or
playful effects
 Chapter 4
4.1 Introduction
Consider the examples in (1):
(1) a. Rule for -th: -th attaches to adjectives,
a. warmadj warmthn and creates nouns. For a base meaning
trueadj truthn ‘X’, the derived noun means ‘the state
of being X’.
b. modernadj modernityn b. Rule for -ity: -ity attaches to
pureadj purityn adjectives, and creates nouns. For a
base meaning ‘X’, the derived noun
c. happyadj happinessn means ‘the state of being X’.
darkadj darknessn c. Rule for -ness: -ness attaches to
adjectives, and creates nouns. For a
So, the suffixes used are: -th; -ity; -ness; base meaning ‘X’, the derived noun
means ‘the state of being X’.
 Chapter 4
4.1 Introduction
Change into nouns by using: -th; -ity; -ness;

lovely
cool
crude
evil
googleable
rustic
musty
inconsequential
feline
toxic
bovine
 Chapter 4
4.1 Introduction
Change into nouns by using: -th; -ity; -ness;

lovely loveliness
cool coolness
crude crudity
evil evilness So, no instance of -th
googleable googleablity
rustic rusticity
musty mustiness
inconsequential inconsequentiality
feline felinity
Toxic toxicity
bovine bovineness
 Chapter 4

4.1 Introduction
You may never have seen a noun form of the word bovine, but you have no
trouble forming the word bovineness (or maybe bovinity, or maybe even both).
Processes of lexeme formation that can be used by native speakers to form new
lexemes are called PRODUCTIVE. Those that can no longer be used by native
speakers, are UNPRODUCTIVE; so although we might recognize the -th in
warmth as a suffix, we never make use of it in making new words.

Some processes may be more productive than others. This implies that
productivity can be measured.
 Chapter 4
4.2 Factors contributing to productivity
 Chapter 4
4.2 Factors contributing to productivity
4 4
a. candid candidness b. crude crudity
pink pinkness odd oddity
hardy hardiness pure purity
common commonness dense density
ticklish ticklishness rustic rusticity
cunning cunningness timid timidity
horrible horribleness grammatical grammaticality
pure pureness local locality
odd oddness available availability
senile senility
 Chapter 4
4.2 Factors contributing to productivity

In (4a), the base and suffixes -ness are separately and clearly pronounced.
Meanings may easily be segmented.

In (4b), see the following items:

TImid tiMIdity Pronunciation varies

RUStic rusTIcity

ODD (uneven) odDIty (craziness) Both pronunciation

LOcal loCAlity (area) and meanings vary
 Chapter 4
4.2 Factors contributing to productivity
In (5a),
(5) verity
dexterity
Both ver- and dexter- are bound bases. Their
meanings are vague.
authority
author is a free base and a noun. -ity follows
adjectives only. Moreover, authority doesn’t mean
the state of being an author.
-ness is not found on bound bases and non-adjective bases. So, we may say -ness
is more transparent, in turn more productive, than -ity.
 Chapter 4
4.2 Factors contributing to productivity

When derived words take on meanings that are not transparent – that cannot be
made up of the sum of their parts – we say that the meaning of the word has
become lexicalized.

Meanings of complex words that are predictable as the sum of their parts are said
to be compositional.

Lexicalized words have meanings that are non-compositional. So the words

oddity and locality that we looked at above have developed lexicalized or non-
compositional meanings.
 Chapter 4
4.2 Factors contributing to productivity

Transparency is not the only factor that contributes to productivity. Another

factor that is important is what we might call frequency of base type.

If an affix attaches only to a limited range of bases, it has less possibility of

giving rise to lots of new words, and it will therefore be less productive.

For example, -th is less productive than -ity. -i as a plural marker is less
productive than -s. Compare: syllabi and books.
 Chapter 4
4.2 Factors contributing to productivity

The final factor that contributes to productivity is what we might call

usefulness.

-ness and -ity are highly useful affixes. They may be placed on new
adjectives to form new lexemes.

Since the rise of feminism the suffix -ess has lost its usefulness. It was a
feminine marker on masculine nouns like tiger tigress, author authoress etc.
But now, because of women’s increasing demand to use gender neutral
language, -ess has lost it usefulness.
 Chapter 4

4.3 Restrictions on productivity

The more limitations there are on the bases available to a lexeme formation
process, the less productive it will be.
In chapter 3 (section 3.2), we discussed categorial restrictions, phonological
restrictions, the meaning of the base.
To these sorts of restrictions we might add:
etymological restrictions, syntactic restrictions, pragmatic restrictions etc.
 Chapter 4

4.3 Restrictions on productivity

Etymological restrictions:
-en vs -ic
wooden, waxen but not *metalen or *carbonen
-en is native adjective specific.
parasitic; dramatic
-ic is specific to the bases borrowed from French or Latin
 Chapter 4
4.3 Restrictions on productivity
Syntactic restrictions:
Sometimes affixes are sensitive to syntactic properties of their bases.
Loveable acceptable
*Snorable not-acceptable
-able follows transitive verbs, not intransitive verbs.
Pragmatic restrictions
Urdu suffix ‘aalooda’ means ‘covered with’. Logically it is possible to say “shahd
aalooda” (covered with honey), but traditionally it is used in bad senses like
“khoon aalooda” (covered with blood); “zahr aalooda” (covered with poison).
 Chapter 4

4.3 Restrictions on productivity

Number of restrictions are inversely proportional to productivity.

 Chapter 4

4.4 How to: finding words

Prefix can easily be located in any dictionary.

As for suffixes, there are two ways to locate them:

Use backward word list: It provides words with last letter.

Use OED online: Mark an esoteric (*) and write the suffix.

Data obtained by both techniques need to be carefully examined. Many

ending spellings look like suffixes but they are the part of the base.
 Chapter 4

4.5 Ways of measuring productivity

Challenge
One conceivable way of measuring the productivity of a lexeme
formation process might be to count up all the items formed with
that process that can be found in a good dictionary. Most
morphologists think that this is not a good way of measuring
productivity. Think of as many reasons as you can why they should
think so.
 Chapter 4

4.5 Ways of measuring productivity

Dictionaries record less transparent and more lexicalized lexemes.
Mechanical counting will produce adverse results.

One suggestion (Aronoff 1976) was to make a ratio of the number of

actual words formed with an affix to the number of bases to which that
affix could potentially attach.

The above objection applies to Aronoff’s method too.

 Chapter 4

4.5 Ways of measuring productivity

A somewhat more sophisticated – but still not perfect – measure of productivity
proposed by Baayen (1989) capitalizes on what we know about the token
frequency of derived words.

The number of separate occurrences of a word in the corpus is the token

frequency of that word.

The less productive lexemes are, the less transparent the words formed by those
processes, and the less transparent the words, the higher their mean token
frequency in a corpus.
 Chapter 4

4.5 Ways of measuring productivity

A somewhat more sophisticated – but still not perfect – measure of productivity
proposed by Baayen (1989) capitalizes on what we know about the token
frequency of derived words.

The number of separate occurrences of a word in the corpus is the token

frequency of that word.

The less productive lexemes are, the less transparent the words formed by those
processes, and the less transparent the words, the higher their mean token
frequency in a corpus.
 Chapter 4

4.5 Ways of measuring productivity

In other words:
Less productive suffix: more lexicalized lexemes: High frequency Token
More productive suffix: more transparent lexemes: Low frequency Token
Take a corpus, count up all tokens of all words formed with a particular affix,
and then see how many of those words occur only once in the corpus.
Type with token frequency of one in a corpus is called a hapax legomenon or
sometimes just a hapax.
The ratio of hapaxes to all tokens tells us something about productivity.
 Chapter 4

4.6 Historical changes in productivity

Lexeme formation processes may change their degree of productivity over
time. Consider, for example, the suffix -dom in English, which attaches
(mostly) to nouns and forms nouns.
Find all the words in the OED with the suffix -dom and take note of when
they were first cited. We can then count up how many -dom words were
first cited in each century.
Then draw percentage.
Chapter 4
 Chapter 4

4.7 Productivity versus creativity

Some morphologists make a distinction between morphological
productivity and morphological creativity.

Productive morphemes: remain unnoticed; not unexpected; no

foregrounding;

Creative morphemes: are positively noticed; quite unexpected; used

for foregrounding, usually for humorous
purposes;
 Chapter 4

4.7 Productivity versus creativity

Use of -th In contrast with
*coolth Warmth
*seventeensome Twosome; threesome; foursome;

Blending is used in menunaire from menu and millionaire

in line with
brunch or smog
 Chapter 4

4.7 Productivity versus creativity

On the Word Spy website (www.wordspy.com) from May 28 to July 10, 2007, there
were six blends:
(6)
locavore blend of local and herbi-/carnivore ‘someone who likes to eat
locally produced food’
carbage blend of car and garbage ‘the trash that accumulates in one’s car’
blogebrity blend of blog and celebrity ‘a famous blogger’
gorno blend of gore and porno ‘extremely violent movie’
exergaming blend of exercise and gaming ‘activity combining exercise and
gaming’
 Chapter 4

4.7 Productivity versus creativity

Bauer (2001) has pointed out that it is not always possible to draw a sharp
line between productivity and creativity.

For example, the suffix -let is seen in booklet, ringlet, wavelet,

But look at poodlelet; beaglelet; wifelet.

In the first example, it’s productive, and creative in the second.

Thanks