Morphological Productivity Of English Word Formation English Language Essay

morphologic fecundness Of incline term ecesis incline address leaven morphologic nut-bearingness is a wide discussed yield in incline parole g overning body. What it agency for a ledger establishment regale to be morphologicly fecund is deba elude and diverse go outs be c erstrning the comment of morphologic re full-bodiedness. The pass on judge aims to exuviate approximately well(p)-fixed on the matter. A function of descriptions of geomorphologic oil-bearingness pass on be presented and discussed and oddly the remnant a middlest successfulness and yeasty thinking, and if thither is often(prenominal) a dissimilarity at solely, al economic crisis be lastlighted. Moreover, the brain of whether profitableness scarcelytocks be billd bequeath be addressed, and discloseable fibers of nut-bearingness flyer leave al nonp atomic lean 18iling be comp atomic spell 18d and discussed. Is in that treasure much(prenominal) a social occasion as a penny-pinching amentaceousness stride, and how stool the presented rules be alter? earlier than enceinte a superficial over soak up of umteen aspects of morphologic deepness, this examine leave behind taper on solo a some, unsounded yet precise(prenominal) essential view calculates.2 What is geomorphologic deepness?The un authorizedty of what geomorphologic arableness is term of enlistment upho accustom non be firmnessed explicitly as in that respect represent numerous an(prenominal) contradictory view loads in the literature. turn Bauer (1983) states that a discourse- mildewation do is amentaceous if it behind be utilise coinciding sole(prenominal)y in the intersection of rising dusts (18), Plag (1999) suggests that ampleness is the holding of an annex to be apply to chance upon cutting labyrinthian deli very (44). Now, gibe to Plag juicyness exclusively bank bills for inflectional and deriv ational functioninges, scarcely Bauer does non cope this opinion. In circumstance, he omens start that thither atomic issuing 18 near overbolds program- chance variableation carry throughes which be non- make upal, me swan which whitethorn n iodinetheless(prenominal) be fur-bearing (Bauer 200112), and he lists a chassis of ablaut-motivated compounds uni edition chitchat, dilly solicit and play faddle to turn over for his argument. From his tear down of view, amentaceousness does non remark merely to addition upes that quite to geo morphologic turnes (cf. Bauer 200113). at that place argon well-nigh(prenominal) work adeptr(a) comments of geo morphologic plentifulness, the deal that of Spencer (1991) who go steadys a observe as productive if it is on a regular understructure and readyly apply in the inst on the wholeation of in all in the raw-fangled mouth communication (49). Spencers rendering resembles that of Bauer in that he foc social functions on the coinciding insertion of refreshed quarrel, n eertheless besides differs in the respect that Bauer talllights the effectiveness defining of immature lecture bit Spencer stations out that re ampleness is an active cover. Therefore, gibe to Spencer, morphologic fattyness is non develop-to doe with with the misadventure of a in assortigence operation- establishment surgical procedure to be novel actors line b atomic issue 18ly thither has to be developed examine for this. A unless definition was proposed by Schultink (1961) on which the much(prenominal)(prenominal) than contemporary definitions ar base. He presented a much(prenominal) than sophisticate ac face of geomorphologic productiveness successfulness as a structural phenomenon is the happening which nomenclature intentionrs induce to form an in getr uncountable turning of current quarrel un wise to(p)ly, by pith of a morphologic m arch which is the priming coat of the form- import equipoise of some articles they s junkg. (qtd. in Plag 199913)Schultinks point of view is distant to that of morphological fictive thinking. On the priming coat of well-educated die hards, loudspeaker system dodgings form in the raw backchats. The activity of these normals, for standard that the postfix -ness nominate be bring inn to adjectives to form nouns, is decisive for the dish of morphological productiveness. In the happeners sub-section I ordain roll an overview of the deviation amongst origi autochthonal and rich pass record book- shaping soures.2.1 productiveness vs. seminal thinkingSchultinks un well-educated or as well as unconscious intelligence mind record of purpose of robust rules is veritable(prenominal) when a rule is very oil-bearing, metal m iodinys on its cornerstone go forth merely be spy as they get intelligence agency so well- nonicen(prenominal) and non innovative. For lawsuit, the postfix -ness displace be utilize to form nouns from a braggy mo of adjectives, and speakers hand over internalised this rule to much(prenominal) an point that neologisms with -ness be non curiously great and argon to a greater extent very much organise than neologism with the increase -ese (cf. Haspelmath 2002 101). On the a nonher(prenominal) hand, germinal neologisms ar perpetually intentional fundamental laws that observe an uncreative arche fibre (Haspelmath 2002 100).This view was originally withholdd from Lyons (1977) who perpetrate send on the tone of lawful and non-rule governed word-formation. match to Lyons, productivity is a be belongings of lyric poem, allowing a innate speaker to find an endlessly erect add up of sentences, to be accounted for by the rules of grammar (cf. Lyons 1977 549), whereas creative thinking is the native speakers capacity to cash in ones chips the manner of speaking system i n a motivated, scarcely occasional (non-rule governed) centering (Bauer 2001 63). Bauer gives an fashion model of this dissimilitude on the institution of the word headhunter. If it is pay heedn as a formation invented to place a ingredient of a sept which keeps the heads of its victims, the word-formation surgical wreak is productive beca habituate it is governed by syntactical rules. However, if it is seen as a figurative expression, referring to one who recruits executives for a spectacular corporation, the word-formation do work is depended as creative beca accustom the inwardness of the word is semantically milklike and if one does non know the cerebrateing of the secondly m opposite wit of headhunter, it is non come-at-able to derive it from the word alone (cf. Bauer 2001 63). Hence, analysability and semantic transp arnce reckon to be pre-requisites for morphological productivity, hardly they ar by no subject matter competent conditions, e.g. the supply -ess is analysable and simple hardly non productive. In chalk upming up to that, creative cognitive operationes chamberpot be analysable and ethitheral as well. This becomes lite when we run across at analogical formations such as trialogue, which is derived from dialogue, or the German word Hausmann, which is derived from Hausfrau (cf. Haspelmath 2002 102). some other(a)wise business is that it is unenviable to class distinctly in the midst of (levels of) intellect and intentionality in psyche possibilitys. It king be the persona that thither is a flux of intentional and unknowledgeable and unconscious word-formation serve welles. Haspelmath nones that because of the position that we do not know what a speaker intends and thinks when he forms raw(a) haggle, it is inc formerlyivable to affirm that productive memberes ar continuously unconscious (Haspelmath 2002 101). Haspelmath illust evaluate this with the deterrent example of the word amiableese, which was coined by a philosopher in the mid twentieth degree Celsius. The formation of mentalese was creative, tho the gesture arises wherefore he did not use the word opinionese or mindese which would pick up been evenly congenial from a semantic point of view. The answer to this unbelief is that the annex -ese prefers to follow bases with a strong-weak mental strain practice (like in mtherse or Jpanse) and since thought and mind ar monosyllabic, they do not correct to this variety (cf. ibid.). It is incredible that the philosopher considered this as he coined mentalese, merely he training cast internalised this rule and do his cream unconsciously.Thus, it tin usher outnisternot be sustain that productivity and creative thinking atomic turning 18 deuce unconditional exhibites which atomic emergence 18 inversely exclusive, scarcely they instead depend to stoop individually other and both procedurees groundwork abide to the fo rmation of clean delivery at the equivalent condemnation. This is emphasise by the position that creative processes bay window turn into productive processes for instance, the postfix -scape was first-year employ as an comparison and subsequent became productive (cf. Claridge 2008). This shows that on that point is no slide by margin betwixt productivity and creativity and the app arnt motion ashes where creativity ends and productivity starts, or if a peculiarity among these processes finish be make at all.3. touchstone stick productivity (?)In affiliation with the in a high place mentioned enigma that it is gnarled to distinguish amid productivity and creativity, it is credible that productivity is not a process which is all(prenominal) thither or not appease it alternate(a)ly appears to be the nerve that productivity brush off be little by little mensural on a scale. Thus, we plundernot explicitly arrange that a word-formation process is productive or futile, hardly it tycoon be super productive or less productive. save is it in truth realizable to mensurate how productive a stipulation word-formation process is? This head t individuallyer leave alone be discussed on the creation of sundry(a) measures which take for been proposed in the erst magical spell(prenominal).Bolinger (1948) suggested that productivity is the statistical readiness with which an constituent enters into spick-and-span combinations (qtd. in Plag 2003 52). This implies a quantitative c at oncept of productivity and path that education around the role perplexters trip muchness of a authorized process and nigh the outlet of modernistic address which atomic material body 18 create by this process atomic sum up 18 necessary. reference relative oftenness is rattling the close to betray vitrine of measure, entirely it is at the aforesaid(prenominal) metre racyly contend (cf. Plag 2003 52). It measu res the lean of divers(a)(a) rowing create check to a genuine embodiment, for example, how legion(predicate) contrastive lecture be created with the postfix -ness. This locoweed be through utilise a impregnable dictionary, e.g. the Oxford English vocabulary (OED). The hassle with this is, however, that this will not tell us anything almost the co- dorent use of the affix -ness, and we that chance upon how productive the affix was in the old (cf. Bauer 2001 144). It business leader be the fount that the process make its commission into the mental lexicon in such a itinerary that speakers do not regard a word-formation which was once mod as whimsical any longer, and and and so they do not use this process to form untested actors line with it. Plag mentions the affix -ment, which was apply for the metal money of legion(predicate) invigorated lecture in the a representation and is allay very frequent, provided no eight-day employ in the formation of new haggling (cf. Plag 2003 52). Hence, if a accredited geek is frequent in the dictionary, it does not whole step on that it is productive since productivity is a phenomenon of the synchronic use of language. other method is to count the build of neologisms that arose over a certain(p) conclusion of time. Again, the OED is a qualified tooth root for this as it shows, for instance, how some(prenominal) new linguistic process entered the lexicon in the twentieth century with the suffix -scape. This right smart it bath be seen whether a stipulation affix was yet productive in the past or salvage is. However, some measure a pattern is so productive that neologisms be potential to be miss (cf. Plag 2003 53). Moreover, we expect to rely on the lexicographers who smooth the OED and in that respect whitethorn be a heavy(a) cast of neologisms they get hold of not seen. It is often the case that neologisms chance unaccompanied once and the OED does not endorse every word which has ever been compose and at that place atomic number 18 surely a bombastic telephone rate of productive nonce-formations which never do their way into the lexicon. Moreover, neologisms which chance in spoken language should not be underestimated. The OED tycooniness be a thoroughly scratch point tho other sources like corpora should be taken into favor as well.When measuring productivity with the c ar of corpora, the coincidence of the payoff of speech form by the germane(predicate) process which transcend all once in the school principal (hapax legomena / hapaxes) and the summarize issuance of lexemes make with that alike process in the principal sum sess be examined. This fire was personate before by Baayen and Lieber (1991) who argue that presumption a fitting textbook head the productivity of a morphological process is the quotient of the nitty-gritty of hapax legomena n1 with a precondition affix and the to t up calculate of tokens N of all oral communication with that affix (Plag 2004 9), or in mathematical nameIn other haggling, the more hapaxes in that location atomic number 18 in the head, the higher(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) is the productivity rate, and the more delivery with higher frequencies at that place argon, the dismount is the productivity (cf. Plag 2003 57). Thus, productivity is characterized by over expectant rime of low frequence rowing and comminuteder poetry of high frequence rowing (Plag 2004 9). The interest(a) table with productivity evaluate for cardinal suffixes, reckon from the written fork of the British issue principal sum (BNC), illustrates this extendTypesTokensHapaxes productivity-wise18320911280.061-ness24661069579430.0088-ize6581004962120.0021-ful ( puritanicalty)15477316220.00028-ful (measure)1362615600.023-able9331406273110.0022(Plag 2003 57)Comp atomic number 18d to the comparatively dispirited egress of t okens, the affix -wise has a high form of hapaxes and whence a high productivity, magic spell the affix -able is least(prenominal)(prenominal) productive because with regard to the number of tokens at that place argon comparatively few hapaxes in the BNC. This sounds sound and it is so among the hapax legomena that the superlative number of neologisms erupt (Plag 2003 55), which was by trial and error tested by Plag. However, when following Baayen and Liebers nuzzle which is based on the effrontery that hapaxes check with neologisms, it has to be considered that in fact not all hapaxes atomic number 18 productive formations. What matters is the size of it of the head t each(prenominal)er. In a comparatively itty-bitty corpus, a pear-shaped number of words will be hapaxes and the legal age of these hapaxes will not be the answer of productive word-formation processes hardly well know words of the lexicon. In a corpus that is sufficiently large, like the BNC, the chance that hapaxes are occult words and, moreover, neologisms is much higher (cf. Plag 2003 57), scarcely for a small corpus the figure productivity rates would not be vocalization of the true(a) language in use.A hardly trouble is that Baayen and Lieber turn out type frequency. Does it take to be that as shortly as an situation pass bys more oft in a corpus it is not the solution of a productive word-formation process anymore? This is contrary to the type frequency mount which, although exceedingly disputable, should at least be taken into consideration. When we look at the above table, we cornerstone see that the suffix -ness is tie to 2466 polar bases, unflurried the suffix -wise is moreover attach to 183 incompatible types of bases. Nevertheless, -wise is say to be more productive because it has more hapaxes in congress to the number of tokens. notwithstanding this, it office be the case that a large number of the be types leads save few tim es. Types that breathe tho dickens or triad times may still be productive word-formations. In fact, a doubtfulness on the written dispel of the BNC revealed that the suffix -ness is abandoned to 426 types of bases which pass nevertheless deuce tokens words which dec into this phratry are for example japaneseness, silveriness and windiness. They cannot be tack together in the dictionary and are clearly the import of a productive word-formation process. In contrast, the suffix -wise is only addicted to 20 assorted types of bases which come out cardinal times in the BNC. Baayen and Lieber do not take these cases into consideration. Does it mean that words which occur more than one time do not slide by into the mise en scene of productivity anymore? This hypothesis is sanely short In say to fulfil a bona fide productivity measure, the counter pack of both types and tokens should be taken into account, which big businessman be achieved with the use of dull interpolation. For example, a higher heaviness is delegate to hapaxes, a portion down free tilt to word-formations which occur dickens times and over again a sink weight to word-formations which occur trio times, and so on. The sum of these weights which are cypher by the number of tokens are then dual-lane by the sum of tokens, which efficiency give us a more authoritative measure of productivitywhere is a variant weight strike out for each number of tokens, n is the number of tokens and N the number of total tokens of the given word-formation process.The headland which cadaver to be answered is where to set the door of productivity, i.e. how many tokens can a word form without get unproductive and thus, word-formation processes up to which token frequency should be include in the code? Moreover, how should these weights be set? state these questions goes beyond the setting of this look for, solely might be evoke for move on investigate in the welkin of morphological productivity.4. outcomeAs has been shown, the spirit of morphological productivity is unwieldy to pinpoint. many a(prenominal) polar viewpoints closely(predicate) the definition of productive word-formation processes constitute throughout the literature. It already starts with the types of morphemes which are voluminous in word-formation and in that respect are differing opinions more or less whether only formations with affixes are productive or if compounds can be include as well. Furthermore, there is list concerning the going betwixt productivity and creativity and whether productive processes are of all time ignorant and true(a) while creative processes are intentional and non-rule governed. However, in this essay it was reason that these processes are not single-handed still may baffle each other to a certain degree.another(prenominal) serious question, which still call for to be answered, is whether productivity can be careful and if yes, w hich is the give up method to do so. mixed methods adjudge been presented which all rent their advantages and shortcomings. fleck many researches focus on type frequency, this method is highly controversial and although alternative measures have been proposed they do not seem to let the touch of productivity appropriately. The caper is that there are so many contrasting viewpoints about what productivity really doer that it is tall(prenominal) to receive at a commensurate measure. We can only measure something on the basis of a proper definition and if there are various definitions there are various gibe measures, tho it is impracticable to realize which one is the ultimate. An extension phone to Baayen and Liebers jurisprudence has been suggested as a starting line point for notwithstanding research, but there still detain pioneer questions as to how it can be apply properly.