Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T10:20:35.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From engl-isc to whatever-ish: a corpus-based investigation of -ish derivation in the history of English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2020

MATTHIAS EITELMANN ,
KARI E. HAUGLAND  and
DAGMAR HAUMANN
MATTHIAS EITELMANN
Affiliation:
Department of English and Linguistics Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz Jakob-Welder-Weg 18 [email protected]
KARI E. HAUGLAND
Affiliation:
Department of Foreign Languages University of Bergen Sydnesplassen 7 [email protected]
DAGMAR HAUMANN
Affiliation:
Department of Foreign Languages University of Bergen Sydnesplassen 7 [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing on a wide array of historical and contemporary corpora, this article provides one of the first empirical analyses of the intricately related functional changes that -ish underwent in the course of English language history. By investigating the distribution of -ish formations, the analysis sheds light on the productivity of the suffix, which does not only become evident in the numerous hapax legomena, but also in the trajectory of change itself in which -ish occurs with ever new base categories and new functions. Moreover, the article revisits theoretical claims made in the literature about the diachronic development and synchronic properties of -ish and reassesses them in the light of the corpus-based observations.

Keywords

morphologyderivationproductivitydiachronycorpus-based
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 801 - 831
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

We thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback.

References

Baayen, R. Harald. 1993. On frequency, transparency and productivity. In Booij & van Marle (eds.), 181–208.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald & Renouf, Antoinette. 1996. Chronicling The Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72(1), 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
BNC: British National Corpus. Available at www.natcorp.ox.ac.ukGoogle Scholar
Bochnak, M. Ryan & Csipak, Eva. 2014. A new metalinguistic degree morpheme. Proceedings of SALT 24, 432–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert E. & Marle, Jaap van (eds.). 1993. Yearbook of Morphology 1992. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosworth, Joseph & Northcote Toller, T.. 2010–. Electronic edition of An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Available at http://bosworth.ff.cuni.cz/Google Scholar
Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Choe, Sook-Hee, Yang, Dong-Wee, Yang-Soon, Kim, Sung-Hun Kim, & Marantz, Alec (eds.). 2007. Phases in the theory of grammar. Seoul: Dong In.Google Scholar
Ciszek, Ewa. 2012. The Middle English suffix -ish: Reasons for decline in productivity. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 47(2–3), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 1996. The French influence on Middle English morphology: A corpus-based study of derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria (ed.). 2003. Asymmetry in grammar, vol. 1: Syntax and semantics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2014. Making new words: Morphological derivation in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DOE: Dictionary of Old English Corpus. 2000. Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
ECF: Eighteenth-Century Fiction. 1996. Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey.Google Scholar
EEPF: Early English Prose Fiction. 1997. Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel & Perridon, Harry (eds.). 2004. Up and down the cline – The nature of grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godefroy, Frédéric. 1881. Dictionnaire de l'ancienne langue française et de tous ses dialectes du IXe au XVe siècle. Paris: F. Vieweg, Libraire-Éditeur.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Fischer, Norde & Perridon (eds.), 17–44.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Richard. 1992. A grammar of Old English, vol. 1: Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. (ed.). 1977. Studies in descriptive and historical linguistics: Festschrift for Winfred P. Lehmann. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibarrola-Armendariz, Aitor & de Urbina Arruabarrena, Jon Ortiz (eds.). 2016. On the move: Glancing backwards to build a future in English Studies. Bilbao: University of Deusto.Google Scholar
Jasin, Joanne (ed.). 1983. A critical edition of the Middle English Liber uricrisiarum in Wellcome ms 225. PhD dissertation, Tullane University.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1986. The problem of productivity in word-formation. Linguistics 24, 585–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katamba, Francis. 2005. English words: Structure, history, usage, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kempf, Luise & Eitelmann, Matthias 2018. Von diutisk zu dynamisch, von englisc zu anything-ish. -is(c)h kontrastiv diachron. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung / Journal of Word Formation 2018(1), 93–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuzmack, Stefanie. 2007. Ish: A new case of antigrammaticalization. MS, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1977. Why ap-ish but worm-y? In Hopper (ed.), 341–64.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4, 201–25.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phases and words. In Choe, Yang, Kim, Kim & Marantz (eds.), 191–22.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of Present-day English word-formation, 2nd edn. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Mateo Mendaza, Raquel. 2015. Matching productivity indexes and diachronic evolution: The Old English affixes ful-, -isc, -cund, and -ful. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 60(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MED: Middle English Dictionary. 2018. Available at https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionaryGoogle Scholar
Morris, Lori. 1998. A toughish problem: The meaning of -ish. LACUS Forum 24, 207–15.Google Scholar
NCF: Nineteenth-Century Fiction. 1999–2000. Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OED: Oxford English Dictionary online. 2018. Available at www.oed.comGoogle Scholar
Oltra-Massuet, Isabel. 2016. Propositional ish as a syntactic Speech Act Phrase. In Ibarrola-Armendariz & Arruabarrena (eds.), 307–13.Google Scholar
Oltra-Massuet, Isabel. 2017. Towards a morphosyntactic analysis of -ish. Word Structure 10(1), 54–78.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo, Dalton-Puffer, Christiane & Baayen, Harald. 1999. Morphological productivity across speech and writing. English Language & Linguistics 3(2), 209–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, Peter H. 2005. Ish. London: Walker Books.Google Scholar
Speas, Peggy & Tenny, Carol. 2003. Configurational properties of Point of View roles. In Di Sciullo (ed.), 315–44.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar