0 INTRODUCTION

5. CORPORA AND METHODOLOGY
the which if they knew the nature of euery member, their setting
and collygation that they haue in all the body, (...) (E2 1579
Chauliac Qvydos qvestions Surgery)
5.2. Overview of the suffixes examined
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the reason for the selection of the suffixes –ing, –(at)ion,
–ment, –ance, –age, –ure and –al is that they are the most frequently used nominalizing
suffixes to create action nouns, both of native and Romance origin (Nevalainen 1999: 395-
396; see also Banks 2003). It must be borne in mind that my study is diachronic and covers
a span of time of roughly two centuries (from about 1500 to 1710), so certain issues
relating to these suffixes, such as productivity, may change over time. I will deal with such
aspects later on (cf. Section 6.1.4). For the moment, the emphasis will be on describing the
suffixes from a formal and semantic point of view, and in addition, the methodology
followed for the analysis of these suffixes will be developed in Section 5.2.2 below.
5.2.1. Morphology and semantics
All the suffixes covered in this study are used to create abstract nouns from verbs. Thus,
they are quite similar semantically. However, as Dalton-Puffer (1996) notes, it must not be
taken for granted that all of them are synonymous. As Marchand (1969 [1960]: 227) also
points out:
[s]uffixes may be “synonymous in the same way as full words are, viz. they
partially overlap semantically. As far as Chicagoan, New Yorker, Viennese,
Manhattanite…are concerned, the four suffixes represent the same concept
“inhabitant of…” (…) However, each one suffix has a different totality of
semantic features. No two combine alike formally or with the same intellectual
or emotional connotation, though in particular cases two types are very nearly
interchangeable. (…) Any one sign is determined by the totality of
141