0 INTRODUCTION

6. FINDINGS
accomplishment, passage), which indicates that these words might in fact be borrowings
from Latin or French, rather than nominalizations formed in English using a Romance
suffix (see Section 6.2 below for further details). In the corpora, the only instances of
hybrid nominalizations formed from a native base and a Romance suffix are ailment,
hindrance, tarriance and tillage. Interestingly, none of them is formed with the most
common Romance suffix in the data, i.e. –(at)ion, but with suffixes showing much lower
frequencies of use. This is surprising since it could be expected that the higher frequency
of –(at)ion might have an impact on its analyzability and transparency to create action
nouns also from Germanic bases. However, as Miller (1997: 238-239) shows, the range of
bases to which Romance suffixes can be added is far more restricted than the number of
bases allowing the native suffix –ing (see Section 6.2.2 for further details).
6.1.5. Doublets and nominalization
Complete synonymy in language is said not to occur because it goes against the principle
of economy; that is, two ways of referring to the same thing are usually avoided. However,
when evidence from real language in use is considered, it is relatively common, for
example, to find two different nominalizations coexisting, known as doublets, deriving
from the same verbal root, as is the case of declaring and declaration, both deriving from
the verb declare. As can be seen in (184) and (185) below, there is no apparent difference
in meaning, both members of the doublet referring to the action of the base verb.
(184) Nowe the thirde way to knowe what thing Chirurgerie is, It is also
to be knowen by his beeing or declaring of his owne properties,
(…) (E1 1548 Vicary The anatomie of the bodie of man)
(185) your eye may iudg without muche declaracion, so that I shall not
neede to make more exposition therof, (…) (E1 1551 Record The
190