0 INTRODUCTION

6. FINDINGS
The data in Table 18 show that most of the novel terms in the corpora are borrowings. This
preference for borrowing is also pointed out by Nevalainen (1999: 351) and Görlach
(1991: 155), who claims that “the number of loanwords was incomparably higher than that
of coinages formed on Latin patterns.” However, in this respect there is a contrast between
my data and Moessner’s (2007) results. In her article, Moessner shows that most of the
neologisms in EModE scientific texts are formed by affixation. This difference may stem
from the type of data analyzed. In the first place, she uses as her source of data the OED
quotations from Power’s Experimental Philosophy (1664), which yielded 699 lexemes for
analysis. Secondly, she takes into account a wider variety of word classes, including
adjectives such as hydrargyral or funicular and verbs such as effluviate, whereas the
present research is restricted to action nouns only. Furthermore, Moessner’s data are
mainly from the natural sciences whereas most of the texts used here belong to the medical
field. Moessner herself has pointed out to me (personal communication) that these are
quite different categories. In fact, the data in Table 9 (see Section 6.1.1 above) demonstrate
that, as far as nominalizations are concerned, the differences in frequency from one text to
another in the fields of scientific writing can be very great.
As for actual English coinages, only four unambiguous examples were found in the
corpora, all of them coinages with native bases formed on Latinate patterns (ailment,
hindrance, tarriance and tillage). The scarcity of such formations can be accounted for if
one bears in mind that, as pointed out by Miller (1997: 238-239), native derivational
affixes are naturally attached to French stems, whereas the range of environments in which
a Romance suffix is allowed is far more restrictive (cf. Section 6.1.4 above). For instance,
205