16.01.2014 Views

The morphological productivity of selected ... - Helda - Helsinki.fi

The morphological productivity of selected ... - Helda - Helsinki.fi

The morphological productivity of selected ... - Helda - Helsinki.fi

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

to form new lexemes, and the pr<strong>of</strong>itability <strong>of</strong> a process shows how many bases the<br />

process can affect (Carstairs-McCarthy 1992: 37). Availability is thus a<br />

qualitative notion, while pr<strong>of</strong>itability can be seen as quantitative (Plag 2006: 122).<br />

Pr<strong>of</strong>itability is <strong>of</strong>ten used as synonym for type frequency, that is, the<br />

number <strong>of</strong> words that have been produced using a certain word-formation process<br />

(the number <strong>of</strong> actual words). In this sense, pr<strong>of</strong>itability is a rather straightforward<br />

concept, since it is possible to test it empirically (Férnandez-Dominguez 2007:<br />

60). Availability, on the other hand, is a trickier concept. Again, the problem lies<br />

in the synchronic versus diachronic dichotomy. Processes that are being used, i.e.,<br />

available, at present, are rather unproblematic, but problems arise with processes<br />

that have ceased to be used productively. Férnandez-Domínguez suggests that<br />

availability corresponds to the paradigmatic axis <strong>of</strong> <strong>productivity</strong> and pr<strong>of</strong>itability<br />

to its syntagmatic axis (2007: 63–64). In other words, availability concerns the<br />

selection between competing suf<strong>fi</strong>xes, such as the noun-forming suf<strong>fi</strong>xes -ance, -<br />

al, or -ion.<br />

2.3.3. Measuring <strong>morphological</strong> <strong>productivity</strong><br />

As was stated above, quantitative approaches to <strong>productivity</strong> <strong>of</strong>ten assume that<br />

there is a way to operationalize the problem and determine the exact degree <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>productivity</strong> <strong>of</strong> a particular word-formation process. According to this view, the<br />

<strong>productivity</strong> values <strong>of</strong> different processes can also be compared. Productivity as a<br />

quantitative phenomenon is probably mentioned <strong>fi</strong>rst by Bolinger, who de<strong>fi</strong>nes it<br />

as “the statistically determinable readiness with which an element enters into new<br />

combinations” (1948: 18). Since then a number <strong>of</strong> methods to measure<br />

<strong>productivity</strong> have been proposed. <strong>The</strong> most important measures will be discussed<br />

next.<br />

Type frequency has been suggested by several authors as a rather<br />

good measure for gauging <strong>productivity</strong>. Baayen calls this kind <strong>of</strong> measure realized<br />

<strong>productivity</strong> (2009: 901–902) or extent <strong>of</strong> use (1992). Haspelmath uses the term<br />

degree <strong>of</strong> generalization (2002: 109). <strong>The</strong> basic assumption with realized<br />

<strong>productivity</strong> is that a productive <strong>morphological</strong> category has many members.<br />

Thus, it can be measured simply by counting the number <strong>of</strong> different types (that<br />

is, different word forms) within a certain <strong>morphological</strong> category.<br />

23

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!