Volume 23, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


The aim of this paper is to identify the effect of register variation in spoken British English on the occurrence of the four principal verb-forming suffixes: ‑, ‑, ‑ and ‑, by building on the work of Biber et al. (1999) , Plag et al. (1999) and Schmid (2011) . Register variation effects were compared between the less formal Demographically-Sampled and the more formal Context-Governed components of the original 1994 version of the British National Corpus. The pattern of ‑ derivatives revealed the most marked register-based differences with respect to frequency counts and the creation of neologisms, whereas ‑ derivatives varied the least compared with the other three suffixes. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of these suffix profiles in the context of spoken language reveal markers of register formality that have not hitherto been explored; derivative usage patterns provide an additional dimension to previous research on register variation which has mainly focused on grammatical and lexical features of language.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adams, V.
    (2001) Complex Words in English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. H.
    (1992) Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991 (pp.109–149). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (1993) On frequency, transparency and productivity. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992 (pp.181–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (1994) Productivity in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9(3), 447–469.10.1080/01690969408402127
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402127 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2008) Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using RCambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook (pp.899–919). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110213881.2.899
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213881.2.899 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baayen, R. H. , & Lieber, R.
    (1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29(5), 801–843.10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801 [Google Scholar]
  8. Baayen, R. H. , Milin, P. , & Ramscar, M.
    (2016) Frequency in lexical processing. Aphasiology, 30(11), 1174–1220.10.1080/02687038.2016.1147767
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2016.1147767 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bauer, L.
    (1983) English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165846
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165846 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bauer, L. , Lieber, R. , & Plag, I.
    (2013) The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  12. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. , & Finegan, E.
    (1999) The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Burnard, L.
    (2007) Reference Guide for the British National Corpus. Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services. Retrieved fromwww.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/docs/URG/ (last accessedNovember 2016).
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cowie, C.
    (2006) Economical with the truth: Register categories and the functions of ‑wise viewpoint adverbs in the British National Corpus. ICAME Journal, 30, 5–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dunning, T.
    (1993) Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19, 61–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dixon, R. M. W.
    (2014) Making New Words: Morphological Derivation in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712367.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712367.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fernández-Domínguez, J.
    (2013) Morphological productivity measurement: Exploring qualitative versus quantitative approaches. English Studies, 94(4), 422–447.10.1080/0013838X.2013.780823
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2013.780823 [Google Scholar]
  18. Friginal, E. , Pearson, P. , Di Ferrante, L. , Pickering, L. , & Bruce, C.
    (2013) Linguistic characteristics of AAC discourse in the workplace. Discourse Studies, 15(3) 279–298.10.1177/1461445613480586
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613480586 [Google Scholar]
  19. Garside, R. , & Smith, N.
    (1997) A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS4. In Garside, R. , Leech, G. , & McEnery, A. (Eds.) Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora (pp.102–121), London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Guz, W.
    (2009) English affixal nominalizations across language registers. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 45(4), 447–471.10.2478/v10010‑009‑0030‑6
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10010-009-0030-6 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hay, J. , & Baayen, R. H.
    (2002) Parsing and productivity. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2001, (pp.203–235). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3726‑5_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3726-5_8 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2003) Phonotactics, parsing and productivity. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(1), 99–130.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hoffmann, S. , Evert, S. , Smith, N. , Lee, D. , & Berglund Prytz, Y.
    (2008) Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb – APractical Guide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Laws, J. , & Ryder, C.
    (In preparation). Verb-forming suffixation: Semantic category distributions as a function of register.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lieber, R.
    (2004) Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486296
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486296 [Google Scholar]
  26. Love, R. , Dembry, C. , Hardie, A. , Brezina, V. , & McEnery, T.
    (2017) The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. Special Issue ofInternational Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3).10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov [Google Scholar]
  27. Marchand, H.
    (1969) The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation: A Synchronic-diachronic Approach (2nd ed.). Munich: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Mazgutova, D. , & Kormos, J.
    (2015) Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for Academic Purposes programme. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 3–15.10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  29. McEnery, T. , & Hardie, A.
    (2012) Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Plag, I.
    (1999) Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110802863
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802863 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2004) Syntactic category information and the semantics of derivational morphological rules. Folia Linguistica, 38(3–4), 193–225.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Plag, I. , Dalton-Puffer, C. , & Baayen, R. H.
    (1999) Morphological productivity across speech and writing. English Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 209–228.10.1017/S1360674399000222
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674399000222 [Google Scholar]
  33. Quinion, M.
    (2002) Ologies and Isms: Word Beginnings and Endings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Säily, T.
    (2011) Variation in morphological productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and methodological considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 7(1), 119–141.10.1515/cllt.2011.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2011.006 [Google Scholar]
  35. Säily, T. , & Suomela, J.
    (2017)  Types2: Exploring word-frequency differences in corpora. In T. Hiltunen , J. McVeigh & T. Säily (Eds.) Big and Rich Data in English Corpus Linguistics: Methods and Explorations. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English. Helsinki: VARIENG.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Schmid, H-J.
    (2011) English Morphology and Word-formation: An Introduction. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Stein, G.
    (2007) A Dictionary of English Affixes: Their Function and Meaning. Munich: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Wilson, A.
    (2013) Embracing Bayes factors for key item analysis in corpus linguistics. In M. Bieswanger & A. Koll-Stobbe (Eds.) New Approaches to the Study of Linguistic Variability. Language Competence and Language Awareness in Europe (pp.3–11). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error