Volume 27, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811



This paper tracks stylistic variation in the use of two roughly synonymous suffixes, the Romance - and the native -, during the Early Modern English period. We seek to verify from a statistical viewpoint the claims of Rodríguez-Puente (2020), who reports on a decrease of - in favour of - in registers representative of the speech-written and formal-informal continua at that time. To this end, we develop new methods of statistical and visual analysis that enable diachronic comparisons of competing processes across subcorpora, building upon an earlier method by Säily and Suomela (2009). Our results confirm that - gained ground first in written registers and then spread towards speech-related registers, and we are able to time this change more accurately thanks to a novel periodisation. We also provide strong statistical support indicating that the proportion of - was significantly higher in legal registers than in other registers.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



    ARCHER (1990–1993/2002/2007/2010/2013) A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. Originally compiled under the supervision ofDouglas Biber and Edward Finegan (Northern Arizona University and University of Southern California). Modified and expanded by members of a consortium of universities. Current consortium members: Universities of Bamberg, Freiburg, Heidelberg, Helsinki, Lancaster, Leicester, Manchester, Michigan, Northern Arizona, Santiago de Compostela, Southern California, Trier, Uppsala, and Zurich. https://www.projects.alc.manchester.ac.uk/archer/
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aronoff, M.
    (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar. The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aronoff, M., & Anshen, F.
    (1998) Morphology and the lexicon: Lexicalization and productivity. InA. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The Handbook of Morphology (pp.237–247). Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baayen, R. H.
    (1989) A Corpus-based Approach to Morphological Productivity. Statistical Analysis and Psycho-linguistic Interpretation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Free University of Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (1992) Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. InG. Booij & J. Van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991 (pp.109–149). Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑2516‑1_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2516-1_8 [Google Scholar]
  6. (1993) On frequency, transparency and productivity. InG. Booij & J. Van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992 (pp.181–208). Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3710‑4_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3710-4_7 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2008) Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  8. Baayen, R. H., & Renouf, A.
    (1996) Chronicling the Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language, 72(1), 69–96. 10.2307/416794
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416794 [Google Scholar]
  9. Baeskow, H.
    (2012) -Ness and -ity: Phonological exponents of n or meaningful nominalizers of different adjectival domains?Journal of English Linguistics, 40(1), 6–40. 10.1177/0075424211405156
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424211405156 [Google Scholar]
  10. Berg, K.
    (2021) Productivity, vocabulary size, and new words. A response to Säily (2016). Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 17(1), 177–187. 10.1515/cllt‑2017‑0075
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2017-0075 [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D.
    (2012) Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 9–37. 10.1515/cllt‑2012‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2012-0002 [Google Scholar]
  12. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2019) Register, Genre, and Style (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108686136
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108686136 [Google Scholar]
  13. Biber, D., & Egbert, J.
    (2016) Register variation on the searchable web: A multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 44(2), 95–137. 10.1177/0075424216628955
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424216628955 [Google Scholar]
  14. Biber, D., & Finegan, E.
    (1997) Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. InT. Nevalainen & L. Kahlas-Tarkka (Eds.), To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki LII, pp. 253–275). Société Néophilologique.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Biber, D., & Gray, B.
    (2013) Being specific about historical change: The influence of sub-register. Journal of English Linguistics, 41(2), 104–134. 10.1177/0075424212472509
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424212472509 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2016) Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bolinger, D. L.
    (1948) On defining the morpheme. Word, 4, 18–23. 10.1080/00437956.1948.11659323
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1948.11659323 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cowie, C.
    (1998) Diachronic Word-formation: A Corpus-based Study of Derived Nominalizations in the History of English [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cowie, C., & Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2002) Diachronic word-formation and studying changes in productivity over time: Theoretical and methodological considerations. InJ. E. Díaz Vera (Ed.), A Changing World of Words: Studies in English Historical Lexicography, Lexicology and Semantics (pp.410–437). Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Culpeper, J., & Kytö, M.
    (2010) Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (1996) The French Influence on Middle English Morphology: A Corpus-based Study of Derivation. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110822113
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822113 [Google Scholar]
  23. Degaetano-Ortlieb, S., & Teich, E.
    (2018) Using relative entropy for detection and analysis of periods of diachronic linguistic change. InB. Alex, S. Degaetano-Ortlieb, A. Feldman, A. Kazantseva, N. Reiter, & S. Szpakowicz (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Joint SIGHUM Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities and Literature (LaTeCH-CLfL-2018) (ACL Anthology W18–45, pp.22–33). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W18-4503/
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gaeta, L., & Ricca, D.
    (2006) Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics, 44(1), 57–89. 10.1515/LING.2006.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2006.003 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gardner, A.-C.
    (2014) Derivation in Middle English: Regional and Text Type Variation (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki XCII). Société Néophilologique.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gray, B., & Egbert, J.
    (2019) Register and register variation. Register Studies, 1(1), 1–9. 10.1075/rs.00001.edi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.00001.edi [Google Scholar]
  27. Hundt, M., & Gardner, A.-C.
    (2017) Corpus-based approaches: Watching English change. InL. J. Brinton (Ed.), English Historical Linguistics: Approaches and Perspectives (pp.96–130). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316286562.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316286562.005 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kilgarriff, A.
    (2005) Language is never, ever, ever, random. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(2), 263–275. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.263
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.263 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kroch, A., Santorini, B., & Delfs, L.
    (2004) Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME; 1st ed., release 3). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. www.ling.upenn.edu/ppche/ppche-release-2016/PPCEME-RELEASE-3
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kytö, M.
    (2019) Register in historical linguistics. Register Studies, 1(1), 136–167. 10.1075/rs.18011.kyt
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18011.kyt [Google Scholar]
  31. Kytö, M., & Culpeper, J. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lindsay, M.
    (2012) Rival suffixes: Synonymy, competition, and the emergence of productivity. InA. Ralli, G. Booij, S. Scalise, & A. Karasimos (Eds.), Morphology and the Architecture of Grammar: On-line Proceedings of the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM8) (pp.192–203). University of Patras.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lindsay, M., & Aronoff, M.
    (2013) Natural selection in self-organizing morphological systems. InN. Hathout, F. Montermini, & J. Tseng (Eds.), Morphology in Toulouse: Selected Proceedings of Décembrettes 7 (pp.133–153). Lincom.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Marchand, H.
    (1969) The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation (2nd ed.). C. H. Beck. (Original work published 1960)
    [Google Scholar]
  35. McIntosh, C.
    (1998) The Evolution of English Prose 1700–1900: Style, Politeness, and Print Culture. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511582790
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511582790 [Google Scholar]
  36. Nevalainen, T.
    (1999) Early Modern English lexis and semantics. InR. Lass (Ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, III: 1476–1776 (pp.332–458). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
    Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. https://www.oxforddnb.com
  38. Oxford English Dictionary
    Oxford English Dictionary. OED Online. Oxford University Press. https://www.oed.com
  39. Palmer, C. C.
    (2009) Borrowings, Derivational Morphology, and Perceived Productivity in English, 1300–1600 [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Michigan.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2015) Measuring productivity diachronically: Nominal suffixes in English letters, 1400–1600. English Language and Linguistics, 19(1), 107–129. 10.1017/S1360674314000264
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674314000264 [Google Scholar]
  41. Plag, I.
    (2003) Word-formation in English. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511841323
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841323 [Google Scholar]
  42. Plag, I., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Baayen, 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]
  43. Riddle, E. M.
    (1985) A historical perspective on the productivity of the suffixes -ness and -ity. InJ. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical Semantics, Historical Word-formation (pp.435–461). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110850178.435
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110850178.435 [Google Scholar]
  44. Rodríguez-Puente, P.
    (2020) Register variation in word-formation processes: The development of -ity and -ness in Early Modern English. International Journal of English Studies, 20(2), 147–169. 10.6018/ijes.364261
    https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.364261 [Google Scholar]
  45. Rodríguez-Puente, P., Fanego, T., López-Couso, M. J., Méndez-Naya, B., Núñez-Pertejo, P., Blanco-García, C., & Tamaredo, I.
    (2018) Corpus of Historical English Law Reports 1535–1999 (CHELAR; version 2). Research Unit for Variation, Linguistic Change and Grammaticalization, University of Santiago de Compostela.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Rodríguez-Puente, P., Säily, T., & Suomela, J.
    (2022) Data for the article “New methods for analysing historical suffix competition across registers” (Version 1.0.0) [Data set]. Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.5898202
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5898202 [Google Scholar]
  47. Romaine, S.
    (1985) Variability in word formation patterns and productivity in the history of English. InJ. Fisiak (Ed.), Papers from the 6th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp.451–465). John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 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]
  49. (2014) Sociolinguistic Variation in English Derivational Productivity: Studies and Methods in Diachronic Corpus Linguistics. Société Néophilologique.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (2016) Sociolinguistic variation in morphological productivity in eighteenth-century English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(1), 129–151. 10.1515/cllt‑2015‑0064
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0064 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2018) Change or variation? Productivity of the suffixes -ness and -ity. InT. Nevalainen, M. Palander-Collin, & T. Säily (Eds.), Patterns of Change in 18th-century English: A Sociolinguistic Approach (pp.197–218). John Benjamins. 10.1075/ahs.8.12sai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ahs.8.12sai [Google Scholar]
  52. Säily, T., & Suomela, J.
    (2009) Comparing type counts: The case of women, men and -ity in early English letters. InA. Renouff & A. Kehoe (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments (pp.87–109). Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Scott, M.
    (2012) WordSmith Tools (Version 6) [Computer software]. Lexical Analysis Software.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Suomela, J.
    (2022a) Code for the article “New methods for analysing diachronic suffix competition across registers” (Version 1.0.0). Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.5898974
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5898974 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2022b) TypeRatio: Comparing competing suffixes (Version 1.0.0) [Computer software]. Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.5898976
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5898976 [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