1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Languages in Contrast
  4. Volume 20, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study compares the Italian suffix with its English counterpart in terms of productivity. While in English is often used to designate a person who devotes himself to some science or branch of knowledge (), or refers to an adherent of some creed, doctrine, or art (), Italian has extended its use to new meanings (e.g. supporter of a politician, an artist, etc.), and possible bases, from roots to phrases. Moreover, has also extended its applicability to recent loan words and abbreviations, thus becoming more frequent than and often corresponding to the suffix (e.g. vs. ) or nominal compounds (e.g. vs. ) in the formation of agent nouns. The present contrastive (corpus-based and dictionary-based) analyses confirm that is more productive than in terms of possible bases and varied meanings, which have entered the Italian lexicon and are available for the formation of neologisms.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.18003.mat
2019-01-14
2024-10-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lic.18003.mat
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aronoff, M.
    1976 Word formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aronoff, M. & F. Anshen
    1998 Morphology and the lexicon: Lexicalization and productivity. InA. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford and Malden: Blackwell. 237–247.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bauer, L.
    2001 Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486210
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486210 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bauer, L., R. Lieber & I. Plag
    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]
  5. Burani, C. & A. M. Thornton
    2003 The interplay of root, suffix and whole-word frequency in processing derived words. InR. H. Baayen & R. Schreuder (eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 157–207. 10.1515/9783110910186.157
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110910186.157 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chanpira, E. I.
    1966 Ob okkazional’nom slove i okkazional’nom slovoobrazovanii (On occasional word and occasional word formation). InE. A. Zemskaja & D. N. Šmelev (eds.), Razvitie slovoobrazovanija sovremennogo russkogo jazyka (Development of word formation of present Russian language). Moskva: Nauka.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Chantraine, P.
    1933 La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris: Champion.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Christofidou, A.
    1994 Okkasionalismen in poetischen Texten: Eine Fallstudie am Werk von O. Elytis. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Conti, S. & E. Mattiello
    2008 Extra-grammatical morphology: English acronyms and initialisms. InM. Bertuccelli Papi, A. Bertacca & S. Bruti (eds.), Threads in the Complex Fabric of Language: Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honour of Lavinia Merlini Barbaresi. Pisa: Felici Editore. 559–573.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cutler, A.
    1980 Productivity in word formation. Chicago Linguistics Society16, 45–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    1996 The French Influence on Middle English Morphology. A Corpus-based Study of Derivation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110822113
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110822113 [Google Scholar]
  12. Debrunner, A.
    1917 Griechische Wortbildungslehre. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dell’Anna, M. V. & P. Lala
    2004 I neologismi politici e la formazione delle parole. Mi consenta un girotondo. Lingua e lessico della Seconda Repubblica22, 101–143, available atsiba2.unile.it/ese/issues/255/589/filv22p101a.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Doleschal, U. & A. M. Thornton
    (eds.) 2000 Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology. München: Lincom Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dressler, W. U.
    1999 What is natural in Natural Morphology (NM)?Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague3, 135–144. 10.1075/plcp.3.11dre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/plcp.3.11dre [Google Scholar]
  16. 2007 Productivity in word formation. InG. Jarema & G. Libben (eds.), The Mental Lexicon: Core Perspectives. Amsterdam: Brill. 159–183. 10.1163/9780080548692
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080548692 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dressler, W. U. & M. Ladányi
    2000 Productivity in word formation (WF): A morphological approach. Acta Linguistica Hungarica47, 103–144. 10.1023/A:1014010530824
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014010530824 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dressler, W. U. & B. Tumfart
    2017a Johann Nepomuk Nestroy (1801–1862) als großer Wortbildner: Neue korpuslinguistische Ansätze für die Auswertung okkasionalistischer Neubildungen. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik47(4), 563–594. 10.1007/s41244‑017‑0078‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s41244-017-0078-y [Google Scholar]
  19. 2017b New corpus-linguistic approaches to the investigation of poetic occasionalisms: The case of Johann Nepomuk Nestroy. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic meeting3, 155–166. doi:  10.1515/yplm‑2017‑0008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/yplm-2017-0008 [Google Scholar]
  20. English Web 2015 (enTenTen15) (online) Available at Sketch Engine, https://www.sketchengine.co.uk/
  21. Fleischer, W.
    1975 Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, Fourth edition. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Gaeta, L. & D. Ricca
    2003 Frequency and productivity in Italian derivation: A comparison between corpus-based and lexicographical data. Rivista di Linguistica15(1), 63–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Italian Web 2016 (itTenTen16) (online) Available at Sketch Engine, https://www.sketchengine.co.uk/
  24. Jespersen, O.
    1942 A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VI: Morphology. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Kastovsky, D.
    1986 The problem of productivity in word formation. Linguistics24, 585–600. 10.1515/ling.1986.24.3.585
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1986.24.3.585 [Google Scholar]
  26. Libben, G.
    1998 Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language61, 30–44. 10.1006/brln.1997.1876
     https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1997.1876 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lo Duca, M. G.
    2004 Nomi di agente. InM. Grossmann & F. Rainer (eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 191–218.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Mattiello, E.
    2013 Extra-grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives, and Related Phenomena. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110295399
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110295399 [Google Scholar]
  29. Mattiello, E. & W. U. Dressler
    . Forthc. The morphosemantic transparency/opacity of novel English analogical compounds and compound families. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Mattiello, E.
    2017 Analogy in Word-formation. A Study of English Neologisms and Occasionalisms. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110551419
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110551419 [Google Scholar]
  31. Merlini Barbaresi, L.
    2007 Il fenomeno delle sigle: Un primo schema di analisi. InG. Garzone & R. Salvi (eds.), Linguistica, linguaggi specialistici, didattica delle lingue: Studi in onore di Leo Schena. Roma: CISU. 37–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Marchand, H.
    1969 The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. OED: Oxford English Dictionary (online). Oxford: Oxford University Press, www.oed.com/
     [Google Scholar]
  34. OPUS2 English (online) Available at Sketch Engine, https://www.sketchengine.co.uk/
  35. OPUS2 Italian (online) Available at Sketch Engine, https://www.sketchengine.co.uk/
  36. Plag, I.
    1999 Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110802863
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802863 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2003 Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511841323
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841323 [Google Scholar]
  38. Seidl, C.
    2004 Deantroponimici. InM. Grossmann & F. Rainer (eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 409–419.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Treccani (online), www.treccani.it/
  40. Wolf, H. J.
    1972 It. romanista, quattrocentista: Antwendungsbereiche eines “gelehrten” Suffixes im Italienischen, Spanischen und Französischen. Romanische Forschungen84, 314–367.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. ZING: Lo Zingarelli con cd-rom. Vocabolario della Lingua Italiana di Nicola Zingarelli (2015), M. Cannella & B. Lazzarini (eds.). Bologna: Zanichelli.
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.18003.mat
Loading
On the productivity of the Italian suffix -ista and the English -ist
Languages in Contrast 20, 1 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.18003.mat
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.18003.mat
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.18003.mat
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): English; Italian; neologisms; productivity; suffix -ist; suffix -ista

Most Cited

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