The Norman Conquest in 1066 was not only an important event in the history of England, but also had a great impact on the English language (cf. e.g. Baugh & Cable 2004: 108 ff.; Faiß 1992: 68). Besides various other changes in the English language system, which will not be discussed here in further detail, many French words were borrowed into English. Some of the French suffixes contained in complex loan words subsequently became productive in English derivation (cf. e.g. Bauer 1993: 225 f.; Faiß 1992: 3; Marchand 1969: 210 f.). However, I argue that the ways in which these suffixes were employed in English word-formation vary greatly (cf. e.g. Marchand 1969: 210 f.). While some of the borrowed suffixes were extensively used in English derivation, others remained largely restricted. This will be illustrated by describing how the borrowed French suffixes -ment and -ure were integrated into the English system of word-formation. Special attention will be paid to the word class and etymological origin of the bases -ment and -ure were combined with. Although sociolinguistic factors might also influence how foreign suffixes were used in derivational processes of word-formation (cf. van Loon 2005: xiii), this term paper will focus on language-internal, morphological factors only.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The borrowing of derivational suffixes
3. The use of -ment and -ure in English suffixation
3.1 -ment
3.1.1 General development
3.1.2 Productivity
3.1.3 Bases
3.2 -ure
3.2.1 General development
3.2.2 Productivity
3.2.3 Bases
3.3 Additional information about the bases from the BNC Baby
3.3.1 -ment derivatives
3.3.2 -ure derivatives
3.4 Discussion of the findings
3.4.1 With reference to Plag‘s Latinate Constraint
3.4.2 With reference to Bauer and Huddleston’s Class I and Class II affixes
4. Conclusion
5. References
Appendix
A. List of words containing -ment
B. List of words containing -ure
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper investigates the morphological integration and diachronic usage of the French-borrowed suffixes -ment and -ure within the English language, specifically focusing on their productivity and constraints in word-formation processes post-Norman Conquest.
- Historical development of French-derived derivational suffixes in English.
- Comparative analysis of the productivity and base-compatibility of -ment and -ure.
- Evaluation of theoretical frameworks, including the Latinate Constraint and Class I/Class II affix classifications.
- Corpus-based investigation using the BNC Baby to determine word-formation patterns.
Excerpt from the Book
3. The use of -ment and -ure in English suffixation
A comparison of the suffixes -ment and -ure is interesting because they share several common characteristics, but the extent of their usage in English derivation varies. At first sight, the two suffixes seem to be similar. Both entered the English language via complex French loan words, both were used to derive nouns from verbs and both are no longer productive today, i.e. they cannot be used to form words in Present-Day English (cf. e.g. Schmid 2005: 171-3). Despite these similarities, the ways in which -ment and -ure were used in English suffixation vary. One of the most obvious differences lies in the number of complex loans containing -ment or -ure compared to the number of lexemes formed in regular derivational processes, which indicates a differing degree of productivity of the two suffixes.
3.1 -ment
3.1.1 General development
According to the OED Online, -ment (in its earlier forms also: ME -mentt, ME-16 -mente) entered English via complex French loan words, the earliest instance of which was sacrament (1175) (cf. Jespersen 1942: 375). -ment was mainly used to form abstract nouns from French and English verb bases, often denoting the result or product of the action which the verb described, or the action itself. The suffix was used with Germanic bases from the late 14th and the 15th century onwards, e.g. in † eggment (1340), hangment (1440) or onement (1445). According to Bauer and Huddleston (2002: 1703), this shows that -ment “became naturalised as English very early on.” Similarly, Dalton-Puffer (1996: 109) stresses this peculiarity of -ment:
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction outlines the impact of the Norman Conquest on English morphology and defines the scope of the study regarding the suffixes -ment and -ure.
2. The borrowing of derivational suffixes: This chapter reviews theoretical concepts of morphological change, specifically how foreign affixes are integrated into a recipient language's word-formation system.
3. The use of -ment and -ure in English suffixation: The main body provides a comparative analysis of both suffixes, examining their diachronic development, productivity, and base preferences.
4. Conclusion: The conclusion synthesizes the findings, noting that while both suffixes are no longer productive and primarily lexically stored, they differ in their historical degree of usage and adaptability.
5. References: A bibliography of the academic literature and corpora used to support the morphological analysis.
Appendix: The appendix provides comprehensive tables cataloging the word types, dates of entry, bases, and etymological origins for tokens identified in the study.
Keywords
Morphology, Derivation, Suffixation, -ment, -ure, Norman Conquest, Lexicalization, Productivity, Latinate Constraint, Class I affixes, Word-formation, BNC Baby, Historical Linguistics, Bound roots, Etymology.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research paper?
The paper examines how the French-borrowed derivational suffixes -ment and -ure were integrated into the English language following the Norman Conquest and how they behave in current word-formation.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The study covers historical morphological change, the productivity of specific suffixes, the classification of affixes, and the analysis of word bases using historical and corpus data.
What is the core research question of this study?
The paper seeks to describe the integration of these suffixes and explain the differences in their usage and productivity within the English word-formation system.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The author employs a diachronic linguistic analysis, utilizing data from the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and the BNC Baby corpus to compare word tokens and formation patterns.
What topics are discussed in the main body of the text?
The main body investigates the general development of -ment and -ure, their productivity, their compatibility with various bases, and a critical discussion of theoretical constraints like Plag’s Latinate Constraint.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include morphology, derivation, suffixation, productivity, historical linguistics, lexicalization, and etymology.
How does the "Latinate Constraint" apply to the suffixes studied?
The author applies the constraint to evaluate whether the suffixes show a preference for either native Germanic or non-native Latinate bases, though noting that strict classification is often complex.
Does the paper conclude that these suffixes are still productive?
No, the paper concludes that both -ment and -ure are no longer productive in Present-Day English and that most words containing these suffixes are considered fully lexicalized.
- Citar trabajo
- Esther Döringer (Autor), 2012, Morphological change in derivation: The use of the two French suffixes -ment and -ure in English word-formation by suffixation, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/203118
