Abstract
The monograph under review appears fifty-three years after the first edition and forty-four years after the second edition of the seminal volume The categories and types of present-day English word-formation by Hans Marchand. Nothing comparable to this classic title has been published in between. The Oxford reference guide is a response to the pressing “need for a comprehensive reference volume covering the whole of contemporary English morphology,” as the authors state in the preface (ix). The book is divided into six parts, which are further subdivided into twenty-nine chapters. Back matter consists of References (522 of them!), Index of Affixes and Other Formatives, Index of Names, and Index of Subjects.
Despite the generally known fact that English is the best described language, the tempo and magnitude of morphological changes taking place require a thoroughly updated account. Also, the present volume addresses issues, such as inflection, which are unattended to in both Marchand (1969) and Adams (2001). Most importantly, it is only recently that corpus-based research has made it possible to process vast amounts of data, something that was hardly possible fifty years ago. For example, the availability of language corpora has allowed access to different Englishes; in fact, the book’s list of abbreviations contains references to eight such varieties: Australian, British, Canadian, Irish, North American, New Zealand, South African, and Scottish English. The description that the authors provide of these varieties reinforces the impression of “the phenomenal exuberance of the morphology of English” (6).
Part I, “Introduction,” includes four chapters that present terminological, methodological, and orthographic matters, as well as the aims of the book overall. In Chapter 2, “Basic Principles: Terminology,” the authors state that they want to remain as theory-neutral as possible and to “provide a relatively theory-neutral terminology” (7). Although various traditional and established terms are used throughout (e.g., morpheme, allomorph, root, affix), the authors do not get involved in any further terminological complications. Chapter 3, “Basic Principles: Methods,” stresses the fact that the project in question has been undertaken at a time when “sources of data and the methods of analysis have changed markedly” (40).
Chapter 3 also discusses the interesting, and largely unresolved, question of what constitutes a base for a particular derivational process (42). The authors point out that two examples, baptize and propagate, might be connected to other words through -ize and -ate. They argue that these words can be recognized as suffixed despite the fact that the suffixes are attached to non-existent bases. Therefore, baptize and propagate do not have to be analyzed as morphologically simplex, as “some theorists might argue” (42). The presence of -ize and -ate does indicate the verbal (derived?) status of both words. However, this leads to an inconclusive point where we still hesitate whether words like baptize and propagate are derived or not.
The lack of clarity can be traced to the authors’ stance on categorizing morphological entities. On the one hand, the authors firmly abide by rigorous categorization. This can be seen in the case of converting pairs like butter (noun) and butter (verb), where each item, despite an undeniable mutual relationship, is claimed to be a distinct lexeme due to following a different inflectional paradigm (9). On the other hand, the authors allow for some flexibility in categorization in the case of nomin-, neuro-, -(i)cide, viewed as bound roots, in-, pre-, -ize, -ness, viewed as affixes, and mini-, mega-, super-, which are proposed to “fall on the line between affixes and bound roots” (18). So, then, definitive categorization in morphology is postulated alongside continuums between morphological categories.
Part II is devoted to the English inflectional system, a topic that is rarely dealt with comprehensively in morphological accounts. The chapters in this part cover verb inflection (chap. 5), adjective and adverb inflection (chap. 6), noun inflection (chap. 7), and function words (chap. 8). Understandably, these chapters deal with expected inflectional phenomena. In the chapter devoted to verb inflection, for example, the authors discuss the regularities and irregularities of the verbal paradigms, paying special attention to irregular patterns and commenting on experiments in which speakers create irregular past tense forms (78).
Part III, devoted to derivation, outlines all relevant phenomena, such as the derivation of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs, in great detail. The authors provide examples of formations that are somewhat contradictory to what other accounts assume in a largely prescriptive manner. The novel examples are taken mostly from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) (Davies 2008–), and to some extent from the British National Corpus (BNC). This is an interesting contribution and a challenge to some of the classic claims. For example, the nominalizing suffix -ment, currently considered unproductive, has been found on “more novel or low-frequency forms” (199) in the two corpora named above. Such findings show the changeability of English morphology and the significance of constant corpus research.
Two themes recur in part III, productivity and semantics. As for the former, the authors make several claims concerning the degree of morphological productivity of particular affixes in English. It needs to be noted, though, that these are mostly the authors’ intuitive opinions, evidently not based on any prior quantitative analysis. So, for example, the nominalizing suffixes -ation and -er are claimed to be productive. Others like -dom, -ship, and -hood, according to the authors, “all appear to be highly productive” (250). Furthermore, the two suffixes -age and -ery are claimed to “display a reasonable degree of productivity” (252). In the category of derived adjectives, “[t]he non-native adjective-forming suffixes show a range of productivity” (302). The prefixes un- and non- are maintained to be “robustly productive” (361). The assessments of the productivity of particular affixes, though rather intuitive, are probably not untenable.
The question of productivity is raised again at the end of the book (pt. VI). The authors confirm that they have not attempted to “give accurate measures of productivity,” rather restricting themselves to providing “impressionistic statements of degree of productivity” (581). They seem to challenge the practical value of accurate measurements of productivity, for instance, for foreign language pedagogy, where only the most productive morphological processes matter. As stated earlier in the book, the authors’ concern is not with quantification, but rather with “patterns of structure and usage” (43). Therefore, this vagueness regarding morphological productivity that remains is quite understandable. However, it is doubtful whether some of the claims made are realistic, like the one about “a high level of productivity” (339) of the prefixes arch-, proto-, and retro-. One should also be cautious not to conflate the productivity of a-, found by the authors in certain medical or academic registers (361), with the prefix’s unproductivity in general contexts in contemporary English. This last example shows that a further division into two subfields may be needed, namely, the morphology of English for general purposes and that for specific purposes. The possibility of this potential distinction is not clearly made in the study under review.
The other theme discussed in part III is that of semantics. The authors address semantic nuances, that is “readings” or “interpretations” of derivations, rather than their “meanings” or “denotations” (206). This requirement, in turn, is connected with the recognition of the semantic contribution of the derivational base and the context of use. However, the combination of all these elements results in a range of possibly confusing readings or interpretations. Also, the general and overarching category of negation should, according to the authors, in some cases, be further divided into “several sorts of negativity” (364). Similarly, distinguishing submeanings is claimed to be required for some derivations as, allegedly, it is difficult to specify their semantics (cf., super-, 407).
The above considerations intermingle with those about the importance of the derivational base for the whole complex word. Also, some attention is devoted to affixes either with very close or indistinguishable meaning(s) (e.g., -ness and -ity, 257). The authors express the view that any subtle differences in meaning between complex forms with related affixes are “attributable to the semantics of their bases rather than to the affixes themselves” (259). The proposed reduction of semantic import from affixes is supported by doublets or triplets (e.g., gurudom, guruhood, guruship) found in COCA. However, such relatively rare occurrences should be carefully checked for frequency and contexts of use. Examples like un-big and un-hot (382) presumably contradict traditional morphological restrictions (i.e., blocking by simple antonyms), but their low frequency and restricted use should also suggest their unusualness.
Compounding is discussed in part IV. This discussion is rather uncontroversial; it covers all traditional topics related to compounding. One of the points made is the futility of various tests for compounding discussed in the literature. The authors doubt the reliability of any known methods for distinguishing compounds from phrases. Therefore, they assume NN constructs to be compounds. One objection can be raised in connection with the postulate that “[t]he semantic interpretation of multi-element compounds depends on the bracketing of the elements” (477). It only remains to be proved that native speakers of English are aware of the bracketing of the elements.
The process of combining different affixes with bases, e.g., ducklingish, happinessless, and employeeless (495), which are either simple or complex, is of much interest to anyone studying English morphology. Part V, “Interaction,” deals with such intriguing complexities. Understandably, the content of this part is only a sketch of existing possibilities, and it opens up new vistas for further research. Part VI, “Themes,” addresses a few debated topics. For example, chapter 24 deals with the often puzzling distinction between inflection and derivation in English. Chapter 25 analyzes conversion and its possible limits. Other topics covered in this part are blocking, competition, productivity, and stratification. Finally, English morphology is looked at from a typological perspective and morphological theories are sketched.
To sum up, The Oxford reference guide is an invaluable companion for everyone researching current word formation in English. Taking into consideration the enormous volume of data included and the massive work involved in this book, one has to acknowledge its superb quality and very high editorial level.