Article published in:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 23:1 (2018) ► pp. 1–27

Register variation in spoken British English

The case of verb-forming suffixation

| University of Reading
| University of Reading
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: ‑ate, ‑en, ‑ify and ‑ize, 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 ‑ize derivatives revealed the most marked register-based differences with respect to frequency counts and the creation of neologisms, whereas ‑en 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.
Keywords: register variation, derivational morphology, spoken language, verb-forming suffixation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Register variation and complex words
  • 3.Corpus metrics, measures of productivity and morphological categories
  • 4.The function and meaning of verb-forming suffixes in English
    • 4.1The characteristics of ‑ate
    • 4.2The characteristics of ‑en
    • 4.3The characteristics of ‑ify
    • 4.4The characteristics of ‑ize
  • 5.Methodology
    • 5.1Data source
    • 5.2Data preparation and analysis
  • 6.Results and discussion
    • 6.1Distribution patterns of ‑ate, ‑en, ‑ify and ‑ize
    • 6.2Category diversity and density between DS and CG registers
    • 6.3The overlap between register-based vocabulary sets
    • 6.4Qualitative differences in register-based vocabulary sets
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 31 May 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16036.law
References
Adams, V.
(2001) Complex Words in English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
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
(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
(1994) Productivity in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9(3), 447–469. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., & Lieber, R.
(1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29(5), 801–843. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., & Ramscar, M.
(2016) Frequency in lexical processing. Aphasiology, 30(11), 1174–1220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L.
(1983) English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I.
(2013) The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D.
(1988) Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Burnard, L.
(2007) Reference Guide for the British National Corpus. Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services. Retrieved from http://​www​.natcorp​.ox​.ac​.uk​/docs​/URG/ (last accessed November 2016).
Cowie, C.
(2006) Economical with the truth: Register categories and the functions of ‑wise viewpoint adverbs in the British National Corpus. ICAME Journal, 301, 5–36.Google Scholar
Dunning, T.
(1993) Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 191, 61–74.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
(2014) Making New Words: Morphological Derivation in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Domínguez, J.
(2013) Morphological productivity measurement: Exploring qualitative versus quantitative approaches. English Studies, 94(4), 422–447. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Guz, W.
(2009) English affixal nominalizations across language registers. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 45(4), 447–471. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Phonotactics, parsing and productivity. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(1), 99–130.Google Scholar
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
Laws, J., & Ryder, C.
In preparation). Verb-forming suffixation: Semantic category distributions as a function of register.
Lieber, R.
(2004) Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 of International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Mazgutova, D., & Kormos, J.
(2015) Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for Academic Purposes programme. Journal of Second Language Writing, 291, 3–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A.
(2012) Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plag, I.
(1999) Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Syntactic category information and the semantics of derivational morphological rules. Folia Linguistica, 38(3–4), 193–225.Google Scholar
Plag, I., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Baayen, R. H.
(1999) Morphological productivity across speech and writing. English Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 209–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quinion, M.
(2002) Ologies and Isms: Word Beginnings and Endings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Säily, T.
(2011) Variation in morphological productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and methodological considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 7(1), 119–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Schmid, H-J.
(2011) English Morphology and Word-formation: An Introduction. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Stein, G.
(2007) A Dictionary of English Affixes: Their Function and Meaning. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
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
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Dressler, Wolfgang U., Veronika Mattes & Laila Kjærbæk
2021.  In The Acquisition of Derivational Morphology [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 66], ► pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo
Kochetova, Larisa, Anastasya Plavina, S. Cindori, O. Larouk, E.Yu. Malushko, L.N. Rebrina & N.L. Shamne
2018. Corpus-Based Study of Discursive Representation of ‘Other’ in Diachronic Perspective. SHS Web of Conferences 50 ► pp. 01132 ff. Crossref logo
Laws, Jacqueline
2019. Profiling complex word usage in the speech of preschool children: Frequency patterns and transparency characteristics. First Language 39:6 ► pp. 593 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.