Cover not available
Part of
Competition in Word-Formation
Edited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Akiko Nagano and Vincent Renner
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 284] 2024
► pp. 139–175

Chapter 5
Exploring linguistic competition in English derivatives ending in ‑ie and ‑o through a cognitive-onomasiological approach

ORCID logo | IPU New Zealand, Tertiary Institute
ORCID logo | University of Alicante
This study investigates the issue of linguistic competition by analysing a dataset comprised of ‑ie/-o doublets, e.g. kiddie/kiddo, weirdie/weirdo. The analysis is based on the key tenets of the onomasiological approach to word-formation (Štekauer 1998) supplemented by the prototypical approach to affix rivalry (Hamawand 2007). The analysis aims to identify the nature of connections between the conceptual, semantic, and onomasiological levels within ‑ie and ‑o paradigms taken separately and whether these connections may play a role on the onomatological level. The analysis of the data allows for identifying four generic onomasiological models (i.e. quality, patient, object, and action), in which the categories of quality and patient convey the highest degree of competitiveness within the evaluative domain of pejoration.
Keywords: onomasiological approach, linguistic competition, -ie suffix, -o suffix, evaluative derivation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The scope of study
    • 2.1The evaluative suffixes ‑ie and ‑o
    • 2.2Affix rivalry, evaluative morphology, and the onomasiological approach
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Stage 1: Compilation of ‑ie/-o doublets in opposition to identify cases of affixal rivalry
    • 3.2Stage 2: Componential analysis of DP1 and DP2 types that are in competition to identify the subdomains in which the affixes compete
    • 3.3Stage 3: Onomasiological analysis of the ‑ie/-o doublets in competition
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Morphosemantic analysis of ‑ie/-o derivatives pertaining to DP1 and DP2
    • 4.2An onomasiological analysis of DP1 and DP2 types that are in competition
      • 4.2.1The quality model
      • 4.2.2The patient model
      • 4.2.3The object and action models
      • 4.2.4Affixal rivalry through the lens of the prototype approach
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.284.05tar
References (63)
References
Alba-Juez, Laura & Thompson, Geoff. 2014. The many faces and phases of evaluation. In Evaluation in Context, Laura Alba-Juez & Geoff Thompson (eds), 3–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antoniová, Vesna Kalafus. 2020. An onomasiological approach to nominal compound semantics. Word Structure 13(3): 316–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arndt-Lappe, Sabine. 2014. Analogy in suffix rivalry: The case of English ‑ity and ‑ness. English Language and Linguistics 18(3): 497–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 2019. Competitors and alternants in linguistic morphology. In Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation, Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Wolfgang U. Dressler & Hans C. Luschützky (eds), 39–66. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. -less and -free. In Complex Words: Advances in Morphology, Lívia Körtvélyessy & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 55–64. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Lindsay, Mark. 2014. Productivity, blocking, and lexicalization. In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 67–83. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardsley, D. 2010. The increasing presence of hypocoristics in New Zealand English. New Zealand English Journal, 24: 55–65.Google Scholar
Bardsley, Dianne & Simpson, Jane. 2009. Hypocoristics in New Zealand and Australian English. In Comparative Studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and Beyond, Pam Peters, Peter Collins & Adam Smith (eds), 49–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
BNC = Davies, Mark. 2022. British National Corpus. [URL]
CED4 = Cambridge English Dictionary Online, 4th ed. Cambridge: CUP. [URL]
COCA = Davies, Mark. 2022. Corpus of Contemporary American English. [URL]
COD23 = Collins English Dictionary, 23rd ed. HarperCollins Publishers. [URL]
Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
DCS = Thorne, Tony. 2014. Dictionary of Contemporary Slang. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Eitelmann, Matthias, Haugland, Kari E. & Haumann, Dagmar. 2020. From engl-isc to whatever-ish: A corpus-based investigation of ‑ish derivation in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics 24(4): 801–831. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Domínguez, Jesús. 2019. The onomasiological approach. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Mark Aronoff (ed-in-chief), 1–26. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardani, Francesco, Rainer, Franz & Luschützky, Hans Christian. 2019. In Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation, Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Wolfgang U. Dressler & Hans C. Luschützky (eds), 3–36. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 2003. Componential Analysis. In Handbook of Pragmatics Online, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grandi, Nicola. 2009. Restrictions on Italian verbal evaluative suffixes: The role of aspect and actionality. York Papers in Linguistics 2(10): 46–66.Google Scholar
Grandi, Nicola & Körtvélyessy, Livia. 2015. Introduction: Why evaluative morphology? In The Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology, Nicola Grandi & Livia Körtvélyessy (eds), 4–17. Edinburgh: EUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamans, Camiel. 2020. How an ‘Italian’ suffix became productive in Germanic languages. In The Interaction of Borrowing and Word Formation, Pius ten Hacken & Renata Panocová (eds), 140–161. Edinburgh: EUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamawand, Zeki. 2007. Suffixal Rivalry in Adjective Formation: A Cognitive-corpus Analysis. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane H. 2008. The Everyday Language of White Racism. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language 72(3): 533–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemp, Nenagh M. 2013. My conf preso: Linguistic and social factors in the use of Australian diminutive word forms. Paper presented at the 40th annual Australasian Experimental Psychology Conference, Adelaide, Australia, 3–6 April 2013.
2020. Sangas in Brissie with Tommo: The use of Australian hypocoristic word forms by adults and children. Paper presented at the Australasian Human Development Association’s Annual Conference, Brisbane, Australia, Auckland, NZ.
Körtvélyessy, Lívia. 2014. Evaluative derivation. In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 296–316. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Körtvélyessy, Lívia, Štekauer, Pavol & Zimmermann, Július. 2015. Word-formation strategies: semantic transparency vs. formal economy. In Semantics of Complex Words, Laurie Bauer, Lívia Körtvélyessy & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 85–114. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, Mark & Aronoff, Mark. 2013. Natural selection in self-organizing morphological systems. In Morphology in Toulouse: Selected proceedings of Décembrettes 7, Fabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé & Jesse Tseng (eds), 133–153. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1981. Language, Meaning and Context. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Mattiello, Elisa. 2022. Language aggression in English slang: The case of the ‑o suffix. In The Grammar of Hate: Morphosyntactic Features of Hateful, Aggressive, and Dehumanizing Discourse, Natalia Knoblock (ed), 34–58. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McAndrew, Alex. 1992. Hosties and Garbos: A look behind diminutives and pejoratives in Australian English. In Language and Civilization: A Concerted Profusion of Essays and Studies in Honour of Otto Hietsch, Claudia Blank (ed), 166–184. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
MED2 = Macmillan English Dictionary, 2nd ed. Macmillan Education Limited. [URL]
Merlini Barbaresi, L. & Dressler, W. (2020). Pragmatic explanations in morphology. In Word Knowledge and Word Usage: A Cross-Disciplinary Guide to the Mental Lexicon, Vito Pirrelli, Ingo Plag & Wolfgang U. Dressler (eds), 405–452. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MWD11 = Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary Online, 11th ed. Merriam-Webster Incorporated. [URL]
Nagano, Akiko. 2023. Affixal rivalry and its purely semantic resolution among English derived adjectives. Journal of Linguistics 59(3): 499–530. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
NOW = Davies, Mark. 2021. News on the Web Corpus. [URL]
NPDS2 = Dalzell, Tom & Victor, Terry. 2013. The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
ODS = Ayto, John. 1998. Oxford Dictionary of Slang. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
OED3 = Oxford English Dictionary Online, 3rd ed. Oxford: OUP. [URL]
Plag, Ingo. 2018. Word-Formation in English, Second edition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rainer, Franz. 2014. Polysemy in derivation. In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds), 338–353. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ritchie, Katherine. 2017. Social identity, indexicality, and the appropriation of slurs. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 17: 155–180.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorisation. In Cognition and Categorisation, Eleanor Rosch & Barbara Lloyd (eds), 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ruiz De Mendoza, Francisco. 1996. Some notes on the grammatical status of the Spanish ‑ito/-illo diminutives and their translation in English. Pragmalingüística 3–4: 155–172.Google Scholar
Sánchez Fajardo, José A. 2022. Pejorative Suffixes and Combining Forms in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez Fajardo, José A. & Tarasova, Elizaveta. 2020. Of brownie girls and Aussie families: A new look at morphosemantic paradigmaticity in Adj+ie/y nominalisations. In Paradigmatic Relations in Derivational Morphology, Jesús Fernández-Domínguez, Alexandra Bagasheva & Cristina Lara Clares (eds), 186–212. Amsterdam: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Klaus P. 2003. Diminutives in English. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol. 1998. An Onomasiological Theory of English Word Formation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Fundamental principles of an onomasiological theory of English word-formation. Onomasiology online 2: 1–42.Google Scholar
. 2005a. Meaning Predictability in Word Formation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005b. Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In Handbook of Word-Formation, Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber (eds), 207–232. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Compounding from an onomasiological perspective. In The Semantics of Compounding, Pius ten Hacken (ed), 54–68. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Competition in natural languages. In Competing Patterns in English Affixation, Juan Santana Lario & Salvador Valera-Hernández (eds), 15–31. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol, Chapman, Don, Tomášciková, Slávka & Franko, Štefan. 2005. Word-formation as creativity within productivity constraints: Sociolinguistic evidence. Onomasiology Online 6: 1–55.Google Scholar
Strang, Barbara. M. H. 1968. Modern English Structure. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Tarasova, Elizaveta & Sánchez Fajardo, José A. 2022. Adj+ie/y nominalizations in Contemporary English: From diminution to pejoration. In The Grammar of Hate: Morphosyntactic Features of Hateful, Aggressive, and Dehumanizing Discourse, Natalia Knoblock (ed), 59–81. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Third edition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Hunston, Susan. 2000. Evaluation: An Introduction. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds), 1–27. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whiting, Daniel. 2013. It’s not what you said, it’s the way you said it: Slurs and conventional implicatures. Analytic Philosophy 54(3): 364–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1986. Does language reflect culture? Evidence from Australian English. Language in Society 15(3): 349–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar