Cover not available
Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 20:1 (2020) ► pp.1–30

On the productivity of the Italian suffix -ista and the English -ist

ORCID logo | University of Pisa
This study compares the Italian suffix -ista with its English counterpart -ist in terms of productivity. While in English -ist is often used to designate a person who devotes himself to some science or branch of knowledge (linguist), or refers to an adherent of some creed, doctrine, or art (idealist), Italian -ista has extended its use to new meanings (e.g. supporter of a politician, an artist, etc.), and possible bases, from roots to phrases. Moreover, -ista has also extended its applicability to recent loan words and abbreviations, thus becoming more frequent than -ist and often corresponding to the -er suffix (e.g. shampooer vs. shampista) or nominal compounds (e.g. taxi driver vs. tassista) in the formation of agent nouns. The present contrastive (corpus-based and dictionary-based) analyses confirm that -ista is more productive than -ist in terms of possible bases and varied meanings, which have entered the Italian lexicon and are available for the formation of neologisms.
Keywords: Italian, English, suffix -ista , suffix -ist , productivity, neologisms
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The methodology
  • 3.The productivity of -ista vs. -ist
    • 3.1Frequency
    • 3.2Semantic coherence and extension of semantic meanings
    • 3.3Availability
    • 3.4Application to recent loan words and abbreviations
    • 3.5Extension of possible bases from roots to phrases
  • 4.The suffix -ist
    • 4.1Structural properties
    • 4.2Meanings
      • 4.2.1The type economist
      • 4.2.2The type anarchist
      • 4.2.3The type dentist
      • 4.2.4The type chorist
      • 4.2.5The type linguist
  • 5.The suffix -ista
    • 5.1Structural properties
    • 5.2Meanings
      • 5.2.1The type anglista
      • 5.2.2The type idealista
      • 5.2.3The type barista
      • 5.2.4The type sindacalista
      • 5.2.5The type salutista
      • 5.2.6The type tennista
      • 5.2.7The type collezionista
      • 5.2.8The type violinista
      • 5.2.9The type futurista
      • 5.2.10The type borsista
  • 6.Derivatives in -ista and their corresponding English formations
    • 6.1Corpus investigation: OPUS2 Italian viz-à-vis OPUS2 English
    • 6.2 -er formations
    • 6.3Nominal compounds
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.18003.mat
References (41)
References
Aronoff, M. 1976. Word formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. & F. Anshen. 1998. Morphology and the lexicon: Lexicalization and productivity. In A. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford and Malden: Blackwell. 237–247.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., R. Lieber & I. Plag. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burani, C. & A. M. Thornton. 2003. The interplay of root, suffix and whole-word frequency in processing derived words. In R. H. Baayen & R. Schreuder (eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 157–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chanpira, E. I. 1966. Ob okkazional’nom slove i okkazional’nom slovoobrazovanii (On occasional word and occasional word formation). In E. A. Zemskaja & D. N. Šmelev (eds.), Razvitie slovoobrazovanija sovremennogo russkogo jazyka (Development of word formation of present Russian language). Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Chantraine, P. 1933. La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Christofidou, A. 1994. Okkasionalismen in poetischen Texten: Eine Fallstudie am Werk von O. Elytis. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Conti, S. & E. Mattiello. 2008. Extra-grammatical morphology: English acronyms and initialisms. In M. 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
Cutler, A. 1980. Productivity in word formation. Chicago Linguistics Society 161, 45–51.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. 1996. The French Influence on Middle English Morphology. A Corpus-based Study of Derivation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Debrunner, A. 1917. Griechische Wortbildungslehre. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Dell’Anna, M. V. & P. Lala. 2004. I neologismi politici e la formazione delle parole. Mi consenta un girotondo. Lingua e lessico della Seconda Repubblica 221, 101–143, available at [URL]
Doleschal, U. & A. M. Thornton (eds.). 2000. Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. 1999. What is natural in Natural Morphology (NM)? Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 31, 135–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Productivity in word formation. In G. Jarema & G. Libben (eds.), The Mental Lexicon: Core Perspectives. Amsterdam: Brill. 159–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U. & M. Ladányi. 2000. Productivity in word formation (WF): A morphological approach. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 471, 103–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Linguistik 47(4), 563–594. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. New corpus-linguistic approaches to the investigation of poetic occasionalisms: The case of Johann Nepomuk Nestroy. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic meeting 31, 155–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
English Web 2015 (enTenTen15) (online) Available at Sketch Engine, [URL]
Fleischer, W. 1975. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, Fourth edition. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Gaeta, L. & D. Ricca. 2003. Frequency and productivity in Italian derivation: A comparison between corpus-based and lexicographical data. Rivista di Linguistica 15(1), 63–98.Google Scholar
Italian Web 2016 (itTenTen16) (online) Available at Sketch Engine, [URL]
Jespersen, O. 1942. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VI: Morphology. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. 1986. The problem of productivity in word formation. Linguistics 241, 585–600. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Libben, G. 1998. Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language 611, 30–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lo Duca, M. G. 2004. Nomi di agente. In M. Grossmann & F. Rainer (eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 191–218.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. 2013. Extra-grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives, and Related Phenomena. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mattiello, E. & W. U. Dressler. Forthc. The morphosemantic transparency/opacity of novel English analogical compounds and compound families. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia.
Mattiello, E. 2017. Analogy in Word-formation. A Study of English Neologisms and Occasionalisms. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlini Barbaresi, L. 2007. Il fenomeno delle sigle: Un primo schema di analisi. In G. Garzone & R. Salvi (eds.), Linguistica, linguaggi specialistici, didattica delle lingue: Studi in onore di Leo Schena. Roma: CISU. 37–47.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
OED: Oxford English Dictionary (online). Oxford: Oxford University Press, [URL]
OPUS2 English (online) Available at Sketch Engine, [URL]
OPUS2 Italian (online) Available at Sketch Engine, [URL]
Plag, I. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seidl, C. 2004. Deantroponimici. In M. Grossmann & F. Rainer (eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 409–419.Google Scholar
Treccani (online), [URL]
Wolf, H. J. 1972. It. romanista, quattrocentista: Antwendungsbereiche eines “gelehrten” Suffixes im Italienischen, Spanischen und Französischen. Romanische Forschungen 841, 314–367.Google Scholar
ZING: Lo Zingarelli con cd-rom. Vocabolario della Lingua Italiana di Nicola Zingarelli (2015), M. Cannella & B. Lazzarini (eds.). Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Micheli, M. Silvia
2024. Linee di tendenza aggiornate della formazione di parola dell’italiano contemporaneo. Revue Romane. Langue et littérature. International Journal of Romance Languages and Literatures 59:1 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.