Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
en:eebo:morphology2 [2016/10/15 21:54] – [Variation in derivational suffixes] kristinavalentinyova | en:eebo:morphology2 [2016/11/22 10:50] (current) – veronikapojarova | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====== Lesson 7: Morphology II ====== | ====== Lesson 7: Morphology II ====== | ||
- | In this lesson we will continue to deal with morphological variantions in Early Modern English. Specifically, | + | In this lesson we will continue to deal with the morphological variantions in Early Modern English. Specifically, |
===== Verbal endings ===== | ===== Verbal endings ===== | ||
The verbal endings for the past tense has not always been as uniform as they are nowadays. In present day English the regular past tense does not take any additional suffixes besides -ed (although some verbs such as //did// are conjugated irregularly). The form stays the same for all of the persons, e.g. //He walked// and //You walked//. However, this has not always been the case. The form of the second-person singular used to be formed by the addition of suffix //-(e)st// which followed the past tense suffix //-ed//. We will have a look at one of the most frequent verbs in the English language, an auxilliary verb //to do//. Specifically, | The verbal endings for the past tense has not always been as uniform as they are nowadays. In present day English the regular past tense does not take any additional suffixes besides -ed (although some verbs such as //did// are conjugated irregularly). The form stays the same for all of the persons, e.g. //He walked// and //You walked//. However, this has not always been the case. The form of the second-person singular used to be formed by the addition of suffix //-(e)st// which followed the past tense suffix //-ed//. We will have a look at one of the most frequent verbs in the English language, an auxilliary verb //to do//. Specifically, | ||
- | While the endings for the third person singular | + | While the verbal |
- | Some of the verbs such as //have// or // | + | During the Early Middle English period, the speaker had an option between two forms: either adding// |
+ | |||
+ | Some of the verbs such as //have// or // | ||
===== Searching the corpus ===== | ===== Searching the corpus ===== | ||
- | As the spelling was still relatively variable during the period | + | As the spelling was still relatively variable during the Early Modern English |
'' | '' | ||
- | When we click on the **frequency** button and select **node forms** in the dropdown menu, we will be able to see which of 63 spelling variants was the most frequently used at that time. | + | When we click on the **frequency** button and select **node forms** in the dropdown menu, we will be able to see which of 63 spelling variants was the most frequent one at that time. |
[{{eebo-19.png? | [{{eebo-19.png? | ||
- | For the purpose of this lesson, we will use the most frequent one, that is //didst//. Now we can compare frequencies of these two forms: | + | For the purpose of this lesson, we will use the most frequent one, that is //didst//. Now we can compare frequencies of these two forms: |
- | If we wish to search for both forms in the corpus at the same time we will insert a vertical bar for alternatives as was explained in the previous lesson. This way the concordance list will contain | + | If we wish to search for both forms in the corpus at the same time we will insert a vertical bar for alternatives |
- | [word=“thou”][word=“didst”]|[word=“thou”][word=“did”] | + | [word=“thou”]([word=“didst”]|[word=“did”]) |
- | The reason why we need to include the pronoun //thou// in our query is that //did// was also used in the first and third person. By including the pronoun, we will be able to eliminate those cases from the concordance list. //Didst// does not require this restriction as it was only used in the second person | + | The reason why we need to include the pronoun //thou// in our query is that //did// was also used in the first and third person, in addition to the second |
Now we click on the **Frequency** button in the main menu, select **Node forms** in the dropdown menu and a frequency list will appear as can be seen in the following picture. The results reveal that during the period that is covered by the EEBO corpus, //didst// was used approximately ten times more frequently than //did//. | Now we click on the **Frequency** button in the main menu, select **Node forms** in the dropdown menu and a frequency list will appear as can be seen in the following picture. The results reveal that during the period that is covered by the EEBO corpus, //didst// was used approximately ten times more frequently than //did//. | ||
Line 36: | Line 38: | ||
^ did |620 |0.14 | ^ did |620 |0.14 | ||
- | [{{eebo-15.png? | + | [{{eebo-15.png? |
===== Variation in derivational suffixes===== | ===== Variation in derivational suffixes===== | ||
Line 44: | Line 46: | ||
Derivational suffixes //-ity// and //-ness// are both used to form abstract nouns out of adjectives, e.g. pure and purity. While //-ness// is of Germanic origin and has been productive since Old English times, //-ity// is an etymologically foreign suffix which English borrowed from Latin thorugh French. Its foreign provenance is one of the reasons of its restricted productivity as foreign sufixes usually do not attach to native stems. | Derivational suffixes //-ity// and //-ness// are both used to form abstract nouns out of adjectives, e.g. pure and purity. While //-ness// is of Germanic origin and has been productive since Old English times, //-ity// is an etymologically foreign suffix which English borrowed from Latin thorugh French. Its foreign provenance is one of the reasons of its restricted productivity as foreign sufixes usually do not attach to native stems. | ||
- | To find all of the abstract nouns that could be formed by addition of //-ness// and //-ity// we use the following query: | + | To find all of the abstract nouns that could be formed by addition of //-ness// and //-ity// we use the following |
'' | '' | ||
- | We form similiar | + | We form similar |
'' | '' | ||
<WRAP round tip 40%> | <WRAP round tip 40%> | ||
- | The full stop wild card subsitutes for any character preceding //-ness// and asterisk repeats any preceding wildcard. Therefore, any number of characters can precede the suffix. | + | The full stop wild card subsitutes for any character preceding //ness// and asterisk repeats any preceding wildcard. Therefore, any number of characters can precede the suffix. |
</ | </ | ||
- | If we click on the **Frequency** button and select **Node forms** in the dropdown menu, we will find out what kind of nouns were formed using the respective suffixes : | + | If we click on the **Frequency** button and select **Node forms** in the dropdown menu, we will find out what kind of nouns were formed using the respective suffixes: |
^-ness^-ity^ | ^-ness^-ity^ | ||
|business|authority| | |business|authority| | ||
Line 63: | Line 65: | ||
|holiness|nobility| | |holiness|nobility| | ||
- | Although the word //City// was first in the list of node forms, //-ity// is part of the stem of the word, not a suffix. There are also some examples of numerals such as //thyrity// or //fity// included in the list. When we compare two lists it is obvious that //-ness// is added to domestic stems which form the core lexis, while //-ity// words represents | + | Although the word //city// is listed |
**Number of node forms** | **Number of node forms** | ||
* //-ity//: 8889 | * //-ity//: 8889 | ||
* // | * // | ||
- | The numbers of node forms for each of the suffixes are surprisingly similar, | + | The numbers of node forms for each of the suffixes are surprisingly similar, therefore it seems that productivity of //-ness// is not that much higher as the one of //-ity//. |
- | However, this is not the whole story. Using, the EEBO corpus, we can also observe how did the productivity of these two suffixes alter over the time period that EEBO covers. We just need to **Specify query according to the meta-information** in the main form and select the period within which we wish to search for node forms. | + | However, this is not the whole story. Using, the EEBO corpus, we can also observe how the productivity of these two suffixes alter over time. We just need to **Specify query according to the meta-information** in the main form and select the period within which we wish to search for the node forms. |
^period^1420-1500^1500-1570^1570-1640^1640-1710^ | ^period^1420-1500^1500-1570^1570-1640^1640-1710^ | ||
^-ness|7|101|710|8796| | ^-ness|7|101|710|8796| | ||
^-ity|5|413|3345|7543| | ^-ity|5|413|3345|7543| | ||
- | In both cases, the number of node forms is steadily increasing with the lowest number in 15th century and the highest in the 17th century. | + | In both cases, the number of node forms is steadily increasing with the lowest number in the 15th century and the highest in the 17th century. |
<WRAP round help 40%> | <WRAP round help 40%> | ||
**Task** | **Task** | ||
- | Have a look at the suffix //-ism// or prefix //anti-//. | + | Have a look at the suffix //-ism// or prefix //anti-//: |
- | Find out what kind of words were formed using these two affixes. | + | |
+ | * Is there any difference in their use between the respective time periods? | ||
</ | </ | ||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | **If you are ready, you can continue to the final lesson in this series, [[en: | ||
+ | ---- | ||