Dini Aulia Rahmah / A93219086 / D

 Productivity in meaning: semantic regularity

The kinds of formal regularity have involved characteristics of the base that are either purely
syntactic (for example, the bases to which -ness attaches are adjectives) or partly morphological (for
example, the bases to which -ity attaches are adjectives that contain certain suffixes).

A derivational process is semantically regular if the contribution that it makes to the meaning of the
lexemes produced by it is uniform and consistent. An example is adverb-forming -ly. This is not only
formally regular (like -ness) but also semantically regular.

The suffix -ity provides handy illustration. -ity nouns are formally regular when derived from
adjectives with a range of suffixes such as -ive, -al and -ar, and the nouns selectivity, locality,
partiality and polarity all exist.

Selectivity has a technical meaning related to radio reception, not shared with selectiveness, which
has only the expected non-technical meaning. The behaviour of -ness and -ity shows that regularity
does not imply generality. Even with the bases where -ity is regular, it is by no means totally general.

It is easy to think of adjectives which on formal groundsare suitable bases for a noun in -ity but for
which no such corresponding noun is in common use. Examples are offensive, aggressive, social,
chemical, lunar, nuclear, strategic, allergic, languid, horrid, gracious, devious.

Productivity in compounding

English makes more generous use of compounding than many other European languages do, so it is
surprising that at least some kinds of compounding should be formally regular and also highly
general. Interpretation of new compounds relies in practice less on strictly linguistic regularities than
on context and general knowledge. Primary and secondary compounds are both highly regular
formally, but only secondary compounds are highly regular semantically.

 Productivity in shape: formal generality and regularity

- sign-writer,
- slum clearance,
- crime prevention,
- wish-fulfillment
- machine-washing- 'washing of machines‘
- globe-trotter - 'trots globes‘
- voice-activation

- The first component must be the object of the verbal element, or more widely so as to permit the
first component to be related to the verbal element in some other way.

- Boat moon and bridge cloud, with stress at first element as indicated are possible English nouns.
(moon associated somehow with boats and cloud associated somehow with bridges)

- This semantic vagueness may seem to present an intolerable obstacle to the creation of new root
compounds.

Measuring productivity: the significance of neologisms

This has the advantage that a non-existent noun such as 'richity' can be classed as formally irregular,
but the disadvantage that it entails that actual nouns such as purity, sanity, oddity, severity must be
irregular too. For a process to be productive, in one sense, it should be a process that can be used to
form brand new lexemes, or neologisms.

For example :

-ive (selective, passive),

-able or -ible (capable, visible),

-al (local, partial).

Semantic blocking

Semantic regularity is the norm even where formal processes differ; for example, no past tense form
of a verb has any unexpected extra meaning or function, whether it is formally regular (e.g.
performed) or irregular (e.g. brought, sang).

Another illustration of how semantic and formal regularity can diverge is supplied by verbs with the
bound root -mit.

The three nouns commitment, committal and commission all have meanings related to meanings of
the verb commit. Commission can also mean ‘payment to a salesperson for achieving a sale’,
because this is not obviously related to any meaning of the verb. It follows that the suffixation of -ion
is by no means perfectly regular semantically.

Semantic blocking with a particular meaning inhibits the morphological derivation, even by formally
regular means, of another word with precisely that meaning.

Source: Lejla Pindzo_on Prezi.com