The Suffix ‑ment between the Available and the Unavailable

Abstract

Abstract Morphological productivity represents an essential property for human language and, as such, it lies at the core of any thorough word-formation theory. Studies in productivity have traditionally focused on areas of high profitability, that is, on the quantification and ranking of processes which show the capacity for lexical creation (e. g. ‑able, ‑ness, ‑ity). In other cases, however, morphological processes can no longer be used productively, or they can be used minimally (e. g. ‑th, ‑hood). These processes have received considerably less attention in the literature, partly due to their complex theoretical definition, partly due to their difficult practical assessment. In view of the shortage of specific research, this paper revolves around the current status of the nominalizing suffix ‑ment, which enjoyed a high profitability index between the 12th and 17th centuries, and is today taken to embody marginal productivity in synchronic terms. The suffix is explored in the light of lexicographic and corpus data for an inspection of its role in nominalizations with the meaning action/process, specifically concerning recent coinages that suggest some degree of morphological activity. This up-to-date picture of ‑ment shows that it is risky to present it as unproductive, and it leads to the consideration of related notions like the availability-unavailability divide or the measurement of low productivity.