Next Article in Journal
Introducing the Special Issue Terminology in the Digital World
Previous Article in Journal
Becoming Protactile: Interactional Foundations of Protactile Language Development and Language Emergence
Previous Article in Special Issue
Parallelisms between Verb–Particle Constructions in English and Verb–Verb Compounds in Japanese: Evidence from Acquisition Research
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

New Words with -ment in Present-Day English: Their Properties and the Distinction between Functional and Lexical Categories

Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8571, Japan
Languages 2024, 9(9), 283; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9090283
Submission received: 15 December 2023 / Revised: 16 July 2024 / Accepted: 17 July 2024 / Published: 23 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Word-Formation Processes in English)

Abstract

:
Derivational affixes are not always automatically classified into functional or lexical categories. Although they are treated differently in various approaches, a shared view contends that the status of a suffix is controversial when it forms categorially incoherent words. However, it is debatable even when it forms words of a single category. This study argues that the Bifurcated Lexical Model proposed by Joseph E. Emonds is promising in this respect. With two subcomponents of the lexicon that, respectively, store functional and lexical morphemes, the model allows an affix to behave both as a functional and a lexical morpheme. This study demonstrates that the model can successfully account for the properties of the deverbal noun-forming suffix -ment in Present-Day English. The -ment nouns newly retrieved from the Oxford English Dictionary Online include instances in which -ment attaches to non-verbal elements and converted words. While such nouns may pose potential challenges to the perspective of an affix as a functional morpheme, their existence is not surprising but rather predictable within the model that allows for the flexibility of an affix in the dichotomy between functional and lexical categories.

1. Introduction

Lexical items are widely accepted to fall into two categories: lexical and functional. Generally, lexical categories, such as nouns, verbs, and adjectives, have specific and concrete semantic content. In contrast, functional categories have abstract meanings and primarily serve grammatical roles, such as definiteness and number for nouns, tense for verbs, and degree for adjectives. Corver and van Riemsdijk (2001b, p. 1) describe functional categories as necessary in the surface structure to “glue the content words [i.e., lexical categories] together, to indicate what goes with what and how”. However, the boundary between these two categories remains unclear (see Corver and van Riemsdijk 2001a). For example, prepositions are considered lexical in some studies (e.g., Chomsky 1970; Stowell 1981) and functional in others (e.g., Baker 2003).
Even derivational affixes are no exception in this regard. Derivational affixes are normally considered functional items because, in a typical case, they bear category-changing or category-determining functions and their semantics is systematically limited. In other words, an affix changes or determines the syntactic category of its base, thereby relating the resulting word to the syntactic structure. For example, the English suffixes -al, -ance/-ence, -ation, -ment, -ing, and -ure systematically produce abstract nouns from verbs, naming a relevant process or event (Nagano 2011a, p. 95). The lack of either or both of these properties, namely a category-changing function and abstract semantics, can obscure the status of derivational affixes as functional categories. Prefixes clearly demonstrate such a lack: they do not determine the category of the word with them (Nagano 2011b; Togano 2022, 2024; contra Kotowski 2021) and many, if not all, are semantically rich (e.g., counter- ‘against X’ and multi- ‘more than one X’; Nagano 2011a, p. 97). Given this fact, it is reasonable to classify (some) prefixes as lexical rather than functional categories (see Nagano 2011a for relevant discussion).
Suffixes also present controversy regarding their morphological status. Previous studies have discussed the status of affixes from the perspective of their category-changing function. Within the framework of Distributed Morphology, for example, Creemers et al. (2018) address the issue by considering suffixes that appear to lack intrinsic categorial properties. For instance, -ian in English can derive both adjectives and nouns, as in reptile-ianA and librar-ianN; similarly, -aat in Dutch forms both adjectives and nouns: accur-aatA ‘accurate’ and kandid-aatN ‘candidate’ (Creemers et al. 2018, pp. 46–47). These affixes challenge the assumption in Distributed Morphology that derivational affixes are functional as they realize the categorial head in syntax (Marantz 1997; Marvin 2003). Such affixes, Creemers et al. (2018) summarize, have led recent studies to propose that derivational affixes are generally roots (i.e., lexical morphemes) and that categorizers exist independently from affixes (Lowenstamm 2015; De Belder 2011). Creemers et al. (2018) themselves propose that while some derivational affixes are functional, others are lexical.
This study examines the status of suffixes from an alternative perspective, specifically based on their semantic contributions to the words involving them. As stated above, V-to-N suffixes not only systematically derive abstract nouns but can also produce nouns referring to physical objects. In Grimshaw’s (1990) terms, they are called complex event nominals (CENs) and result nominals (RNs), respectively. The contrasts between CENs and RNs are shown in (1) and (2), where the two types of nominals are categorially identical but semantically different.
(1)a.The examination of the patients took a long time.
b.The examination was on the table.
(2)a.The assignment of that problem too early in the course always causes problems.
b.The assignments were too long.
(Grimshaw 1990, pp. 49, 54, with stylistic modifications)
The CENs in the (a) examples are like their base verbs in that they inherit argument structures and accept temporal modifiers (cf. to examine the patients and to assign that problem too early in the course). Here, the suffixes -ation and -ment function as nominalizers and maintain event readings of the relevant verbs. The RNs in the (b) examples are, in contrast, like genuine nouns with referential readings: examination in (1b) refers to test papers with questions and assignment in (2b) refers to what is assigned. Since both CENs and RNs can be derived by the same suffix from a single base verb, many studies have sought to address the relationships between CENs, RNs, and their base verbs (e.g., Grimshaw 1990; Ito and Sugioka 2002; Borer 2003; Alexiadou and Grimshaw 2008; Harley 2009; Shimamura 2009, 2011; Bloch-Trojnar 2013; Lieber 2016; Alexiadou 2020; Nishiyama and Nagano 2020, chap. 2; among others) (see also papers in Alexiadou and Rathert 2010; Rathert and Alexiadou 2010; and Alexiadou and Borer 2020). One approach is to attribute the contrasts between CENs and RNs to the nature of the suffixes used therein. Within the framework proposed by Emonds (2000), a morpheme-based syntactic approach to morphology, Naya (2018) proposes that a single derivational affix can serve both as a functional element, responsible for category changing, and as a lexical element, forming CENs and RNs, respectively. Given this proposal, the suffixes in (1a) and (2a) are functional, whereas those in (1b) and (2b) are lexical. Studying derivational suffixes along this line sheds new light on their morphological status. In fact, Naya’s (2018) proposal differs from the aforementioned studies in the framework of Distributed Morphology. Different as they are in details, these studies share the idea that a given affix behaves exclusively as either a functional or lexical morpheme. In contrast, Naya’s (2018) proposal allows a single affix to behave both as a functional and a lexical morpheme, thereby broadening the discussion of the morphological status of derivational affixes.
With this background, this study aims to not only provide new data supporting the idea that a suffix can behave both as a functional and a lexical morpheme but also explore potential factors enabling a suffix to be a lexical morpheme. We focus on new words with -ment in Present-Day English retrieved from the Oxford English Dictionary Online (2023). These words are appropriate for the current purpose for the following three reasons: First, they have not been sufficiently analyzed and thus may provide us with a new perspective on the discussion of the status of derivational affixes.1 Second, and importantly, -ment can be contrasted with -ation: both are Latinate suffixes, and -ation, but not -ment, is productive in Present-Day English.2 This contrast provides a good basis for discussing factors affecting the property of the lexical variant of an affix, as will be discussed in Section 4.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the theoretical framework of this study, the Bifurcated Lexical Model (Emonds 2000), which allows an affix to behave as a lexical morpheme. Section 3 examines new -ment nouns retrieved from OED (2023) and reveals that problematic examples can be understood as a natural consequence of the lexical version of -ment. Section 4 discusses how productivity affects the behavior of -ment by considering Japanese productive and non-productive suffixes and comparing -ment nouns with -ation nouns. Finally, Section 5 provides the concluding remarks.

2. Theoretical Framework: The Bifurcated Lexical Model

The Bifurcated Lexical Model, the theoretical framework adopted in this article, was proposed by Emonds (2000). This model has two outstanding characteristics, which enable affixes to have a dual nature in principle. First, it hypothesizes that the lexicon consists of two subcomponents: Dictionary and Syntacticon. The Dictionary is an inventory of lexical categories, namely nouns, verbs, adjectives, and prepositions. The Syntacticon is an inventory of functional categories including derivational and inflectional affixes. The bifurcation of the lexicon leads to the second distinctive feature: Dictionary items and Syntacticon items are related to syntax in different ways via lexical insertion (Emonds 2000, chap. 4). Based on Emonds (2000), Section 2.1 demonstrates how this model differentiates between functional and lexical morphemes and how the two subcomponents of the lexicon interact with syntax. Section 2.2 demonstrates how the model works by focusing on nominal suffixes in English.

2.1. Functional Categories and Lexical Categories in the Bifurcated Lexical Model

The Bifurcated Lexical Model differentiates between functional and lexical categories based on the feature specification in the lexical entry. The model assumes the features in (3), “where F are intrinsic cognitive syntactic features and f are intrinsic semantic features […] of a selection head @ of category X” (Emonds 2000, p. 43); +__F represents a subcategorization frame. Among the features in (3), the semantic features f, which have no role in syntax and are thus purely semantic, are “present only on the head categories = N, V, A, and P” (Emonds 2000, p. 12). Thus, the verb amuse has the f feature but the agentive suffix -er does not, as indicated in (4).
(3) @, X, Fi, fj, +__Fk(Emonds 2000, p. 43)
(4)a.amuze, V, f, +__ANIMATE
b.er, N, ANIMATE, +<[V, ACTIVITY]__>
(Emonds 2000, pp. 47, 157, with slight modifications)
Importantly, this does not require all nouns, verbs, adjectives, and prepositions to have purely semantic features f. Emonds (2000, p. 9) states that “each [category] has a subset of say up to twenty or so elements fully characterized by cognitive semantic features F and entirely lacking purely semantic features f” (italics original).3 Such subsets are called grammatical or semi-lexical N, V, A, and P (Emonds 2000, p. 9; 2001, p. 29). For example, grammatical verbs and nouns are as follows:
(5)a.Grammatical V
be, have, do, get, go, come, let, make, say
b.Grammatical N
one, self, thing, stuff, people, other(s), place, time, way, reason
(Emonds 2000, p. 9)
They are also known as light verbs or nouns. These grammatical subsets of N, V, A, and P are, unlike lexical members, stored in the Syntacticon. Accordingly, it can be said that the Dictionary is a list of items with purely semantic features f and the Syntacticon is a list of items without them.
In the Bifurcated Lexical Model, the Dictionary and Syntacticon items also differ in terms of lexical insertion (Emonds 2000, chap. 4). Whereas the Dictionary items are inserted only before a syntactic derivation, the Syntacticon items can undergo lexical insertion at two other stages. Overall, this system assumes three different types of insertion, as schematically represented in (6) (Naya 2018, p. 19), which is a simplified version of Emonds’ (2000, pp. 117, 437) original representation. This system is called Multi-Level Lexical Insertion.
(6)Bifurcated Lexical Model
Languages 09 00283 i001
(Naya 2018, p. 19)
The three levels of lexical insertion can be outlined as follows: First, the Dictionary items undergo Deep Insertion, lexical insertion before a syntactic derivation, as represented by the leftmost downward arrow in (6). The Syntacticon items can also undergo Deep Insertion; they are not directly related to syntax but undergo it via the Dictionary, as indicated by the leftward arrow from the Syntacticon to the Dictionary. The next subsection elaborates how an item in the Syntacticon is inserted by Deep Insertion. In addition to Deep Insertion, Syntacticon items can undergo Syntactic Insertion, which is insertion during a derivation and prior to Spell-Out, and PF Insertion, which is insertion during a phonological derivation. PF Insertion is responsible for the insertion of inflectional suffixes, for example.
Among these three stages, Deep Insertion and Syntactic Insertion are relevant to our concern. The next subsection shows how this model forms CENs and RNs.

2.2. Forming Two Types of Nominals in the Bifurcated Lexical Model

Subsuming morphology under syntax (Emonds 2000, chap. 3), the Bifurcated Lexical Model successfully captures the fact that suffixes such as -ation and -ment can form two types of deverbal nominals, namely CENs and RNs. As briefly described in Section 1, CENs such as those in (7a) and (8a) are like verbs, whereas RNs like those in (7b) and (8b) can be regarded as genuine nouns.
(7)a.The examination of the patients took a long time.
b.The examination was on the table.
(8)a.The assignment of that problem too early in the course always causes problems.
b.The assignments were too long.
(= (1), (2))
As a reflection of their nouniness, RNs can be pluralized as shown in (8b). The example in (9) indicates that such a plural form does not inherit the argument structure from the verbal base and cannot be the subject of the VP take a long time due to the lack of the event structure.
(9)*The assignments of the problems took a long time.
(Grimshaw 1990, p. 54)
To clarify the differences between CENs and RNs more closely, let us observe the following examples from Emonds (2000):
(10)a.We protest the city’s constant development into the hills to attract industry.
b.We protest the city’s three {high-rise/treeless} developments with no schools.
(Emonds 2000, p. 152)
The CEN in (10a) has an event reading and accepts the event modifiers constant and into the hills. The RN in (10b) refers to a physical entity, namely ‘a site or property that is being or has been developed, esp. into new residential accommodation’ (OED 2023, s.v. development, sense 1.7.b). Accordingly, it can be pluralized and modified by high-rise and treeless, which refer to physical objects. If these adjectives modify the CEN, the resultant expression is ungrammatical, as shown in (11a). The RN, in turn, cannot be modified by the event modifiers, as indicated in (11b).4
(11)a.We protest the city’s {quick/*high-rise/*treeless} development to attract industry.
b.We protest the city’s three (*constant) developments (*into the hills).
(Emonds 2000, p. 152)
Emonds’ (2000, sct. 4.6) analysis explains the contrasting properties between CENs and RNs based on the different levels of lexical insertion of nominal suffixes. Specifically, -ment undergoes Syntactic Insertion to form CENs (see (7a), (8a), (10a)) and Deep Insertion to form RNs (see (7b), (8b), (10b)). The framework of the Multi-Level Lexical Insertion refines the notion of head(edness). Emonds (2000) proposes that the structural head is “entirely inert prior to the derivational moment which associates it with a lexical item” (Emonds 2000, p. 155; see also Emonds 2000, p. 128). In (8a), the nominal suffix -ment, the structural head in the assignment of that problem too early in the course, is inactive before Syntactic Insertion, and the verb assign serves substantially as a head during the relevant syntactic computation. As a result, assign maintains its event interpretation, thus introducing its grammatical argument that problem and co-occurring with the temporal modifier too early in the course. In this case, -ment just changes a verb into a noun as a functional morpheme. In contrast, -ment in RNs undergoes lexical insertion at the beginning of syntactic derivation (i.e., Deep Insertion) along with lexical morphemes. Accordingly, -ment in (8b) is active as a nominal head throughout the derivation and thus assignment behaves as a genuine noun.
To reflect the different levels of lexical insertion of -ment in CENs and RNs, Naya (2018) proposes that -ment (and other Syntacticon items) inserted at the beginning of the syntactic derivation (i.e., Deep Insertion) has a different status compared with when it is inserted via Syntactic Insertion. The motivation behind his proposal is that the Dictionary is a list of lexical categories with rich semantic contents, namely those with purely semantic features f; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Syntacticon items inserted via the Dictionary should also acquire some similar properties. In fact, Emonds (2000, p. 118) assumes that “a grammatical X0 may simply take on an additional open class meaning via some feature f”. For example, whereas stuff is counted as a grammatical N, as shown in (5b), it can bear the meaning of ‘illegal drugs’, which is attributed to the feature f assigned in the Dictionary (Emonds 2000, p. 118). This applies to the other Syntacticon items: “items from the Syntacticon enter the syntactic derivation at an underlying level [i.e., via Deep Insertion] like open class items by virtue of their being linked to items and/or features f in the open class Dictionary” (Emonds 2000, p. 118). Naya (2018) applies this to derivational suffixes, specifically arguing that the suffix that is inserted via the Dictionary acquires the status of a lexical morpheme by the assignment of f features, meaning ‘thing/entity’ (Naya 2018, pp. 146–47). Given this proposal, the feature specification of -ment changes from (12a) to (12b) via Deep Insertion.5
(12)a.-ment, N, +ABSTRACT, +<V__>
b.-ment, N, +ABSTRACT, +<V__>, f
(Naya 2018, p. 147)
The noun assignment in (8b) (RN) has -ment of the (12b) type. Under the view that -ment in (8b) (CEN) is a lexical morpheme with the meaning of ‘thing/entity’, this noun is formed by combining two lexical morphemes, which is equivalent to the process of compounding. Accordingly, as with ordinary compounds, the category of the RN as a whole is determined in accordance with the Right-Hand Head Rule. In addition, this noun has the modifier–modifiee relationship between the constituents where the verb assign modifies the head -ment. As a result, assignment in (8b) can be interpreted as expressing ‘thing that is assigned’. This is in parallel with the interpretation of ordinary V-N compounds such as kick-ball, which means ‘a ball that is kicked’ (see Naya 2018, sct. 5.5.2). The parallelism between RNs and V-N compounds is also evident in their incompatibility with the argument of the verbal element involved in the word. For example, tax man cannot co-occur with the argument of tax, as in (13).6
(13)*a taxman of hidden assets (Roeper 1987, p. 268)
cf.to tax hidden assets
This depicts exactly the same pattern as the RN assignment in (9).
In this way, Emonds’ (2000) hypothesis reveals the possibility that a single affix can behave as a functional morpheme in some respects and as a lexical morpheme in others.

3. New Words with -ment and Their Problematic Properties

3.1. Basic Description of -ment

Before observing the -ment nouns in Present-Day English, let us briefly outline the properties of -ment to distinguish problematic characteristics from predicted ones in new -ment nouns. This suffix came into Middle English from Old French and Anglo-French and “[a]fter 1450 the derivative pattern seems to have been stabilized” (Marchand 1969, p. 331). Reflecting the origin of -ment, the majority of its bases are non-native (Romance) verbs, as shown in (14), although it can be attached to native (Germanic) verbs, as shown in (15).
(14)Romance Verb + -ment
assessment, astonishment, commitment, endowment, engagement, harassment, involvement, languishment, management, measurement, obligement, placement, securement, treatment
(Marchand 1969, p. 331)
(15)Germanic Verb + -ment
amazement, bereavement, hangment, hatchment, settlement, shipment, startlement, unfoldment, upliftment, upsetment, wonderment, worriment, worsenment
(Bauer et al. 2013, p. 198; Dixon 2014, p. 340)
Categorially, although -ment is primarily attached to verbs, it is also available to a few nouns and adjectives, as shown in (16).
(16)a.Adjectival Base + -ment
embeddedment, hardyment, insensiblement, merriment, oddment, scarcement, surement
b.Nominal Base + -ment
devilment, illusionment
(Bauer et al. 2013, p. 198; Dixon 2014, p. 340)
Previous studies agree that -ment is a non-productive affix (see, e.g., Bauer et al. 2013). An important caveat to this description is that we need to clarify in what sense -ment is “non-productive” because the term productive is ambiguous in two ways. Productivity covers two related but independent notions, availability and profitability. Availability is a qualitative notion that “refers to whether new words can be obtained from a given process or not” and profitability is a quantitative notion that “is said to be the extent to which a process is used to create new items” (Fernández-Domínguez 2009, p. 60; see also Bauer 2001, p. 211). In light of this distinction, previous studies on the productivity of -ment observe that -ment does not form many derivatives in Present-Day English but is used occasionally (e.g., Marchand 1969, sct. 4.65.1; Bauer et al. 2013, sct. 10.2.1.1; Dixon 2014, sct. 9.4.8; see also Bauer 2023, sct. 3.2).7 Thus, the more precise description of -ment is that it is not profitable but is still available in Present-Day English.
Whereas previous studies have primarily focused on the quantitative aspect (i.e., profitability) of -ment by investigating how many words are created with -ment in a given period, they have not paid much attention to its qualitative aspect (i.e., availability). This is especially true of the -ment words in Present-Day English. Accordingly, as stated in Section 1, these words merit careful examination in discussions of the status of derivational affixes.

3.2. New -ment Nouns in Present-Day English

Based on the properties overviewed in the last subsection, we can examine the data of new -ment nouns. They are collected in two steps. First, 31 nouns that (i) end in ment, (ii) are (directly or indirectly) related to the suffix -ment in their etymology, and (iii) are attested after 1900 were retrieved through OED’s (2023) advanced search function, where search results can be refined by specifying options or parameters for several categories such as SEARCH TERMS, PART OF SPEECH, and DATE OF USE. For the SEARCH TERMS category, <*ment> was specified as the Headword to retrieve the entries for words ending in the string ment, and <ment> as Etymology to ensure that the entries mention the suffix -ment in their Etymology sections. Noun was also specified for the PART OF SPEECH category and “From 1900” for the DATE OF USE category with the “First use” button checked.8 Second, their Etymology sections were manually checked, and three nouns (i.e., rayonnement, roulement, and ravalement) that are borrowings were excluded because they were not formed in English.9 Superencipherment was also excluded because its first citation date (1940) was earlier than that of its potential base verb superencipher (1957). As a result, 27 -ment nouns (as of December 2023) were obtained.
The -ment nouns obtained in this way are classified according to the origins (i.e., Romance or not) and syntactic categories of their base words (i.e., verbal or not). These pieces of information are obtained by referring to the entries of their bases in OED (2023). When a noun has a complex base (e.g., encircle-ment, embrittle-ment, and englobe-ment), it is classified based on the origin of the roots (i.e., circle, brit, and globe). The result is depicted in Figure 1, where each example is followed by the date of its first attestation in OED (2023).10
As predictable characteristics, -ment can attach to verbs in Present-Day English regardless of whether they are Romance verbs. These examples are not problematic. However, we should focus on the two groups of nouns that pose potential problems to the view that the suffix behaves exclusively as a purely functional morpheme that changes verbs into nouns. First, the three nouns in the rectangle in Figure 1 are derived from nouns. Second, among the nouns presented in the circle, -ment attaches to converted words.11

3.3. Problem 1: Categorial Selection

Functional morphemes are typically sensitive to the categorial properties of their selected elements. This is considered a characteristic of functional elements in the work of Corver and van Riemsdijk (2001b, p. 2). For example, in syntactic studies in Generative Grammar, the D head selects NP, forming DP; the C head selects TP, the T head vP, and the v head VP, thereby forming CP, TP, and vP, respectively (see also Corver and van Riemsdijk’s (2001b, p. 2) examples). Likewise, -ment canonically selects verbs and changes them into nouns, which is quite natural when we consider that it bears the V-to-N category-changing function. However, -ment in the rectangle in Figure 1 departs from this derivative pattern by selecting a noun as its base (i.e., curette, member, and bash), a departure also observed in the deadjectival and denominal -ment nouns in (17), repeated from (16).
(17)a.Adjectival Base + -ment
embeddedment, hardyment, insensiblement, merriment, oddment, scarcement, surement
b.Nominal Base + -ment
devilment, illusionment
(= (16))
These cases may be regarded as exceptions, as they account for 11% of the new -ment nouns, as shown in Table 1.
However, in Present-Day English, the nouns in the rectangle in Figure 1 cannot be dismissed as trivial because the derivative pattern of -ment is considered to have been fixed in English after 1450 (see Section 3.1 and Marchand 1969, p. 331). The use of -ment in Present-Day English is expected to strictly adhere to the categorial restriction, thereby forming verbs from nouns; however, it can still attach to nouns. Accordingly, the examples in the rectangle (and those in (17)) challenge the view that -ment is a purely functional morpheme.
In contrast, the idea that -ment can behave as a lexical and a functional morpheme accounts for the nouns where -ment attaches to non-verbal elements, allowing us to analyze such potentially problematic nouns as compounds that consist of a noun and the lexical variant of -ment. Unlike derivation, compounding does not impose categorial restriction on its input elements, as pointed out by Kageyama (1982, p. 224). For example, the noun man can be combined with a verb (e.g., wash man), a noun (e.g., sandwich man), and an adjective (e.g., merry man). Thus, if -ment is a lexical morpheme, it can participate in compounding and combine with any word, including nouns and adjectives.
This discussion leads us to eliminate the strict subcategorization frame that -ment originally has, when used as a lexical morpheme. As introduced in Section 3.1, Naya (2018) assumes that -ment in the Dictionary has f features, as shown in the feature specification in (18a). As it stands, -ment has the subcategorization frame to be satisfied, which blocks it from attaching to nouns or adjectives. To avoid this blocking, I assume here that the semi-lexical version of -ment in the Dictionary can undergo a further change that makes the subcategorization frame optional. The result of this change can be represented by the parentheses in (18b), reflecting the optionality of the subcategorization frame.
(18)a.-ment, N, +ABSTRACT, +<V__>, f(= (12b))
b.-ment, N, +ABSTRACT, (+<V__>), f
This change makes -ment more akin to ordinary nouns that do not have a subcategorization frame (except for some subsets, including relational nouns).12
One might think that -ment, in these examples, is actually added to the words verbalized through conversion (or zero-derivation), as shown in (19).
(19) [[[curette]N]V -ment]N
In this case, -ment follows its categorial selection. However, this alternative approach encounters another problem, which is discussed in the next subsection.

3.4. Problem 2: Myers’ Generalization

Let us next consider the nouns that are circled in Figure 1. They have a verbal or nominal base that has undergone conversion (or zero-derivation). In the case of motherment, meaning ‘motherly care or supervision, mothering’, for instance, its OED (2023) entry indicates that -ment attaches to the verb mother1, whose entry, in turn, reveals that it originates from the noun mother1. This direction of conversion (i.e., N-to-V) is reflected in the dates of first citations: mother as a noun exists in Old English (OE), and its verbal usage is attested in a1425. Thus, the word-formation process of motherment can be represented as shown in (20).
(20)motherN
OE
> motherV
a1425
> mother-ment
1914
   N-to-V Conversion  -ment suffixation
Table 2 indicates the conversion processes applied to the bases of the nouns within the circle in Figure 1.
However, this type of word-formation process goes against Myers’ Generalization, which states that “no derivational suffix may be added to a zero-derived word” (Myers 1984, p. 66). For example, -ant cannot attach to denominal converted verbs, as in *[[[experiment]N]V-ant]N (see Nagano 2008, p. 17). Nagano (2008, pp. 16–18) points out that Myers’ Generalization has three exceptional suffixes, namely -er, -ing, and -able (e.g., documenter, documenting, documentable), leading her to propose the revised version of the generalization, as shown in (21).13
(21)Revised Myers’ Generalization
Converted words do not permit the suffixation of a derivational morpheme. The suffixes -er, -ing, and -able, however, can exceptionally attach to a converted verb.
(Nagano 2008, p. 18)
Even with this revision, -ment cannot be considered an exception. Thus, the nouns listed in Table 2 are still problematic to this generalization.
This problem arises again from the view that -ment serves exclusively as a derivational (or functional) morpheme.14 If -ment can be used as a lexical morpheme, it is not subject to the restriction in (21) and can attach to converted words. As a lexical morpheme, -ment lacks the category-changing function; however, just as in compounds, it is to be modified by the word with which it combines. For example, in motherment, -ment meaning ‘entity’ or ‘thing’ is modified by mother, resulting in ‘(something like) things provided by mother’. In this way, the behavior of -ment in Present-Day English is no longer strange.
It is noteworthy that -ment does not always behave as a lexical morpheme in Present-Day English. It can still behave as a functional morpheme with a category-changing function from V to N, as observed by Kawaletz (2023, sct. 4.2.3.5) (see also Kawaletz 2023, sct. 5.2.2.4), whose data set includes the examples shown in (22), where the two nouns in Figure 1, embrittlement and upliftment, are used as CENs.
(22)a.Hydrides then form and can limit the fuel lifetime due to their embrittlement of the cladding.
      (Google WEB imperial.ac.uk 2014; cited from Kawaletz 2023, p. 75)
b.Nor have hopes and expectations for the upliftment of the rural areas been aroused as the Busia group managed to do in the late 1960s.
      (COCA ACAD Africa Today 1991; cited from Kawaletz 2023, p. 75)
In other words, -ment has a dual nature. This property can be naturally captured under Emonds’ (2000) view on the status of affixes without extra assumptions. If we assume that -ment is always a functional morpheme, it will be difficult to explain why it can attach to nouns, adjectives, and converted words. If we contend that -ment is exclusively a lexical morpheme, we will overlook its category-changing function. The data presented in this study require hypotheses that give the suffix flexibility, such as the one proposed by Emonds (2000).

3.5. Supporting Evidence

If the nouns in Table 2 are compounds, the nouns containing a converted verb as a base should behave in the same way as RNs. Recall from Section 2.2. that, unlike CENs, RNs cannot co-occur with the argument(s) of the verb to which -ment attaches: the RN assignment(s) in (8b), which is repeated as (23), cannot be accompanied by the problems, which corresponds to the grammatical object of the base verb assign, as shown in (24).
(23) The assignments were too long.(= (8b))
(24)*The assignments of the problems took a long time.(Grimshaw 1990, p. 54)
To recapitulate, also from Section 2.2, the suffix in RNs does not serve as a category-changing element (i.e., functional category) but as a noun to be modified by the left-hand element (i.e., assign). If the analysis in Section 3.2 is correct, we can predict that the nouns that contain a converted verb as a base in Table 2 are RNs and cannot co-occur with the objects of the verbal bases. This prediction is proved, as shown in (25).15
(25)a.The computer’s {*centrement/centering} of all sentences in the paper took a long time.
b.Her constant {*motherment/mothering} of my children was very helpful.
c.The defense industry’s {*munitionment/munitioning} of the forces took a long time.
For example, centrement in (25a) is not compatible with all sentences in the paper, which corresponds to the object of the verb centre (cf. to centre all sentences in the paper). The ungrammaticality of the -ment nouns in (25) indicates that the nouns are RNs formed by root compounding, which supports the proposal that -ment used therein is a lexical morpheme. In contrast to -ment, the highly profitable suffix -ing, an exception to Myers’ Generalization (see (21)), can successfully derive impeccable CENs from relevant verbs. That is, -ing serves as a category-changing functional element, changing the verbs into nouns through derivation. The grammatical contrast observed in (25) should be attributed to the difference in the status of the suffixes; the ungrammaticality in (25) results from the nature of -ment as a lexical morpheme.16
In summary, Emonds’ (2000) approach to the status of affixes raises a new issue regarding the lexical–functional dichotomy of lexical items by allowing a single affix to behave as both a functional and lexical morpheme. Whereas other approaches focus on the status when an affix forms categorially incoherent words (e.g., nouns and adjectives), Emonds’ approach sheds light on the controversial status of affixes that coherently form words of a single syntactic category. This approach has an advantage in the analysis of the apparently problematic properties of -ment in Present-Day English. While the suffix plays the purely functional role of category changing and forms CENs, it behaves non-canonically in the new words in Present-Day English; it can attach to nouns and converted words. This property is not surprising if we assume that -ment can be used as a lexical morpheme and fed into compounding. Emonds’ (2000) view successfully captures the otherwise unexpected behaviors of -ment, which demonstrates the dual status of an affix.

4. What Extends the Base Category of an Affix?

4.1. Relationship between Categorial Selection and Productivity

Thus far, this study contends that -ment can behave as a lexical, as well as a functional, morpheme. This section examines whether any discernable factors that enable it to behave as a lexical morpheme can be identified. It is worth examining its productivity as a possible factor. Let us first overview studies by Sugioka (2005a, 2005b, 2011, 2019), which investigate the effect of the productivity (in the sense of profitability) of an affix on its attachability to the elements that it does not categorially select as its base. Given the discussion in Section 3.3, we can say that an affix deviates from its categorial restriction on its bases when it functions as a lexical morpheme. Such deviation can be regarded as an indication of the lexical status of a given affix. Thus, Sugioka’s studies are crucial for examining how the productivity of an affix relates to its availability as a lexical morpheme.
Sugioka (2005a, 2005b, 2011, 2019) points out that in Japanese, productive (i.e., profitable) affixes are more likely to adhere to their categorial restrictions on their bases. A good example is the pair of -sa and -mi, the nominalization affixes that primarily attach to adjectives, which may be reminiscent of the English affixes -ness and -ity. These nominal affixes differ in productivity, as Sugioka (2005b, p. 207) states: “[w]hile -sa can attach to virtually all adjectives and adjectival nouns […], -mi is found with only a small subset of frequently used adjectives (about 30 of them), so there are numerous lexical gaps”. The lexical gaps are exemplified by the antonymous pair of akaru-I (bright-pres[ent]) and kura-i (dark-pres) in (26a) and the synonymous pair of kurusi-i (painful-pres) and tura-i in (26b).
(26)a.akaru-sa/akaru-mi‘brightness’
kura-sa/* kura-mi‘darkness’
b.kurusi-sa/kurusi-mi‘painfulness’
tura-sa/* tura-mi‘painfulness’
(Sugioka 2011, p. 148)
Importantly, -mi is capable of attaching to some (if not many) words other than adjectives, such as nouns, verbal nouns (VN), and mimetic words, as shown in (27a–c).17 In contrast, -sa, the more productive suffix, cannot attach to the words of these categories, as shown in (27d).
(27)a.N:sinzituN-mi’truth-ness’
ningenN-mi‘human-ity’
genzituN-mi’reality-ness’
b.VN:enzyukuVN-mi‘matureV-ness, ripeness’
c.mimetic words:zara-mi‘coarse-ness’ (zarazara ‘coarse’)
toro-mi‘sticky-ness’
turu-mi‘slippery-ness’
d.*ningenN-sa, *genzituN-sa, *enzyukuVN-sa, *zara-sa
(Sugioka 2011, p. 151, with stylistic modifications)
In the present study, this contrast suggests that less productive affixes are more likely to behave as lexical morphemes, thereby attaching to categories that they do not originally select. If so, this pattern can be directly applied to -ment (in Present-Day English), as it is a non-productive suffix (see Section 3.1) and can deviate from its subcategorization frame.
Interestingly, however, we can find the opposite pattern with the English counterpart. Sugioka (2011, p. 151) compares -sa with its English counterpart -ness, which is also very productive, and highlights that “although -ness attaches to adjectives it can ‘extend’ the syntactic category of the base […]” (see also Sugioka 2019, p. 51). She demonstrates this pattern with the following examples:
(28)a.thingness, as-suchness, off-beatness, up-to-the-minuteness, us-ness
(Adams 2001, p. 32)
b.girlness, studentness, thing-ness, tree-ness   (Sugioka 2011, p. 145)
In other words, unlike in Japanese, the more productive A-to-N suffix can extend its applicability in English. The contrast between Japanese and English can be summarized as shown in (29).
(29)The relationship between productivity of an affix and extension of the base category (in the case of A-to-N suffixes):
a.Japanese (-mi vs. -sa)
The less productive suffix (-mi) is more likely to extend the syntactic category of the base.
b.English (-ity vs. -ness)
The more productive suffix (-ness) is more likely to extend the syntactic category of the base.
This contrast suggests that productive suffixes behave differently between English and Japanese, being more likely to serve as lexical morphemes in English but not in Japanese.
If we only observe -ment, we might regard it as an exception to (29b) because it is a non-productive suffix and can attach to non-verbal elements. To examine whether it is a true exception, we need to compare it with a more productive affix, as in the case of -mi versus -sa and -ity versus -ness in Sugioka’s study. If -ment outranks a more productive suffix in the degree of the extension of the syntactic category of the base, then the Japanese-type pattern (see (29a)) is applicable to the relevant verb-to-noun suffixes, challenging the cross-categorial validity of “the more profitable, the more extendable“ tendency in English (see (29b)). This leads to the conclusion that the low productivity of -ment is related to its acquisition of the status of being a lexical morpheme. Conversely, if the productive counterpart outranks -ment, the English tendency in (29b) is still tenable in the case of primarily deverbal noun-forming suffixes, resulting in the conclusion that the high productivity affects the extension of the syntactic category of the suffixal base.
For this discussion, -ation is a good counterpart to -ment. Like -ment, -ation is a Latinate suffix and primarily attaches to verbs but, unlike -ment, it remains very productive in Present-Day English. In addition, it also occasionally attaches to adjectives and nouns, as shown in (30).
(30)a.Adjecitval Base + -ation
adequation, contrition, discretion, distinction, erudition, explicitation, extinction, festivation, humanation, inanition, inchoation, palmation, precision
b.Nominal Base + -ation
artefaction, concretion, intellection, metalation, ozonation, placentation
(Bauer et al. 2013, p. 201, with stylistic modifications)
Thus, the question to ask in this section is as follows:
(31)Does -ation extend the syntactic category of the base more greatly than does -ment in Present-Day English?

4.2. An Answer Based on the Comparison between New Nouns with -ment and with -ation

The answer to the question in (31) is positive: -ation attaches to non-verbal elements more extensively than does -ment. To assess the degree of the extension of -ation, the nouns with the suffix -ation attested after 1900 from OED (2023) through a similar process to the case of -ment were retrieved. First, for the SEARCH TERMS category, <*tion> was specified as a Headword to retrieve words ending in the string tion. Noun was also specified for the PART OF SPEECH category, as was ‘From 1900’ for the DATE OF USE category with the ‘First use’ button checked. In addition, the following items were selected for the TYPE OF FORMATION category: Derivative, Borrowing, and Proper name. This resulted in the retrieval of 1035 nouns ending in -tion (as of December 2023).18 Second, unwanted words such as those not formed in English (e.g., autogestion from French; bioturbation from German) and those formed through prefixation or compounding (e.g., defederalization < de- + federalization; Schmidt reaction) were excluded, as were nouns that, according to OED (2023), are formed by the attachment of -ification or -ization (e.g., parentification < parent + -ification; villagization < village + -ization). Through this process, 435 nouns relevant to our concern were obtained and classified according to their base category based on the Etymology part of each entry. The results are depicted in Table 3 (see Appendix A for the all examples).
Table 3 indicates that although 79% of the new -ation nouns are derived from verbs, the remaining 21% are not. The category “Others” includes nouns with a borrowed element as an etymon that was not an established word in English at the time of the relevant formation; thus, OED (2023) entries state the following: “A borrowing from Latin, combined with an English element”. More specifically, the two nouns brumation and nivation are formed in the following way:
(32)a.brumation (1900)
classical Latin brūma ‘winter’ + -ation
b.nivation (1965)
classical Latin niv-, nix ‘snow’ + -ation
The etymons brūma and niv-/nix have yet to be accepted as English words, although their cognate adjectives brumal (a1522) and nival (1656) exist in English. However, what is important to our current concern is that they can be counted as non-deverbal nouns and grouped with deadjectival and denominal nouns. The nouns in this group are all yielded as a result of the extension from the primary category selected by -ation.
Accordingly, non-deverbal -ation nouns account for 21% of all cases of -ation nouns formed after 1900. Recall from Table 1 in Section 3 that 11% of the new -ment nouns are derived from nouns. The comparison of these results reveals that -ation, the more productive suffix, is more likely to extend its availability to non-verbal elements to a greater extent. This is compatible with the case of English A-to-N suffixes (see (29b)). Since we regard the extension of the base category as an indication of the status as a lexical morpheme of the suffix, we can further derive the conclusion that high rather than low productivity is more likely to be related to the suffix’s acquisition of the status of a lexical morpheme.

4.3. The Original Status of an Affix Also Matters

The next question to ask is why the effect of productivity differs between the Japanese suffixes (i.e., -mi vs.-sa) and the English suffixes (i.e., -ity vs. -ness, -ment vs. -ation). Although Sugioka (2019) highlights the contrast between Japanese and English, this study argues that for this question as well, it is helpful to consider the distinction between lexical and functional categories. Specifically, the original status of an affix seems to be closely related to the effect of its productivity on its extension of availability. The Japanese suffix -mi is originally a lexical morpheme (or lexeme), as indicated in Naya (2018, p. 215), and it is thus free from categorial selection. In other words, it is originally capable of attaching to words of various syntactic categories. However, when an affix starts as a functional morpheme (i.e., categorizer), its productivity is important for it to attach to various categories. If an affix is productive and thus has sufficient examples of affixations, the word-formation pattern involving that affix becomes easily discernible (see Bauer 2023, sct. 3.6 for a related discussion) and analogically applied to the elements that it does not primarily select.
Naya (2018, p. 215) argues that the lexical status of -mi is reflected in the way it is written in Japanese, a language with three main types of characters for the orthographic system: hiragana, katakana (phonographic writing systems) and Chinese characters (or kanji graphs) (an ideographic writing system) (cf. Hasegawa 2015, pp. 43–44). Katakana and kanji characters are relevant to the suffix in question. In the examples of -mi nouns in (33), repeated from (26), the suffix is written in the hiragana character -み, whereas in (34), which is repeated from (27), it is written in the Chinese character -味 (see Sugioka 2005a, p. 78). We can regard both cases as the same suffix (Sugioka 2005a, 2019).
(33)a.akaru-mi‘brightness’
b.kurusi-mi‘painfulness’
(see (26))
(34)a.N:sinzituN-mi’truth-ness’
ningenN-mi‘human-ity’
genzituN-mi’reality-ness’
b.VN:enzyukuVN-mi‘matureV-ness, ripeness’
(= (27a, b))
Naya (2018, p. 215) focuses on the following facts: First, kanji characters have a Sino-Japanese reading (on-yomi) and native reading (kun-yomi). Second, ‘-mi’ is the Sino-Japanese reading of the kanji graph -味, whose native reading is azi, meaning ‘taste’. Naya relates these facts to Nagano and Shimada’s (2014) study stating that a kanji graph represents a lexeme and its Sino-Japanese and native readings correspond to its different stems, specifically the bound and free forms, respectively. In our case, -mi is the bound form of the lexeme azi (味), which has the free-form variant azi. Given this study, Naya regards -mi as a lexical morpheme, consequently analyzing -mi nouns such as those in (33) and (34) as compounds. In fact, -mi is considered to have the intrinsic meaning of ‘sensation’ or ‘tangible property’, as pointed out by Sugioka (2005a). If so, it seems natural that -mi, instead of -sa, can attach to various categories as long as it is semantically compatible with the base, although its productivity itself is limited.19 Consequently, -sa, albeit a productive suffix, is limited exclusively to select adjectives.
If this view is correct, the extension of the categorial selection of an affix should depend (partly) on its inherent or original status as a lexical or functional morpheme; lexical suffixes should tend to attach to various categories more easily than originally functional morphemes, whose extension of their base categories, in turn, tends to depend on their productivity (in the sense of profitability). In addition, such suffixes should be found in English as well. The validity of these predictions needs to be examined by including more examples of suffixes in future research.

5. Concluding Remarks

This study examined the status of derivational affixes, questioning whether they are functional or lexical morphemes. Among several proposed approaches in previous studies, this study argues for the Bifurcated Lexical Model (Emonds 2000), which sheds new light on the status of affixes in that it can approach the issue from affixes that coherently form words in a single category.
The distinctive characteristic of the Bifurcated Lexical Model is that it hypothesizes that the lexicon has two subcomponents: the Dictionary, an inventory of lexical morphemes, and the Syntacticon, an inventory of functional morphemes. This bifurcation allows a single affix to behave as a functional and a lexical morpheme (Naya 2018). This dual status of an affix can successfully account for the behaviors of the new nouns caused by -ment in Present-Day English. When it works as a functional morpheme with the role of category changing, it forms CENs from verbs. When it works as a lexical morpheme, it yields RNs from verbs. In addition, it forms complex nouns equivalent to nominal compounds by attaching to adjectives, nouns, and converted words. In this case, -ment is assumed to have undergone the change in the Dictionary, where the subcategorization frame inherited from its original status as a functional morpheme is made optional.
This study also compared new nouns with -ment and -ation to examine the effects of their productivity on their selected elements. Sugioka (2005a et seq.) states, based on the two pairs of deadjectival noun forming suffixes (i.e., -mi vs. -sa in Japanese and -ity and -ness in English), that the opposite pattern can be observed in Japanese and English: in Japanese, the less productive suffix -mi can extend the syntactic category of the base and attach to non-adjectival elements in Japanese, whereas, in English, the more productive suffix -ness can be combined with non-adjectival elements. If we regard the extension of the base category as an indication of the lexical status of the involved suffix, Sugioka’s statement can be understood as follows: less productive suffixes in Japanese but more productive ones in English are more likely to behave as lexical morphemes. To examine whether this is valid cross-categorially (and cross-linguistically), this study compared nouns with -ment and -ation. Data from OED (2023) indicate that -ation, the more productive suffix, attaches to nouns and adjectives more frequently. Combining this result and Sugioka’s observation, we concluded that high productivity enables a suffix to extend its base category, namely to behave as a lexical morpheme, when it originates in a functional morpheme (i.e., the English suffixes -ity/-ness and -ment/-ation). In contrast, -mi in Japanese can attach to non-adjectival elements despite its low productivity because it is originally a lexical morpheme.
Having summarized the discussion thus far, it is pertinent to acknowledge the question that requires further inquiry. Given the proposal in Section 3.1. that -ment does not have the strict subcategorization frame when it undergoes Deep Insertion, the following question arises: Why are there a very limited number of denominal or deadjectival -ment nouns? In other words, if it can freely attach to any category, there should be many more -ment nouns based on nouns and adjectives.20 However, there are only a few attested examples in OED (2023) (see Table 1). This situation challenges the assumption that -ment can be free from the subcategorization frame through the Dictionary. Although the optionality of the subcategorization frame indeed increases possible -ment nouns, they do not necessarily occur as actual words. Whether a possible word actually occurs depends on several factors including extra-systemic ones (Bauer 2001, p. 42) (see Naya 2018, p. 145, fn. 9 for a related discussion). Here, it is worth paying attention to the recent phenomena related to -mi ‘-ity’ in Japanese. As described in Section 4.1, the nouns with this suffix are very limited in number. This situation also appears to be strange if -mi is originally a lexical morpheme, as suggested in Section 4.3. However, recent studies report that in expressions used on social media (e.g., Twitter, renamed X in June 2023), -mi has come to be creatively attached to the elements with which it previously could not combine (see Sugioka 2019, p. 51; Nishiyama and Nagano 2020, p. 113 and studies cited therein). That is, only recently have (some) possible words with -mi occurred as actual words. A factor behind the occurrence of such new words lies in the need to satisfy communicative requirements in the environment of social media. Likewise, the number of new -ment nouns will be increased if some extra-systemic factors are given. What is important here is that the system allows -ment to behave as a lexical morpheme, thereby giving it the potential to attach to various elements other than verbs.
In conclusion, viewed within the framework of the Bifurcated Lexical Model, new -ment nouns shed light on the status of affixes and the effects of their productivity, thereby contributing to a better understanding of word-formation processes in English.

Funding

This research was funded by JSPS KAKENHI (Grant-in-Aid for Early-Career Scientists), Grant Numbers JP19K13218, JP24K16091.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data other than those presented in this article were created or analyzed in this study.

Acknowledgments

This paper is a revised and extended version of a poster presentation at International Symposium of Morphology 2019 held at the Paris Diderot University on 25–27 September 2019. I have benefitted from the discussion with the audience. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers for their careful reviews and constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper. I am also indebted to Masaharu Shimada, Akiko Nagano, and Takashi Ishida for their invaluable comments and suggestions on this research. All remaining errors and inadequacies are my own.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. New -ation Nouns

(1) Adjectival Base + -ation (N = 21)
apparentationaureationchelation
cybernationdecerebrationdefectivation
eutrophicationexaptationhaustellation
hypercorrectionilluviationlanceolation
lirationmetricationolation
oligotrophicationpassivationperfectivation
pixilationsonicationtriradiation
(2) Nominal Base + -ation (N = 68)
abscessationadductionadenylation
adenylylationantennationarylation
carbonylationcarboxylationelectroporation
epoxidationethoxylationexcystation
exponentiationfaciationfluoridation
fluorinationformylationgelation
gleizationglycosylationguesstimation
halogenationhydroborationinteroception
lenticulationmercurationmesylation
metalationmethanationmonosignation
myristoylationmyristylationnitridation
nitrogenationnitrosylationpedimentation
phlorizinationphosphorylationpiliation
pixilationplastinationpolyamidation
polygonationprenylationproprioception
protonationpseudobrecciationpupariation
raricostationrotavationScotticization
silylationsolationspeciation
styrenationsubstrationsulphidation
sulphonylationtitanationtosylation
trabeculationtransculturationtransmethylation
transpeptidationtrendificationtrickeration
ubiquitinationwobbulationxanthation
(3) Verbal Base + -ation (N = 344)
academicizationadjectivizationaerosolization
aestheticizationAfrikanerizationaluminization
annualizationannuitizationanodization
anonymizationanthologizationarithmetization
Asianizationautonomizationautoxidization
axiomatizationbanalizationbilingualization
Bolshevizationcantonizationcivilianization
clericalizationClintonizationco-implication
communizationcompartmentalizationcompartmentation
complementationcomplexificationcomprehensivization
concretizationconglobulationcontainerization
contextualizationcorporatizationcoventration
crofterizationCubanizationcustomization
cyanizationcyclizationdatation
deactivationdeafferentationdeamination
de-anglicizationdecapsulationdecarboxylation
decentrationdecertificationdeclassification
decomplementationdeconflictiondecontamination
decontextualizationdecreolizationdecryption
dedolomitizationde-emanationdefaunation
degasificationdeglamorizationdehumidification
de-indexationdeionizationdelabialization
demagnificationdemassificationdemethylation
demystificationdemythicizationdemythologization
denaturizationdenazificationdenervation
denuclearizationdepersonalizationdephosphorylation
depoliticizationdeportationdeprioritization
deproletarianizationdeproteinizationderacialization
derationalizationdereservationderestriction
desalinationdesaturationdesegregation
deselectiondesensitizationdesequestration
destabilizationde-Stalinizationdesulphuration
detoxicationdetribalizationdevalorization
devaluationdevirilizationdevolatilization
dieselizationdigitalizationdigitization
dimerizationdiscreditationdishumanization
disinfestationdisinsectizationdisintoxication
disproportionationdistantiationdollarization
encryptionenregistrationenvenomation
escalationeternalizationexoticization
fancificationfasciculationfetishization
fidationFilipinizationfinalization
fluidizationfractionalizationfractionization
fragmentizationGaelicizationgeneticization
ghettoizationglamorizationglocalization
glottalizationgrammaticalizationhaemagglutination
hierarchizationhistorizationhomogenization
hospitalizationhypersensitizationideologization
implementationincentivizationindexation
infanticipationinfixationinitialization
insolubilizationinstantiationinstitutionalization
interanimationinteriorizationinterpermeation
iodizationjudicializationketonization
laminarizationlemmatizationlenation
lexicalizationmagnoperationmajorization
ManchesterizationManhattanizationmanorialization
marbleizationmarginalizationmarination
Marxizationmathematicizationmathematization
metaphorizationmetropolitanizationminiaturization
minorizationmodalizationMohammedization
monetarizationmonochromatizationmonomerization
motorizationmultilateralizationmuseumization
musicalizationMuslimizationmutualization
mylonitizationmythicizationnarrativization
nativizationnicotinizationniggerization
nitrosationnodulizationnominalization
notarizationnuclearizationobtundation
oligarchizationoperationalizationopinionation
opsonizationorthogonalizationorthonormalization
OsirificationOttomanizationovalization
packetizationparabolizationparasitization
parfocalizationparoxytonizationpassivization
patriationpatternationpatternization
peasantizationpedestrianizationpemmicanization
peninsulationperceptualizationperipheralization
permeabilizationpetrolizationphonemicization
phoneticizationphysicalizationpictorialization
picturizationplasticationplasticization
poeticizationpoliticalizationpoliticization
polyploidizationporcelainizationpostalization
posterizationpragmatizationpremunization
prioritizationprisonizationprivatization
problematizationprofessionalizationproletarianization
prorationpseudonymizationpsychiatrization
publicizationquantizationquaternization
randomizationrasterizationreactivation
recontextualizationreflexivizationregionalization
relativizationreprioritizationresacralization
retribalizationrevirginizationrhematization
rhetoricizationrhotacizationrhythmicization
ritualizationroentgenizationRomanianization
romanticizationroutinizationrubberization
saccharizationsacralizationsanitization
Scandinavianizationschematizationscrutinization
sectionalizationsecuritizationsegmentalization
sensationalizationsignalizationsilanization
siliconizationsiltationsimulfixation
solubilizationsolvationsorbitization
Sovietizationspallationspermatization
spheroidizationspirantizationStalinization
stereoregulationstrepitationstructuration
structurizationstudentizationstylization
subcategorizationsubstantivizationSudanization
sufferationsummarizationsyllabization
symphonizationTaylorizationtechnicization
tetrazotizationthematizationthermalization
tolerizationtopicalizationtopologization
traditionalizationtranscendentalizationtransistorization
transnationtraumatizationtribalization
trypsinizationTurkicizationultracentrifugation
undercharacterizationunderdeterminationunder-utilization
updationupgradationvectorization
vegetablizationverticalizationVietnamization
vitaminizationvocationalizationweatherization
winterizationwomanization
(4) Others (N =2)
brumationnivation

Notes

1
An exception is the study by Kawaletz (2023), which provides a detailed semantic analysis of -ment nominalization. Kawaletz (2023) also retrieved -ment neologisms from OED (2023) but excluded non-deverbal nominals (p. 3), which this study argues raise an important question, as discussed in Section 3.
2
Following Bauer et al. (2013, p. 201), I use the form -ation as a citation form to cover all variants of the suffix such as -ation, -tion, and -ion. Bauer et al. (2013, p. 201) adopt this form because it “is common to all productive variants”.
3
Cognitive syntactic features F and purely semntaic features f are both semantic, but only F features can play a role in syntax and at Logical Form (Emonds 2000, p. 12). For example, they are used in subcategorization frames. They are also different from f features because they are limited in number.
4
It should be acknowledged that Grimshaw’s (1990) classification of deverbal nominals is challenged by Lieber’s (2016) examples from her corpus survey. For example, Grimshaw (1990) states that RNs but not CENs can be pluralized, as shown in (9), whereas Lieber (2016) points out that CENs can occur in the plural, as shown in (i).
(i)a.San Francisco Chronicle 1991: I think they will find (on average) that it will offset any increase they have seen in the adujustments of their (risk) characteristics”, Woocher said.
b.IBM Journal of Research & Development 1994: However, the cost of examining the alighments of both arrays and setting up the unrolling by eight adds extra overhead to the subroutine, which is significant for small n.
(cited from Lieber 2016, p. 52)
Similarly, whereas Grimshaw (1990) claims that deverbal converted nouns are RNs, Lieber (2016) observes that they can also have eventive readings like CENs and thus accept temporal modifiers, as shown in (ii).
(ii)NPR_Morning 2002: People are also talking about the frequenst arrest of Iowa college football players, and then there’s the debate over what image Iowa should use when its turn comes to put a log for the state on quarters that will circulate nationwide.
(cited from Lieber 2016, p. 41)
Importantly, Shimamura (2009), who observes similar examples from a corpus, points out that not all deverbal converted nouns can be used like CENs, as well as that the acceptability of CEN-like converted nouns varies among speakers (see also her cited studies: Borer 2003, p. 53, fn. 13; and Wechsler 2008, p. 502). Thus, Shimamura does not regard CEN-like converted nouns as outputs of a rule-governed process, arguing for Grimshaw’s (1990) original claim that converted nouns are RNs. It seems to me that Shimamura’s (2009) study suggests that studies based on native speakers’ intuition remain valid, even when they encounter apparent counter-examples from corpora (see Carstairs-McCarthy 2014, sct. 6 for related discussion). Thus, I accept Grimshaw’s (1990) claims about deverbal nominals, while acknowledging the need for future research to address how they can be integrated with the findings from corpus-based studies.
5
This does not contend that the lexical -ment resides in the Dictionary. Instead, -ment is a Syntacticon member as a functional item and always orinigates from the Syntacticon. When -ment undergoes Deep Insertion, it goes through the Dictionary, where it acquires the status of a lexical morpheme. This is a temporary change necessary for Deep Insertion. Thus, different levels of lexical insertion result in two different -ments syntactically, although the lexicon has only one -ment in the Syntacticon as an established lexical item.
6
One may think that tax in the compound taxman is not a verb but a noun. Actually, it can be unclear whether the first constituent in a compound is a verb or a noun when the verb and the noun are formally identical (i.e., they are related to each other through conversion), as pointed out in Lieber (2009, p. 361). What is important here is that tax, regardless of its category, cannot be an argument-taking element when combined with a lexical morpheme like man, although it can introduce its argument when combined with the suffix -er, as in a taxer of hidden assets (Roeper 1987, p. 268).
7
The profitability of -ment began declining in the 17th century (Anshen and Aronoff 1999; Lindsay and Aronoff 2013).
8
9
A similar procedure is adopted in Kawaletz (2023, sct. 3.1.1), which, in turn, refers to Plag (1999).
10
Figure 1 includes bashment2 but not bashment1 because bashment1 is recorded in Middle English (around 1400), which is not the target of this study.
11
Both groups include bashment2 because its base is the noun bash, which results from V-to-N conversion.
12
Given the optionality of the subcategorization frame of -ment in (18b), one may think that this type of -ment is all we need because it can attach to any category including verbs. However, the presence or absence of the (strict) subcategorization frame is important to differentiate between functional and lexical -ment. The subcategorization frame +<V__>, together with its own category N, ensures the category-changing function of -ment, namely taking a verb and changing it into a noun. This frame also groups together the suffixes that share this function as a deverbal-noun-forming type, which includes -al, -ance/-ence, -ation, -ment, -ing, and -ure.
13
Their exceptional derivational power may be attributed to their high productivity. A related issue is discussed in Section 4.
14
This problem may not arise within the frameworks with categorially neutral roots such as Distributed Morphology and the Exo-Skeletal Model by Borer (2003, 2013) (see also Sleeman 2023), where a root is syntactically categorized and the nouns in question can be formed directly from the relevant roots without attaching -ment to converted or zero-derived verbs or nouns. In particular, the Exo-Skeletal Model is free from zero morphemes and thus also free from any problems that they potentially cause. In the Bifurcated Lexical Model, however, each lexical item has its inherent category in the lexicon (both in the Dictionary and the Syntacticon) in the form of the specification in (3). This model, and similar approaches, will face the problem raised in this subsection. This study proposes the analysis developed here as one way to resolve it. I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for drawing my attention to this point.
15
I excluded stakement and reablement because these are technical terms in history and medicine. I also omitted soothment because its OED (2023) entry clearly indicates that it has the meaning of a relational nominal: ‘A soothing influence’.
16
Note again that -ment itself can serve as a functional morpheme for category changing, as shown in (22). The point here is that the functional -ment is not available to converted vebrs.
17
Verbal nouns are words with characteristics of nouns and verbs; for example, they can followed by case particles (e.g., enzyuku-o kanzi-ru (maturity-ACCUSATIVE feel-PRS) ‘feel maturity’) and can be used as verbs when accompanying su-ru (do-PRS) (e.g., enzyuku-su-ru (mature-do-PRS)) (see Tsujimura 2014, pp. 140–42).
18
19
Sugioka (2005b, p. 153) thus argues that “-mi selects a semantic entity as the base”, whereas “-sa selects a syntactic category of the base”.
20
I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this question.

References

  1. Adams, Valerie. 2001. Complex Words in English. Herlow: Longman. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou, Artemis. 2020. Event/result in morphology. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Morphology. Edited by Rochelle Lieber. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 456–70. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Hagit Borer, eds. 2020. Nominalization: 50 Years on from Chomsky’s Remarks. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Jane Grimshaw. 2008. Verbs, nouns and affixation. SinSpeC 1: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Monika Rathert, eds. 2010. The Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  6. Anshen, Frank, and Mark Aronoff. 1999. Using dictionaries to study the mental lexicon. Brain and Language 68: 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bauer, Laurie. 2023. The birth and death of affixes and other morphological processes in English derivation. Languages 8: 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber, and Ingo Plag. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bloch-Trojnar, Maria. 2013. Deverbal nominalizations in English: An LMBM approach. In The Semantics of Word Formation and Lexicalization. Edited by Pius ten Hacken and Claire Thomas. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 180–202. [Google Scholar]
  12. Borer, Hagit. 2003. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory. Edited by John Moore and Maria Polinsky. Standord: CSLI Publications, pp. 31–67. [Google Scholar]
  13. Borer, Hagit. 2013. Structuring Sense Volume III: Taking Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 2014. Laurie Bauer, Rochelle Lieber and Ingo Plag: “The Oxford reference guide to English morphology”. Morphology 24: 125–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Edited by Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum. Waltham: Ginn, pp. 184–221. [Google Scholar]
  16. Corver, Norbert, and Henk van Riemsdijk, eds. 2001a. Semi-Lexical Categories: The Function of Content Words and the Content of Function Words. Berlin: Mouten de Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  17. Corver, Norbert, and Henk van Riemsdijk. 2001b. Semi-lexical categories. In Semi-Lexical Categories: The Function of Content Words and the Content of Function Words. Berlin: Mouten de Gruyter, pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  18. Creemers, Ava, Jan Don, and Paula Fenger. 2018. Some affixes are roots, others are heads. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36: 45–84. [Google Scholar]
  19. De Belder, Marijke. 2011. Roots and Affixes, Eliminating Lexical Categories from Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherland. [Google Scholar]
  20. Dixon, R. M. W. 2014. Making New Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. Emonds, Joseph E. 2000. Lexicon and Grammar: The English Syntacticon. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  22. Emonds, Joseph E. 2001. The flat structure economy of semi-lexical heads. In Semi-Lexical Categories: The Function of Content Words and the Content of Function Words. Edited by Norbert Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouten de Gruyter, pp. 23–66. [Google Scholar]
  23. Fernández-Domínguez, Jesús. 2009. Productivity in English Word-Formation: An Approach to N+N Compounding. Bern: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]
  24. Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Harley, Heidi. 2009. The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization. Edited by Anastasia Giannakidou and Monika Rathert. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 321–43. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hasegawa, Yoko. 2015. Japanese: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ito, Takane, and Yoko Sugioka. 2002. Go No Shikumi to Gokeisei (Structure of Words and Word Formation). Tokyo: Kenkyusha. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kageyama, Taro. 1982. Word formation in Japanese. Lingua 57: 215–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kawaletz, Lea. 2023. The Semantics of English -ment Nominalizations. Berlin: Language Science Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kotowski, Sven. 2021. The semantics of English out-prefixation: A corpus-based investigation. English Language and Linguistics 25: 61–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lieber, Rochelle. 2009. IE, Germanic: English. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Edited by Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 357–69. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lieber, Rochelle. 2016. English Nouns: The Ecology of Nominalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lindsay, Mark, and Mark Aronoff. 2013. Natural selection in self-organizing morphological systems. In Selected Proceedings of the 7th Decembrettes. Munchen: Lincom Europa, pp. 133–53. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lowenstamm, Jean. 2015. Derivational affixes as roots. In The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax. Edited by Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer and Florian Shäfer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 230–59. [Google Scholar]
  35. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium: Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4. Edited by Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark and Alexander Williams. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, pp. 201–25. [Google Scholar]
  36. Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, 2nd ed. Munich: Beck. [Google Scholar]
  37. Marvin, Tatjana. 2003. Topics in the Stress and Syntax of Words. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA. [Google Scholar]
  38. Myers, Scott. 1984. Zero-derivation and inflection. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 7: Papers from the January 1984 MIT Workshop in Morphology. Edited by Margaret Speas and Richard Sproat. Cambridge: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, pp. 53–69. [Google Scholar]
  39. Nagano, Akiko. 2008. Conversion and Back-Formation in English: Toward a Theory of Morpheme-Based Morphology. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nagano, Akiko. 2011a. Relationship between prefixation, suffixation, and compounding. In Kotoba no Jijitsu o Mitsumete: Gengo Kenkyu no Riron to Jissen (Facing the Facts of Language: Theory and Practice of Linguistic Research). Edited by Kyoko Sato, Hisako Ikawa, Yoshie Suzuki, Takako Furuya, Akemi Matsuya, Haruko Miyakoda and Morita Yoshiko. Tokyo: Kaitakusha, pp. 90–100. [Google Scholar]
  41. Nagano, Akiko. 2011b. The right-handedness of morphology and the status and development of category-determining prefixes in English. English Language and Linguistics 15: 61–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nagano, Akiko, and Masaharu Shimada. 2014. Morphological theory and orthography: Kanji as a representation of lexemes. Journal of Linguistics 50: 323–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Naya, Ryohei. 2018. A Study on Semi-Lexical Categories in Word-Formation in English and Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nishiyama, Kunio, and Akiko Nagano. 2020. Keitairon to Rekishikon (Morphology and the Lexicon). Tokyo: Kaitakusha. [Google Scholar]
  45. OED. 2023. Oxford English Dictionary, the 2023. Available online: https://www.oed.com/ (accessed on 15 December 2023).
  46. Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  47. Rathert, Monika, and Artemis Alexiadou, eds. 2010. The Semantics of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  48. Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head-compliment relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 267–310. [Google Scholar]
  49. Shimamura, Reiko. 2009. Eigo no meishika ni okeru fukuzatsu jishomeishi to kekkameishi ni tsuite (On complex event nominals and result nominals in English nominalization). Tsudajuku Daigaku Kiyo 41: 97–134. [Google Scholar]
  50. Shimamura, Reiko. 2011. Eigo no doshiyuraimeishi o michibiku setsubiji ni tsuite (On the Suffixes Deriving Deverbal nouns in English). In Kotoba no Jijitsu o Mitsumete: Gengo Kenkyu no Riron to Jissen (Facing the Facts of Language: Theory and Practice of Linguistic Research). Edited by Kyoko Sato, Hisako Ikawa, Yoshie Suzuki, Takako Furuya, Akemi Matsuya, Haruko Miyakoda and Morita Yoshiko. Tokyo: Kaitakusha, pp. 79–89. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sleeman, Petra. 2023. Zero-suffixes and their alternatives: A view from French. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 42: 63–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of Phrasal Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA. [Google Scholar]
  53. Sugioka, Yoko. 2005a. Meishika setsuji no kino to imi (The function and meaning of nominal suffixes). In Gendai Keitairon no Choryu (Trends in Modern Morphology). Edited by Tsuyoshi Oishi, Tetsuo Nishihara and Yoji Toyoshima. Tokyo: Kurosio, pp. 75–94. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sugioka, Yoko. 2005b. Multiple mechanisms underlying morphological productivity. In Polymorphous Linguistics: Jim McCawley’s Legacy. Edited by Salikoko S. Mufwene, Elaine J. Francis and Rebecca S. Wheeler. Cambridge: MIT, pp. 203–23. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sugioka, Yoko. 2011. Nominalization affixes and multi-modularity of word formation. In Pragmatics and Autolexical Grammar: In Honor of Jerry Sadock. Edited by Etsuyo Yuasa, Tista Bagchi and Katharine Beals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 143–62. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sugioka, Yoko. 2019. Gokeisei no seisansei to shin-nai jisho (The productivity of morphology and the mental lexcion). In Yoku Wakaru Gengogaku (Understandable Linguistics). Edited by Haruo Kubozono. Kyoto: Mineruva, pp. 50–51. [Google Scholar]
  57. Togano, Yuri. 2022. On a new type of out-prefixed verbs in English. JELS 39: 99–105. [Google Scholar]
  58. Togano, Yuri. 2024. A word-based approach to the so-called category-changing usage of the English derivational prefix out-. Languages 9: 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2014. An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics, 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  60. Wechsler, Steven. 2008. A diachronic account of English deverbal nominals. WCCFL 26: 498–506. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Classification of -ment nouns recorded after 1900.
Figure 1. Classification of -ment nouns recorded after 1900.
Languages 09 00283 g001
Table 1. Base categories of new -ment nouns.
Table 1. Base categories of new -ment nouns.
Base CategoryNumberApprox. PercentageExamples
Adjective00%
Noun311%centerment, memberment, bashment2
Verb2489%bemusement, centrement, befuddlement, etc.
Total27100%
Table 2. Examples of -ment nouns combined with a converted word.
Table 2. Examples of -ment nouns combined with a converted word.
Conversion      -ment Suffixation
centreN (c1392)> centreV (1555)> centrement (1975)
munitionN (1448)> munitionV (1579)> munitioment (1915)
tamponN (1848)> tamponV (1860)> tamponment (c1904)
motherN (OE)> motherV (a1425)> motherment (1914)
stakeN (OE)> stakeV (c1330)> stakement (1904)
bash2V (1790)> bashN (1805)> bashment2 (1996)
Table 3. Classification of -ation nouns recorded after 1900.
Table 3. Classification of -ation nouns recorded after 1900.
Base CategoryNumberApprox. PercentageExample
Adjective215%aureation, apparentation, chelation, defectivation, metrication, etc.
Noun6815.6%antennation, gelation, methanation, protonation, styrenation, titanation, etc.
Verb34479%anonymization, desalination, encryption, margination, obtundation, peninsulation, etc.
Others20.4%brumation, nivation
Total435100%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Naya, R. New Words with -ment in Present-Day English: Their Properties and the Distinction between Functional and Lexical Categories. Languages 2024, 9, 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9090283

AMA Style

Naya R. New Words with -ment in Present-Day English: Their Properties and the Distinction between Functional and Lexical Categories. Languages. 2024; 9(9):283. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9090283

Chicago/Turabian Style

Naya, Ryohei. 2024. "New Words with -ment in Present-Day English: Their Properties and the Distinction between Functional and Lexical Categories" Languages 9, no. 9: 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9090283

APA Style

Naya, R. (2024). New Words with -ment in Present-Day English: Their Properties and the Distinction between Functional and Lexical Categories. Languages, 9(9), 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9090283

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop