36.3638, Reviews: Transitional Morphology: Elisa Mattiello (2025)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-36-3638. Wed Nov 26 2025. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 36.3638, Reviews: Transitional Morphology: Elisa Mattiello (2025)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Valeriia Vyshnevetska
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Mara Baccaro, Daniel Swanson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Helen Aristar-Dry <hdry at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 25-Nov-2025
From: Chloé Debouzie [cdebouzie at gmail.com]
Subject: Elisa Mattiello (2025)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/36-2502

Title: Transitional Morphology
Subtitle: Combining Forms in Modern English
Series Title: Studies in English Language
Publication Year: 2025

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
           http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics
Book URL:
https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/subjects/languages-linguistics/morphology/transitional-morphology-combining-forms-modern-english?format=PB&isbn=9781009168298

Author(s): Elisa Mattiello

Reviewer: Chloé Debouzie

SUMMARY
Mattiello’s Transitional Morphology monograph investigates combining
forms (CFs) in present-day English, which she categorises into
neoclassical CFs, abbreviated CFs, and secreted CFs. Through this
categorisation, Mattiello explores the notion of transitional
morphology, which blurs the boundaries of traditional morphology by
straddling two main word-formation processes (i.e., compounding and
derivation by affixation). The 211-page volume is divided into eight
chapters, followed by a full list of the CFs in the appendix (pp.
212–226), a list of references, and an index of topics.
In the introductory chapter, Mattiello defines CFs as “initial or
final bound morphemes” and justifies her categorisation into three
types: (i) neoclassical CFs, which are “allomorphic variants of
classical Latin or Greek words” (e.g., ‘geo-graphy’, ‘zoo-logy’), (ii)
abbreviated CFs, which are shortenings of English words with no change
in meaning (e.g., ‘e-reader’, ‘econo-politics’), and (iii) secreted
CFs, also shortenings of English words, but with a reinterpretation of
meaning (through abstraction, generalisation, widening or
specification), e.g., ‘computer-holic’, ‘oil-gate’. Chapters 4 to 6
present each type of CF in turn, while Chapter 7 introduces blend
splinters, also called potential CFs or “CFs ‘in the making’”. These
are either abbreviated or secreted CFs that are not yet listed in the
OED (e.g., ‘docudrama’, ‘workcation’).
Mattiello considers all CFs as part of “transitional morphology”,
which she defines as an “intermediate between (…) compounding and
derivation” (p. 3); thereby refuting categorisations such as
“marginal” or “extra-grammatical” morphology. Mattiello argues that
CFs are grammatical, predictable, and productive (as in available and
profitable) in present-day English. The book’s main objective is to
“provide a theoretical model for CFs in English” and distinguish them
clearly from other morphological processes such as abbreviation,
blending, compounding, and derivation (p. 5). To achieve this, she
poses four research questions in her introduction (p. 5):
“1.  Are CFs a necessary and independent morphological category and,
if so, what is their locus (a) in modern English word-formation theory
in general and (b) in relation to derivation and compounding in
particular?
2.  Are CFs a heterogeneous group of elements, or do they rather
belong to different subtypes with their own specific features,
frequencies, and productivity?
3.  What is the profitability of CFs in modern English? Are they
enriching the lexicon with new established words, with nonce words, or
both?
4.  Are there novel splinters that are potential candidates for the
role of CFs?”
In Chapter 2, the literature review contrasts previous accounts of CFs
since Marchand (1969) and their various denominations, such as
“affixoids” (Amiot & Dugas 2021), “affixlike morphemes” (Warren 1990),
“secreted affixes” (Fradin 2000), “splinters” (Lehrer 1998, 2007;
Bauer et al. 2013; Bauer 2017; Amiot & Dugas 2021). She justifies why
she rejects these appellations and instead argues for categorising CFs
into three types: neoclassical, abbreviated, and secreted. She then
presents her theoretical framework, i.e., transitional morphology,
which she grounds within the contexts of natural morphology (Dressler
et al. 1987; Dressler 2000) and paradigmatic morphology (Štekauer
2014; Hathout & Namer 2019). Transitional morphology includes the
notions of dynamism (i.e., diachronic evolution), non-prototypicality,
dualism and superposition (which is analogous to the various
superposition states in quantum physics, see Mattiello & Dressler
2022). CFs belong to transitional morphology: they are neither
prototypical compound constituents nor derivational affixes, but they
contain characteristics of both, and can sometimes be in a state of
superposition. Transitional phenomena such as CFs straddle the typical
dichotomy between compounding and derivation: neoclassical CFs are
“more compound-like”, yet represent non-prototypical compounding. In
contrast, abbreviated and secreted CFs are more “more derivation-like”
and constitute instances of non-prototypical derivation (p. 53). For
instance, a CF attached to a (simplex or complex) lexeme as a base is
more akin to an affix, while two CFs combined together resemble a
compound, and a CF attached to a word-part is closer to a blend.
Therefore, CFs should be interpreted differently according to the
element to which they are attached (p. 57).
Chapter 2 concludes with a summary of the three types of CFs,
categorised by their origin, usage, position (initial or final), types
and processes involved. Neoclassical CFs originate from ancient Greek
or Latin lexemes, of which they retain a high lexical density (e.g.,
astro-, meaning ‘star’; neuro-, meaning ‘relating to nerves’; -logy,
meaning ‘science’). They are mainly used in specialised or technical
fields such as medicine, biology, new media, and technologies. They
are the only CFs that can appear in both initial and final position
(e.g., ‘morphology’ and ‘anthropomorph’). In contrast, abbreviated and
secreted CFs originate from native and non-native English words, they
are typically formed by fore- or back-clipping, and they are found
exclusively in either initial or final position. The key difference
between abbreviated and secreted CFs is their semantic content:
abbreviated CFs retain the full meaning of the original source lexeme,
whereas secreted CFs undergo a secretion process, whereby their
meaning becomes either narrower and more specific (e.g., agit- from
‘agitation’ and alterna- from ‘alternative’ which are both mostly used
with music terms such as ‘agit-funk’, ‘agit-rock’, ‘alterna-metal’,
‘alterna-jazz’), or wider and more general (e.g., -rific from
‘terrific’ meaning ‘embodying the qualities denoted or implied by the
first element in an excellent way or to an extreme degree’, as in
‘Twitterific’, swaggerific’, or -gate, from the Watergate scandal,
which is now used to refer to any type of scandal, and has broadened
its use to non-political scandals, as in ‘wine-gate’, ‘oilgate’).
Chapter 3 presents the dataset and methodology. The neoclassical,
abbreviated, and secreted CFs studied in Chapters 4, 5 and 6,
respectively, were all collected from the Oxford English Dictionary
(OED) and first attested after 1950 (totalling 70 CFs, to which two
were manually added). The thirteen splinters, or CFs ‘in the making’,
presented in Chapter 7 were manually selected from literature on novel
blends. Next, the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and
the News on the Web (NOW) corpus were queried to compile a list of all
the words comprising the CFs under study. Mattiello then conducted
several quantitative, corpus-based analyses to calculate the CF’s
morphological productivity in three ways: (i) their type frequency in
COCA and NOW to quantify their profitability (or realised
productivity), (ii) the type/token ratio to estimate lexical variety,
and (iii) the hapax legomena/token ratio to estimate expanding
productivity. Finally, the Google Books Corpus (GBC) was used for a
diachronic comparison of frequencies from 1950 to 2020.
Chapters 4 to 7 present each type of CF in turn, providing lists of
lexemes attested in the COCA and NOW that comprise these CFs. These
are followed by comparisons of the different productivity measures and
the diachronic evolution of some selected lexemes in the GBC.
Finally, Chapter 8 concludes the volume by summarising the theoretical
framework and highlighting the transitional nature of lexemes formed
with CFs. These lexemes are neither prototypical compounds nor
prototypical derived outputs, but rather “peripheral representatives
of both subcomponents” (p. 204). Mattiello concludes that “CFs cover a
broad spectrum of word-formation processes”: compounding (neoclassical
CFs), clipping (abbreviated CFs), semantic reinterpretation or
abstraction typical of affixation (secreted CFs), blending (CFs ‘in
the making’). As they create lexemes on a continuum ranging from
compound-like to affix-like, CFs are representatives of transitional
morphology. Furthermore, CFs exemplify paradigmatic morphology by
creating series of words formed by analogy (e.g., Reaganomics,
Clintonomics, Putinomics, Coronavirunomics and pandenomics).
EVALUATION
Overall, the book successfully provides a comprehensive and
interesting overview of the various types of present-day English
combining forms. Mattiello’s research makes a valuable contribution to
the study of CFs within the transitional morphology framework.
Moreover, the empirical data from large corpora provides additional
examples of each type of CF identified in her theoretical modelling.
Mattiello achieves her initial goal to define and position a variety
of English CFs within the traditional categories of word-formation
processes, such as compounding and derivation, as well as with the
less common ones such as blending and abbreviations (p. 5). Her work
offers a clear categorisation of CFs into three distinct types.
The literature review at the beginning of Chapter 2 provides a
comprehensive overview of the various analyses of CFs conducted over
the past 60 years. Organised chronologically and thematically, the
review illustrates the evolution of understanding and analysis of CFs
since the 1960s. Mattiello builds upon these works, demonstrating the
ways in which she agrees with and differs from these pre-existing
accounts. This is followed by a clear exposition of her theoretical
framework, which offers precise definitions of key concepts (e.g.,
extra-grammatical vs. marginal vs extravagant vs transitional
morphology, surface analogy vs. analogy via schema vs. reanalysis).
The chapter then explores the notion of transitional morphology in
depth, as well as the transitional phenomena associated with it (i.e.,
CFs). Finally, the author provides a useful table and Venn diagram (p.
52) summarising the fifteen properties used to compare CFs with
affixes, affixoids, and compound constituents. This fulfils the
author’s goal of identifying the main characteristics that CFs share
with affixes and compound constituents (p. 53). Overall, the chapter
provides clear and specific definitions enriched with examples,
concluding with a summary and final categorisation of CFs using three
criteria (origin, process, and position) (Table 2.2 p. 64). Mattiello
thus provides interesting and satisfying answers to her first two
research questions, which forms the theoretical basis for the rest of
her study.
Mattiello’s categorisation of the different CFs into three types
(neoclassical, abbreviated, and secreted) is clearly explained and
well justified. Neoclassical CFs are defined by their origin (ancient
Greek or Latin), in line with previous accounts. However, this
criterion may seem arbitrary: borrowings from other languages such as
Danish (or Norwegian) ‘atten’, meaning ‘eighteen’, as in
‘atto-second’, and Danish ‘femto’, meaning ‘fifteen’, as in
‘femto-second’, are categorised as abbreviated CFs despite being
similar to neoclassical CFs in terms of their usage and domains
(compare with ‘nano-second’, ‘tera-second’, ‘zeptosecond’).
Moreover, the main criterion for distinguishing between abbreviated
and secreted CFs is their meaning. Abbreviated CFs retain the full
meaning of their source word, whereas secreted CFs undergo semantic
differentiation (such as generalisation, specification, or
abstraction). Mattiello acknowledges that CFs may start as
abbreviations and later undergo semantic differentiation. For
instance, ‘petro-’ is analysed as an abbreviated CF when it means
‘petroleum’ but is reanalysed as a secreted CF when it takes on the
later meaning ‘revenue, esp. foreign exchange, that derives from
petroleum exports’. Similarly, ‘-bot’ is categorised as an abbreviated
CF when first used to mean ‘robot’ but is reanalysed as a secreted CF
when it is later used to mean ‘a type of automated program or
(internet) software, especially one which searches out information’.
These instances imply a diachronic constraint on categorisation, as
other abbreviated CFs could undergo semantic change and become
secreted CFs. The distinction between abbreviated and secreted CFs
appears to be only synchronically relevant at the time of the study.
While the semantic distinction between abbreviated and secreted CFs is
relevant, this criterion is limited by its time constraint and
synchronic use, which may not be applicable in the longer term.
Following the theoretical chapter, Chapter 3 outlines the methodology
employed for the empirical study in clear detail. The author justifies
her methodological choices regarding the list of CFs studied (i.e.,
CFs listed in the OED and attested after 1950), the corpora selected
(i.e., COCA and NOW which were chosen for their large amount of
up-to-date present-day data and their variety of genres) and the
different productivity measures used (i.e., realised, expanding and
potential).
Chapters 4 to 7 all have the same structure and therefore show similar
advantages and limitations. On the positive side, these chapters
provide a well-researched list of CFs, distinctly categorising each
type. Each CF is precisely dated, defined, and illustrated with
examples. Where necessary, Mattiello details its evolution in meaning
and usage. For each CF, all the lexemes attested in the two corpora
are listed with their raw and normalised frequencies. These lists
range from one or two lexemes, as with ‘polydeoxy-’ or ‘seco-’ (p.
87), to several hundred items in lists spanning several pages, as with
‘nano-’ (746 different lexemes all listed from pages 82 to 86), or
‘cyber-’ (666 lexemes listed from pages 108 to 112). However, I doubt
that anyone will read these lengthy lists and I believe that such long
lists would be better placed in the appendix at the end of the volume.
While it would be easy to search for a specific item in an electronic
version of the book, this is more difficult in print, especially as
the lexemes are first ordered by their frequencies. After each list of
lexemes, the author provides one quote from COCA or NOW for one
(randomly selected) lexeme, regardless of the number of words listed.
In the second part of these chapters, Tables 4.1, 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1
indicate the various productivity measures for the CFs in COCA and
NOW. These tables are followed by bar graphs representing the same
data. For instance, Figures 4.1, 5.1 and 6.1 illustrate the type
frequencies in COCA and NOW already indicated in the tables. The
information in these bar graphs is identical to that in the tables; it
is simply presented in a different format, which can seem redundant.
Moreover, the different productivity measures produce widely different
results. For example, the “type frequency” measure for neoclassical
CFs shows the high productivity of ‘nano-’ compared to the other CFs
listed (Table 4.1, p. 95), whereas the “hapax legomena/token ratio” in
COCA and NOW (Table 4.3 p. 96) shows a significant increase for
‘seco-’, because it only occurs once in NOW. Consequently, these
different productivity measures do not seem pertinent for CFs with a
very low number of types or occurrences.
The third subsections of Chapters 4 to 7 focus on the diachronic
analyses of CFs using the Google Books Ngram Viewer. In these
sections, Mattiello compares two or three lexemes formed with the same
CF (for example, “exabyte” vs. “exajoule” in Figure 4.4 on page 98).
These subsections (4.3, 5.3, 6.3 and 7.3) held little interest for me,
as I found these diachronic analyses problematic for two reasons.
Firstly, Mattiello merely describes what can be observed in the
figures, as illustrated by the following quotes: “we can notice an
increase in the frequency curve of the former, especially until 2000,
and a decrease in the latter, with a lexical stabilisation from 1997
onwards (p. 98), and “the curve of the noun econometrics shows a slow
and regular change between 1957 and 2019, whereas the adjective
econometric alternates a rather sharp increase (1960–1980) with a more
gradual decrease until 2019” (p. 137). I found the mere descriptions
of figures 4.4–4.19, 5.4–5.27, 6.4–6.28, and 7.1–7.2 unnecessary,
especially as they are not followed by any other information or
analysis. Secondly, there is no justification for such comparisons.
Why should we expect the diachronic evolution of different terms
formed with the same CF to be comparable? Should we be surprised that
one term is more frequent than another without considering the
pragmatic reasons or historical or technological contexts that might
explain why one term is used more frequently at certain points in
time? I saw no reason to compare the lexemes “fanzine”, “Spanglish”,
“staycation”, and “fruitarian” (Figure 7.2, p. 203) without any
mention of context, pragmatic issues, or onomasiological insight
(i.e., why a naming need might be more prevalent at a certain time).
Finally, the concluding chapter offers a useful summary of the
theoretical framework, clearly recapitulating the definitions of the
different types of CFs and their position alongside compound
constituents and derivational affixes. It also summarises the
corpus-based findings from Chapters 4 to 7, but one might regret that
it focuses mostly on the CFs studied and does not return to the notion
of transitional morphology, despite this being the title of the book.
This is an area that the author and others could explore further in
future research.
In conclusion, I believe that the book’s greatest strength lies in its
first half, particularly Chapter 2, which provides a compelling
theoretical framework for CFs and transitional morphology. However,
Chapters 4 to 7  mostly consist of long lists of lexemes, the same
data presented in both figures and tables, and mere descriptions of
frequency changes for randomly selected pairs of lexemes;
consequently, they are less interesting. Most of this content could
have been more appropriately placed in an appendix.
Although the volume is primarily intended for specialists in
morphology and word-formation, Mattiello makes her work accessible to
non-specialists, who also form the intended audience (pp. 7–8). She
explains terms and theoretical concepts in an accessible manner,
making the book quite instructive for anyone curious about neologisms.
REFERENCES
Amiot, Dany & Edwige Dugas. 2021. Combining forms and affixoids in
morphology. In R. Lieber (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Morphology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.569
Bauer, Laurie. 2017. Compounds and Compounding. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber & Ingo Plag. 2013. The Oxford Reference
Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2000. Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology.
In U. Doleschal & A. M. Thornton (eds), Extragrammatical and Marginal
Morphology. Munich: Lincom. 1–10.
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang U.
Wurzel. 1987. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fradin, Bernard. 2000. Combining forms, blends and related phenomena.
In U. Doleschal & A. M. Thornton (eds), Extragrammatical and Marginal
Morphology. Munich: Lincom. 11–59.
Hathout, Nabil & Fiammetta Namer. 2019. Paradigms in word formation:
what are we up to? Morphology 29(2). 153–165.
Lehrer, Adrienne. 1998. Scapes, Holics, and Thons: The Semantics of
English Combining Forms. American Speech 73. 3–28.
Lehrer, Adrienne. 2007. Blendalicious. In J. Munat (ed.), Lexical
Creativity, Texts and Contexts. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 115–133.
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English
Word-Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. 2nd ed. Munich:
Beck.
Mattiello, Elisa & Wolfgang U. Dressler. 2022. Dualism and
superposition in the analysis of English synthetic compounds ending in
-er. Linguistics 60(2). 395–461. DOI: 10.1515/ling-2021-0235
Štekauer, Pavol. 2014. Derivational paradigms. In R. Lieber & P.
Štekauer (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 354–369.
Warren, Beatrice. 1990. The importance of combining forms. In W. U.
Dressler, H. C. Luschützky, O. E. Pfeiffer, & J. R. Rennison (eds),
Contemporary Morphology. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 111–132.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Chloé Debouzie holds a PhD in Linguistics from Université Lumière Lyon
2, France. Her doctoral work investigates morphological competition in
the formation of new verbs in present-day English. Her research
interests include derivational morphology, semantics, onomasiological
approaches, morphological competition, contrastive studies
(French–English), sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics. She has
taught widely across linguistics, applied linguistics, TESOL,
translation, and French as a foreign language.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List, a U.S. 501(c)(3) not for profit organization:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Brill https://www.degruyterbrill.com/?changeLang=en

Edinburgh University Press http://www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Peter Lang AG http://www.peterlang.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-36-3638
----------------------------------------------------------