Article published In:
Languages in Contrast: Online-First Articles

A contrastive analysis of (-)ish in English and Swedish blogs

 | University of Gothenburg, Sweden
The aim is to investigate whether (-)ish is employed in the same structures and functions in English and Swedish blog data and to describe the adaptations and changes resulting from borrowing. (-)ish is exceptional because it looks like a suffix but can be taken out of its original context with adjectives and nouns and used as a clitic or an independent word. Based on samples from the two languages it is shown that there are quantitative differences with respect to the uses of (-)ish with different base forms and as a freestanding sentence-final item in the two data sets. The qualitative findings reveal that (-)ish has been borrowed in Swedish as a suffix, a clitic, as a qualifier with hedging function and as a sentence-final pragmatic marker. The change in the position of (-)ish is influenced by the existence of a domestic variant typ (‘sort of’, ‘kind of’) which can be placed more freely in the sentence than the English (-)ish.
Keywords: (-)ish , contrastive corpora, blogs, borrowing, English/Swedish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous work
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.The frequency of (-)ish with different base forms and as a qualifier in English and Swedish comparative blog corpora
    • 4.1(-)ish in combination with adjectives
    • 4.2(-)ish in combination with adverbs
    • 4.3(-)ish in combination with numeral bases and time expressions
    • 4.4(-)ish in combination with nominal base forms
      • 4.4.1 (-)ish in combination with common nouns
      • 4.4.2 (-)ish in combination with compound nouns
      • 4.4.3 (-)ish as a qualifier of nouns
      • 4.4.4 (-)ish in combination with proper nouns as bases
    • 4.5(-)ish in combination with phrases
    • 4.6(-)ish in combination with quantifiers
    • 4.7(-)ish in combination with prefixes and pronouns
    • 4.8Summing up
  • 5.Changes and adaptations taking place after the borrowing of (-)ish
    • 5.1(-)ish in combinations with verbs
    • 5.2The clause-final (-)ish
    • 5.3(-)ish and ‘typ’
    • 5.4Position of (-)ish in relation to the base form
    • 5.5Co-occurrent combinations of typ and (-)ish
  • 6.Summary and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 14 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00040.aij
References (31)
References
Andersen, G. 2020. Three Cases of Phraseological Borrowing: A Comparative Study of As If, Oh Wait and the Ever Construction in the Scandinavian languages. Ampersand 71:1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. What Governs Speakers’ Choices of Borrowed vs. Domestic Variants of Discourse-Pragmatic Variables? In Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change in English. New Methods and Insights, E. Peterson, T. Hiltunen and J. Kern (eds), 251–271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beeching, K. 2018. Metacommenting in English and French. A Variational Pragmatics Approach. In Positioning the Self and Others. Linguistic Perspectives, K. Beeching, C. Ghezzi and P. Molinelli (eds), 127–153. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bochnak, M. R. and Csipak, E. 2014. A New Metalinguistic Degree Morpheme. Proceedings of SALT 241: 432–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borin, L., Forsberg, M. and Roxendal, J. 2012. Korp-the Corpus Infrastructure of Språkbanken. In Proceedings of LREC 2012, 474–478 Istanbul, Turkey: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Eitelmann, M., Haugland, K. and Haumann, D. 2020. From Engl-isc to Whatever-ish: A Corpus-Based Investigation of –ish Derivation in the History of English. English Language and Linguistics 24(4): 801–831. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eitelmann, M. and Haumann, D. 2022. Extravagance in Morphology. In Extravagant Morphology. Studies in Rule-Bending, Pattern-Extending and Theory-Challenging Morphology, M. Eitelmann and D. Haumann (eds), 1–18. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B. 2010. Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging. In New Approaches to Hedging, G. Kaltenböck, W. Mihatsch and S. Schneider (eds), 15–34. United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fung, L. and Carter, R. D. 2007. Discourse Markers and Spoken English: Native and Learner Use in Pedagogic Settings. Applied Linguistics 28(3): 410–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, T. 2020. -ish/Ish: Aspects of a Suffix Turned Free Morpheme. Inaugural Dissertation, Universität Mannheim.
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T. and Long, H. 2021. The Rise of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heyd, T. 2017. Chapter 6. Blogs. In Pragmatics of Social Media, Hoffmann, T. and Bublitz, W. (eds), 151–172. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. 2020. Construction Grammar and Creativity: Evolution, Psychology, and Cognitive Science. Cognitive Semiotics 13(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Josephson, O. 2018. ”Ish” är typ samma som ”typ” fast tvärtom, ish. Svenska Dagbladet 20 November 2018.Google Scholar
Kehoe, A. and Gee, M. 2012. Reader Comments as an Aboutness Indicator in Online Texts: Introducing the Birmingham Blog Corpus. In Aspects of Corpus Linguistics: Compilation, Annotation, Analysis. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, S. Oksefjell Ebeling, J. Ebeling and H. Hasselgård (eds), 272–292. Volume 121. Helsinki: Varieng.Google Scholar
Kuzmack, S. 2007. Ish: How a Suffix Became a Word. Ms, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Lutzky, U. and Gee, M. 2018. ‘I Just Found Your Blog’. The Pragmatics of Initiating Comments on Blog Posts. Journal of Pragmatics 1291: 173–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nilssen, S. and Kinn, T. 2017. A Chameleon Abroad: English -ish and ish Used in Norwegian. Maal og minne 21: 123–143.Google Scholar
Norde, M. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. The Multilingual Constructicon. “Ish” in Dutch, Swedish and Norwegian. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Available at [URL] [last accessed 14 December 2023].
OED = Oxford English Dictionary. Available at http://www.oed.com/ [last accessed 14 December, 2023].
Oltra-Massuet, I. 2017. Towards a Morphosyntactic Analysis of -ish . Word Structure 10(19): 54–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, E., Hiltunen, T. and Vaatovaara, J. 2022. A Place for Pliis in Finnish. A Discourse- Pragmatic Variation Account of Position. In Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change:Theory, Innovations, Contact, E. Peterson, T. Hiltunen and J. Kern (eds), 272–292. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierce, M. 2014. The Further Degrammaticalization of -ish . American Speech 89(1): 115–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. More on -ish . American Speech 89(1): 115–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenkvist, H. and Skärlund, L. 2013. Grammaticalization in the Present. The Changes of Modern Swedish Typ . In Synchrony and Diachrony. A Dynamic Interface, A. Giacalone Ramat, C. Mauri and P. Molinelli (eds), 313–337. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
SAOB. 1981. Ordbok över Svenska språket utgiven av Svenska Akademien. Lund: AB Gleerupska universitetsbokhandeln.Google Scholar
Stange, U. 2020. ‘Holding Grudges is So Last Century’: The Use of GenX So as a Modifier of Noun Phrases. Journal of English Linguistics, 48(2): 107–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sugawara, A. 2012. Semantics of English Suffix (-)ish . Paper presented at the conference of the Chicago Linguistic Society 48, Chicago, 19–21 April 2012.
Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar