LACUS
FORUM
XXIV
© 2009 The Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States (lacus).
The content of this article is from lacus Forum 24 (published 1998). This article and
others from this volume may be found on the Internet at http://www.lacus.org/volumes/24.
YOUR RIGHTS
This electronic copy is provided free of charge with no implied warranty. It is made available
to you under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license
version 3.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/)
Under this license you are free:
•
•
to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to Remix — to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
•
•
Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author
or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the
work).
Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
With the understanding that:
•
•
Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the
copyright holder.
Other Rights — In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:
• Your fair dealing or fair use rights;
• The author's moral rights;
• Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is
used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
Notice: For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of
this work. The best way to do this is with a link to the web page cited above.
For inquiries concerning commercial use of this work, please visit
http://www.lacus.org/volumes/republication
Cover: The front cover of this document is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bynd/3.0/) and may not be altered in any fashion. The lacus “lakes” logo and York University
logo on the cover are trademarks of lacus and York University respectively. The York
University logo is used here with permission from the trademark holder. No license for use
of these trademarks outside of redistribution of this exact file is granted. These trademarks
may not be included in any adaptation of this work.
A TOUGHISH PROBLEM: THE MEANING OF -ISH
Lori Morris
Concordia University
1. The Problem
Unfortunately little has been written about the English adjectival suffix -ish. The
few comments that are offered in standard grammars generally suggest that -ish
functions as an approximator whose meaning could be paraphrased by the words
somewhat, around, sort of, approaching, like and so forth1. This interpretation would
seem to be supported by the evidence offered by a tremendous number of -ish
adjectives, including the likes of bluish, dullish, outdoorish, Mark Twainish, boyish,
sweetish-sourish and thirtyish, in which an idea of approximation or attenuation is
uncontestably present. There are, however, other uses of -ish where it is rather
difficult to see the suffix as an approximator. Adjectives of nationality, such as
English, French, Swedish and Welsh, are a good case in point. Some -ish adjectives
with nominal word bases are also problematic. For instance, a stylish piece of clothing
is normally perceived to have style and not to be a garment which is merely verging
on having style. Similarly, a selfish person could not be defined a person who is a
likeness or an approximation of a self. In short, there are cases in which -ish produces
expressive effects which cannot be paraphrased in any of the ways listed in standard
grammars. This would suggest that -ish has not yet been adequately defined and that
a reassessment of the workings of the suffix is called for in order to arrive at a better
understanding of its grammatical and lexical roles.
Furthermore, since -ish has been inadequately investigated to date, its place in the
broader system of lexical suffixes has not been determined. For example, adjectival
-ly and -like can also be as approximators, but not in the same manner as -ish. This
investigation of -ish is a small part of a much broader on-going study of adjectival and
adverbials suffixes which has been undertaken in an attempt to investigate the
interaction of grammatical and lexical meaning during the genesis of the word.
2. A Brief History of -ish
The development of -ish (AS -isch) as an adjectival suffix is limited to the
Germanic languages. No other group seems to have adopted the suffix and expanded
its range of usage. It is worthy of note, however, that -ish is a cognate of the Greek
Quirk et al. 1534 provide a fairly typical analysis.
1
207
208
LACUS FORUM 24
iskoíV,
meaning “make like”, “think like”, “approaching”, “likeness”, an association
which would seem to reinforce the idea that -ish is fundamentally an expression of
approximation, likeness or nearness. In its earliest occurrences in English, the -ish
suffix was used to forge adjectives of nationality (e.g. English, Danish, Scottish). It
then came to be used with a limited range of noun bases evoking animate beings (e.g.
fiendish, foolish, wolfish). These forms were subsequently lexicalized (i.e. lost their
status as ad hoc formations), probably before the Middle English period given the
dearth of word bases of French origin in this category. The suffix next seems to have
undergone a metaphorical extension which allowed it to be appended to a very small
number of nominal bases with inanimate traits (e.g. bookish, stylish). Next -ish came
to be used with adjectival bases (e.g. greenish, tallish) and to function as an
approximator. It is at this stage that the productivity of the suffix increased markedly
as -ish was suffixed to a tremendously wide variety of adjectives, including many of
French origin. The range of -ish grew still further when its use was extended to bases
made up of proper nouns (e.g. Gibson-girlish hair), noun phrases (e.g. a
man-in-the-streetish sort of opinion), numbers (e.g. Come around sixish) and even
adverbials (e.g. He’s been feeling rather downish). Examples such as peckish and
snappish show that -ish can be found with verbal bases, but these forms are not recent
creations and there would seem to be little or no productivity today.
This very brief history of -ish reveals that the suffix shows stronger affinities to
certain types of word bases than others. While it is still highly productive when
appended to adjectives, noun phrases and proper nouns, its use in combination with
nominal bases is more restricted. If the expressive effect sought is one of
approximation, -ish can be used with a wide variety of bases on an ad hoc basis.
However, the suffix no longer seems to be producing adjectives which are
subsequently lexicalized in the same manner as early creations such as foolish and
fiendish. The reasons motivating the various affinities of -ish and its uneven
productivity merit a further comment; they ultimately hold the key to a better
understanding of the meaning and workings of the subject.
3. Nominal bases + -ish
It is not possible to make up an exhaustive list of the nominal bases that -ish can
be added to in an ad hoc manner. In fact, it is difficult to declare any particular base
a total mismatch for -ish in all possible situations. There are, however, certain traits
shared by those nominal bases which have lexicalized -ish adjectival forms. As the
following list reveals, they are generally monosyllabic words of Germanic origin:
foolish, freakish, ghoulish, sheepish, boorish, loutish, fiendish, childish, girlish,
boyish, roguish, devilish, wolfish, heathenish, dwarfish, bookish, stylish.
Another striking feature is that many of the nominal bases which readily take -ish
evoke animates, often animates which are human or vaguely human in nature. This
observation merits a few comments because, as will be seen, it is highly pertinent to
the argument that will be developed below. Animate nouns differ from inanimate
MORRIS/A TOUGHISH PROBLEM
209
nouns in the degree and type of definition that they require. While inanimate nouns
can be satisfactorily defined by means of a one-step procedure that simply contrasts
their lexical traits with all of the traits that they do not contain, thus setting them off
from their background space, animate nouns require a two-step definition. They must
be first distinguished from all entities of a different nature (background space) and
then from those things of a similar but opposed nature (Morris 1991). Very simply
put, animate nouns are more highly defined than inanimate nouns and could therefore
be considered to have a greater number of salient characteristics. As will be seen, the
presence of highly salient traits in the word base is crucial to -ish lexicalization.
Numerous writers have commented on the pejorative nuance that accompanies
many uses of animate nominal bases + -ish. The first remark to be made here is that
a number of the word bases themselves have a very negative connotation exclusive
of any addition of -ish. For instance fools, freaks, ghouls, sheep, boors, louts, fiends,
rogues, devils, heathens, dwarfs and wolves do not enjoy terribly good reputations.
This would suggest that -ish itself is not inherently pejorative. However, it remains
to be explained why -ish should append so readily to these bases but not easily form
adjectives such as ??friendish, ??heroish, ??lordish and so forth.
It could be argued that the negative characteristics of nominal bases such as fiend
and rogue have a higher degree of salience than the positive characteristics of bases
such as friend and lord. In a number of respects, the pejorative bases would seem to
behave like marked forms, containing features which characterize them to a higher
degree than their meliorative counterparts. Rather sadly, this argument can be
extended to woman and girl, which can also be viewed as “marked” forms,
particularly when used to qualify someone of the opposite sex. In contrast, man and
boy—the unmarked counterparts—are not as strongly negative when adjectivized
with -ish. This may be due in large part to psychological differences between the two
sexes. While most men and boys have a strong aversion to being attributed any female
characteristics, most women do not feel that same horror if the situation is reversed
(Sadker and Sadker 83-85).
Inanimate nominal bases, which have a lesser degree of definition and therefore
less salience, are rarely lexicalized with the -ish suffix. Book and style are two of the
rare exceptions to this very strong general tendency. While it is not easy to say why
either has come to be lexicalized with -ish, it could be argued that both show some
fairly salient features. Bookish, which is generally said of human beings, brings to
mind stereotypical qualities one tends to associate with books—i.e. dryness, dullness,
pedantry—and often has pejorative overtones. Stylish, on the other hand, even when
applied to a person, would be more accurately described as meliorative than pejorative
and could hardly be seen to convey any idea of notoriety. It does, however, evoke the
epitome of style and this perhaps constitutes its salience.
The evidence presented thus far suggests very strongly that the presence of salient
features in a nominal word base is a key factor in the creation of lexicalized -ish
adjectives. If -ish is viewed not as an approximator – which it is clearly not in all
situations – but instead as an abstractor of traits from its word base, its strong affinity
with animate nouns with a certain notoriety begins to make sense. Highly salient,
210
LACUS FORUM 24
stereotypical or marked traits are easily abstracted from a concept, while less salient
traits are not.
Further evidence for the -ish-as-an-abstractor argument can be produced. An
examination of the data reveals that the nominal bases that readily take -ish share yet
another feature. They are almost exclusively nouns that lend themselves to a count
rather than a mass interpretation. In fact, the nominal bases that are the hardest to
imagine with an -ish suffix are those which are almost always realized in discourse as
mass nouns, for example mud (??muddish), water (??waterish), grass (??grassish) and
so forth. These nominal bases are usually adjectivized by means of the -y suffix,
producing muddy, watery and grassy. Now, if the presence of highly salient,
stereotypical characteristics is necessary for -ish to be appended to a nominal base as
an abstractor, the incompatibility of -ish with mass nouns begins to make sense.
Salient features tend to be easier to perceive in an individual token than in a type
evoked globally.
Once a mass noun, verb or even a count noun which does not readily take -ish has
been adjectivized through the addition of another suffix, the appending of -ish is
greatly facilitated. For instance, muddish, playish and seasonish are quite difficult to
produce, whereas muddyish, playfulish, seasonalish pose no particular problems. In
other words, as the nominal characteristics of the word base are lost or masked and
adjectival characteristics come to the fore, the addition of -ish becomes increasingly
easy. The question which must now be answered is why this occurs. If -ish has a
single meaning and function, then there must be some sort of connection between
nominal bases with highly salient, stereotypical qualities and the great mass of
adjectives to which -ish can be appended. Clearly a study of adjectival bases taking
-ish is in order.
4. Adjectival bases + -ish
In terms of expressive effects, a study of adjectival bases + -ish would seem to
turn up the very opposite of what was found in the case of nominal bases. Adjectival
bases + -ish result almost unfailingly in a nuance of approximation or attenuation, in
a watering down of the quality represented by the adjective. The strongly pejorative
nuance found in many nominally-based -ish adjectives is lost. While someone foolish
is usually quite the fool and someone fiendish is quite the fiend, something yellowish
is tending towards yellow and someone youngish is only sort of young.
This difference in expressive effects is reinforced by a difference in syntactic
behaviour. While -ish adjectives with a nominal base take intensifiers quite readily,
(e.g. very sheepish, truly fiendish, pretty ghoulish etc.), adjectivally-based -ish
adjectives refuse most attempts at intensification (e.g. ??very oldish, ??truly tallish).
It would thus seem that nominally-based -ish adjectives tend towards a stereotypical,
exaggerating characterization while adjectivally-based -ish adjectives tend towards an
attenuating, diminishing characterization.
Further observation in the field of morphology confirms this tendency. If adjectival
MORRIS/A TOUGHISH PROBLEM
211
bases are treated to form comparatives and superlatives (e.g. colder, tallest) in which
the word base necessarily has its full lexical value, attenuated or approximative uses
of the adjective are impossible and -ish cannot be appended (e.g. *colderish,
*tallestish).
Lexical specialization in the adjectival base would seem to have a similar
incompatibility with -ish, but this is extremely difficult to determine with any degree
of certainty because most adjectives with a high degree of specification and a narrow
range of application are of Latin origin and/or have one or more suffixes already
added to them. It can nonetheless be observed that cold readily produces coldish, but
glacial does not give way very readily to *glacialish. Biggish is fine, but
*enormousish is strange indeed.
These observations raise the inevitable question: How could -ish play a single role
in the suffixation process and result in such opposing expressive effects in adjectives
with nominal and adjectival bases? The answer to this question can be found when
the nature of each type of base is examined. Nominal word bases comprise a complex
of lexical traits or features. In contrast, adjectival bases consist in a single lexical
quality. If -ish is indeed an abstractor, the contrasting expressive effects obtained from
nominal and adjectival bases can be explained. In the case of a nominal base,
abstraction can result in the most highly salient traits of the base being applied to
whatever the -ish adjective is to qualify. This would seem to be the case for the
lexicalized -ish adjective forms. If the base consists in a single quality, the act of
lexical abstraction results in a diminishing or attenuation of the quality, hence a
resulting effect of approximation, of something less than the original quality.
5. Proper nouns + -ish
The final type of word base to be examined is that constituted by proper nouns.
Proper nouns that take -ish are worthy of a separate study given that they share
certain features with common nouns that take -ish and other features with adjectives
to which -ish can be added.
Like many nominal bases that combine with -ish, proper nouns consist in a
number of lexically salient traits, some of which are applied to whatever is being
qualified. For example, a Wayne Gretzkyish move is one with some of the qualities
one would associate with Wayne Gretzky and a Mark Twainish tale is one
characterized by some of the same salient traits one would associate with Mark
Twain. In other words, -ish can be seen to have an abstracting function in both
common and proper nouns. It abstracts a number of salient characteristics from the
word base and applies them to whatever is being qualified.
Unlike -ish adjectives with common noun bases, those with proper noun bases
have a very high degree of productivity. In fact, proper noun + -ish adjectives rival
adjective + -ish adjectives in terms of the facility with which they can be formed. As
long as the entity named by the proper nouns is known to both the speaker and the
listener, the use of -ish would seem to be possible. There are, however, some proper
212
LACUS FORUM 24
noun bases to which -ish can be appended with more ease than others. These deserve
a closer examination. It would seem that the more well-known or notorious the
referent designated by the proper noun base, the easier it is to add -ish. In other
words, the higher the degree of salience of the comprehension (intention) of the
proper noun, the more natural the fit with -ish. A short series of place names, each
referring to a more precise location than the last provides a little insight into this
tendency:
Canada
Ontario
Toronto
Canadaish
Ontarioish
Torontoish
While there may be phonetic factors at work here which make the addition of -ish
seem more or less natural, it could be argued that the acceptability of the adjectives
increases as the salience or notoriety of the characteristics associated with each place
increases. Torontoish would be easier to produce than the -ish adjectives preceding
it because of the greater number of traits someone with a knowledge of the city can
associate with it. For all three of the examples given, speaker and listener familiarity
with the word bases and all that they connote is assumed.
Names of people can be arranged in a similar order of naturalness with -ish. The
better known or the more notorious the individual, the easier it is to add -ish. For
example, Bill Clintonish is more likely to occur than John Doeish, except in very
particular circumstances in which John Doe has a certain degree of notoriety.
When whatever is designated by a proper noun reaches a certain stage of renown,
it tends to be accorded its own adjectival form (e.g. Shakespearean, Kafkaesque). It
is interesting to contrast the expressive effect obtained using an -ish adjective with
that obtained using a less ad hoc word base + adjectival suffix combination. The -ish
suffix gives rise to a considerably more pejorative nuance and to what could be
termed a watered-down qualification. For example, Shakespearish writing brings to
mind a poor imitation of the bard and not something approaching his greatness and
a Kafkaish situation would not seem to be as nightmarish as a Kafkaesque one. This
observation might also be applied to the place-name example used above. The fact
that Canadian, Ontarian and Torontonian have already been forged as adjectives
might account for the awkwardness of the corresponding -ish forms. The question
remains, however, as to why the presence of a lexicalized adjectival form should lead
to less currency and a more pejorative nuance for an ad hoc use of -ish.
An answer can be found when the relationship between the word base and the
suffix of the lexicalized forms is examined in more detail. The -ian/-ean suffix simply
attributes whatever is modified to what is evoked by word base of the adjective. For
example, Shakespearean writing is writing done by Shakespeare and the Canadian
hockey team at the Olympic Games is the one belonging to Canada. In other words,
the -ian/-ean suffix does not affect the lexeme of its word base in any substantial way.
MORRIS/A TOUGHISH PROBLEM
213
It instead plays the role of a possessive and establishes a relationship of appurtenance
between its word base and what is qualified. In contrast, the -ish suffix does not
establish links of appurtenance. In fact, as was seen with the Shakespearish writing
example, it blocks such relationships. It does this by acting on the word base and
abstracting the most salient qualities from it. The pejorative nuance found when -ish
is appended to some proper noun bases results from this abstraction. Functioning as
an abstractor -ish selects some, but not all of the qualities from the word base. This
means that it delivers a lexical content which is necessarily less complete than that of
the original base. Thus only some of the qualities of Shakespeare, Kafka or Wayne
Gretzky are used when -ish is appended. This explains why a Wayne Gretzky pass is
better than a Wayne Gretzkyish pass and a Kafka novel is a better read than a
Kafkaish novel.
The high degree of productivity of proper noun bases + -ish remains to be
explained. Once again, an answer can be found upon examination of the nature of the
base in question. Proper nouns are characterized by a high degree of comprehension
or intention (i.e. an infinite number of defining traits) and an extension considered to
be limited to a single entity in conversational situations. The high degree of intention
of the word base guarantees the presence of a high number of salience traits, thus
making the proper noun an ideal candidate for lexical abstraction and thereby paving
the way for the addition of -ish. In contrast, common nouns have a much greater
extension and therefore a more limited intention than proper nouns. This results in a
lesser number of salient features being present in the word base and a lesser chance
of -ish being appended.
The final case to consider is that of adjectives of nationality, the starting point in
the evolution of the -ish suffix and the final point of this discussion. To understand
how -ish got its start it is necessary to reflect briefly on likeness and abstraction, two
concepts which are closely linked. Thus far it has been argued that -ish serves to
abstract the most salient lexical traits of a word base. These traits are necessarily those
that best define the concept, i.e. those that are shared by all or most of the entities that
can be included under the concept. When the word base is the name given to any
individual member of a nation, the number of traits common to all of those included
under the appellation is rather limited. In fact, other than human animacy, the only
traits shared by all those who were called Franks or Angles or Scots at a particular
point in time are nationality and language, the very things that adjectives such as
French, English, Scottish and so forth bring to mind today.
When -ish is looked at in this perspective, there is a common denominator which
could be seen to link words like English to words like bluish. In each case, the -ish
suffix operates as an abstractor, retaining part but not all of the lexical content of its
word base. The only difference between the two uses is the nature of what is
abstracted. In the case of English, the most salient features common to Angles are
retained. In the case of blue, a portion of the quality ‘blue’ is retained.
214
LACUS FORUM 24
6. What does -ish mean?
It is now possible to understand how -ish can lead to such different expressive
effects according to whether the word base to which it is appended is nominal or
adjectival in nature. Nominal bases offer up a variety of lexical traits, some more
salient than others. If, as is being proposed here, -ish operates as an abstractor, then
it will abstract the most salient and typical of the lexical traits from a nominal base and
attribute them to whatever the -ish adjective qualifies. Since only some lexical traits
are retained and not all, it is possible to explain the pejorative nuance or the
impression of a poor imitation that is sometimes generated by -ish adjectives with
nominal bases. The word base treated by -ish is a lexically weaker version of the
original and therefore can be used quite readily in a diminishing, pejorative manner.
This does not have to be the case, however. When the features retained constitute the
epitome of the nominal base, as in the case of stylish, the expressive effect has no
negative overtones. In cases such as bookish, the expressive effect can go either way
depending on whether the speaker sees the attribution of booklike characteristics to
a person to be a good or bad thing. In the case of proper nouns, a tremendous range
of lexical traits is available. The more renowned the figure or the place named, the
easier it would seem to use -ish to abstract salient traits, but essentially any proper
noun can serve as a word base for an -ish adjective.
Adjectives, which have a substantially different lexical make-up than nouns, be
they common or proper, react rather differently to the process of lexical abstraction.
Adjectives express single qualities and not a complex of lexical traits. If an abstractor
operates on a single quality, it cannot abstract a number of salient traits while leaving
other traits. It can only abstract a portion of the total quality. The result is a quality
which is necessarily lesser than the original, whence the expressive effect of
approximation or attenuation so common in adjectivally-based -ish adjectives.
Something bluish has some but not all of the quality ‘blue’. Someone youngish has
some but not all of the quality ‘young’. The fundamental differences between nouns
and adjectives can also be used to account for the fact that the adjectival bases are still
highly productive today while nominal bases are not. When only one lexical quality
is available, as in the case of adjectives, the problem of salience and stereotypicality
which underlies nominally-based -ish adjectives is removed. Since there is only one
defining feature per adjective, that feature is necessarily salient. In a sense, the process
of adjectivization has already done some of the abstracting work that -ish handles.
This is why adjectivalized nouns can take -ish more readily than non-adjectivalized
nouns (e.g. ?Canadaish, Canadianish, ?muddish, muddyish).
It can thus be argued that -ish is consistent in both meaning and function. It
always operates as an abstractor that removes part of the total lexical material
available to it. If the available material can be broken down into traits, it abstracts the
most salient of them. If the available material is a single quality, -ish abstracts a
portion of the quality and thus lessens it. The various pejorative expressive effects
attributed to -ish in many of the standard grammars of English are not inherent to the
suffix. They are simply made possible by the abstracting action of -ish.
MORRIS/A TOUGHISH PROBLEM
215
REFERENCES
Bauer, Laurie (1983). English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ljung, Magnus (1970). English Denominal Adjectives: A Generative Study of the
Semantics of a Group of High-Frequency Denominal Adjectives in English.
Gothenburg Studies in English. Lund: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgenis.
Marchand, Hans (1969). The Categories and Types of Present-Day English
Word-Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. Second Edition. Munich:
C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Morris, L. (1991). Gender in Modern English: The System and Its Uses. Doctoral
Thesis, Université Laval.
Quirk, R. et al. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.
London and New York: Longman.
Sadker, M. and Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat
Girls. New York: Simon and Schuster.