English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Languages with grammatical gender typically have affixes, sometimes called  motion affixes , for converting grammatically masculine, semantically male human nouns into grammatically feminine, semantically female ones (e.g. German  -in , as in  Professor  “male professor”,  Professorin  “female professor”). It it widely assumed that the English suffix  -ess  (as in  actress ,  waitress ) is such an affix. We show that this assumption is false. By the time the suffix entered the language via French and Latin loanwords from the 13th century onwards, English had lost its grammatical gender system and human nouns without gender marking were no longer interpreted as male by default. While the suffix initially served a function in deriving female correlates to lexically male human nouns (for example, nouns referring to members of the clergy or the so-called nobility), it gradually shifted to a suffix invoking female-directed stereotypes. This is a fundamental difference to motion affixes and ultimately led to the disappearance of  -ess  as a productive derivational morpheme. Based on an empirical analysis of roughly 780 derivations and loanwords documented in the OED and various large corpora, we trace this shift and discuss it in terms of morphological theory, in particular, with respect to the notion of productivity.

Gender-Marking -ess : The Suffix that Failed