Introduction
Theme actually. Word – building is one of the main ways of enriching vocabulary. Affixation is one of the most productive ways of word building throughout the history of English. The main function of affixation in Modern English is to form one part of speech from another; the secondary function is to change the lexical meaning of the same part of speech. As we are future teacher must know the rules of word – formation. It will help us to teach our students. Besides if we know affixes we can easily form new words while we are writing or speaking,
The aims and purposes of the work. The goal of the work is based on detailed study of affixation, which play important role in word – formation. According to this general aim the following particular tasks are put forward:
1. to classify affixes.
2. to classify the affixes according to its structure and semantics.
3. to show productive ways of word – building process of the English language.
The scientific novelty of the work. Novelty of the qualification work is determined by the necessity o the study of affixation which form a large layer of word – building process. And studying the productive ways of affixes in Modern English.
The practical value. The practical value of the research is that material and the results of the given qualification work can serve the material for theoretical course of lexicology, stylistics, typology as well as can be used for practical lessons in translation, home reading, conversational practice and current events.
Literature overview. While writing present qualification work I used the books written by great scholars such as: The English Word by Arnold I.V, A Course of Lexicology by Ginzburg R.S, A Course of lexicology by Buronov J.B. Besides above mentioned literatures I took information from Internet, Work Book Encyclopedia.
The structure of the work. Present qualification work consists of Introduction, main part, conclusion and the list of used literatures.
1. Main part
1.1 Morphemes, free and bound forms
If we describe a word as an autonomous unit of language in which a particular meaning is associated with a particular sound complex and which is capable of a particular grammatical employment and able to form a sentence by itself we have the possibility to distinguish it from the other fundamental language unit, namely, the morpheme.
A morpheme is also an association of a given meaning with a given sound pattern. But unlike a word it is not autonomous. Morphemes occur in speech only as constituent parts of words, not independently, although a word may consist of a single morpheme. Nor are they divisible into smaller meaningful units. That is why the morpheme may be defined as the minimum meaningful language unit.
The term morpheme is derived from Gr morphe "form"+ eme. Linguists to denote the smallest unit or the minimum distinctive feature have adopted the Greek suffix – eme. (Cf. phoneme, sememe). The morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit of form. A form in these cases is a recurring discrete unit of speech.
A form is said to be free if it may stand alone without changing its meaning; if not, it is a bound form, so called because it is always bound to something else. For example, if we compare the words sportive and elegant and their parts, we see that sport, sportive, elegant may occur alone as utterances, whereas eleg – – ive, – ant are bound forms because they never occur alone. A word is, by L. Bloomfield"s definition, a minimum free form. A morpheme is said to be either bound or free. This statement" should be taken with caution. It means that some morphemes are capable of forming words without adding other morphemes: that is, they are homonymous to free forms.
According to the role they play in constructing words, morphemes are subdivided into roots and affixes. The latter are further subdivided, according to their position, into prefixes, suffixes and infixes, and according to their function and meaning, into derivational and functional affixes, the latter also called endings or outer formatives.
When a derivational or functional affix is stripped from the word, what remains is a stem (or a stem base). The stem expresses the lexical and the part of speech meaning.[1] For the word hearty and for the paradigm heart (Sing.) – hearts (Pl.)[2] the stem may be represented as heart– This stem is a single morpheme, it contains nothing but the root, so it is a simple stem. It is also a free stem because it is homonymous to the word heart.
A stem may also be defined as the part of the word that remains unchanged throughout its paradigm. The stem of the paradigm hearty – heartier – (the) heartiest is hearty– It is a free stem, but as it consists of a root morpheme and an affix, it is not simple but derived. Thus, a stem containing one or more affixes is a derived stem. If after deducing the affix the remaining stem is not homonymous to a separate word of the same root, we call it a bound stem. Thus, in the word cordial "proceeding as if from the heart", the adjective-forming suffix can be separated on the analogy with such words as bronchia/, radial, social. The remaining stem, however, cannot form a separate" word by itself: it is bound. In cordially and cordiality, on the other hand, the stems are free.
Bound stems are especially characteristic of loan words. The point may be illustrated by the following French borrowings: arrogance, charity, courage, coward, distort, involve, notion, legible and tolerable, to give but a few.[3] After the suffixes of these words are taken away the remaining elements are: arrog-, char-, cour-, cow-, – tort, – voIve, nat-, leg-, toler-, which do not coincide with any semantically related independent words.
Roots-are main morphemic vehicles of a given idea in a given language at a given stage of its development. A root may be also regarded as the ultimate constituent element which remains after the removal of all functional and derivational affixes and does not admit any further analysis. It is the common element of words within a word-family. Thus, – heart – is the common root of the following series of words: heart, hearten, dishearten, heartily, heartless, hearty, heartiness, sweetheart, heart-broken, kind-hearted, whole-heartedly, etc. In some of these, as, for example, in hearten, there is only one root; in others the root – heart is combined with some other root, thus forming a compound like sweetheart.
It will at once be noticed that the root in English is very often homonymous with the word. This fact is of fundamental importance as it is one of the most specific features of the English language arising from its general grammatical system on the one hand, and from its phonemic system on the other. The influence of the analytical structure of the language is obvious. The second point, however, calls for some explanation. Actually the usual phonemic shape most favoured in English is one single stressed syllable: bear, find, jump, land, man, sing, etc. This does not give much space for a second morpheme to add classifying Lexico-grammatical meaning to the lexical meaning already present in the root-stem, so the Lexico-grammatical meaning must be signaled by distribution. In the phrases a morning"s drive, a morning"s ride, a morning"s walk the words drive, ride and walk receive the Lexico-grammatical meaning of. a noun not due to the structure of their stems, but because they are preceded by a noun in the Possessive case.
An English word does not necessarily contain formatives indicating to what part of speech it belongs. This holds true even with respect to inflexible parts of speech, i.e. nouns, verbs, adjectives. Not all roots are free forms, but productive roots, i.e. roots capable of producing new words, usually are. The semantic realization of an English word is therefore very specific. Its dependence on distribution is further enhanced by the widespread occurrence of homonymy both among root morphemes and affixes. Note how many words in the following statement might be ambiguous if taken in isolation: A change of work is as good as a rest.
The above treatment of the root is purely synchronic, as we have taken into consideration only the facts of present-day English. But the same problem of the morpheme serving as the main signal of a given lexical meaning is studied in etymology, i.e. in that branch of linguistics which deals with the origin and development of words tracing them back to their earliest determinable source. When approached thus historically or diachronically the word heart will be classified as Common Germanic. One will look for cognates, i.e. words descended from a common ancestor. The cognates of heart are the Latin cor, whence cordial "hearty", "sincere", and so cordially and cordiality; also the Greek kardia, whence English cardiac condition. The cognates outside the English vocabulary are the Russian ñåðäöå, the German Herzt the Spanish corazon and somå other words.
To emphasize the difference between the
synchronic and the diachronic treatment, we shall call the common element of
cognate words in different languages not their root but their radical element.
An interesting example of historical treatment may be found in Potter"s book.1
Potter shows that the same radical element s-d is to be recognized in the
English monosyllables sit, seat, soot and nest. The radical element is s-d, the
vowels may be different. Potter distinguishes five grades: (1) – sed – as in
Latin sedere, whence the English sedentary "requiring much sitting",
"physically inactive" (sedentary work, sedentary person) and sediment "the part
that settles to the bottom of a liquid". From sedare, sedat (the causative of sedere)
the English vocabulary has sedate "quiet", "calm" and its derivatives: sedately,
sedateness, sedative; supersede is "to sit above", hence "to replace". This
meaning developed, as Potter explains, at the time when seats at schools were
assigned by quality of work, so if a pupil surpassed another he superseded him.
The verb sit belongs to this group also, being developed from Common Germanic setjan.
(2) The variant – – sod – is represented by the Past Tense sat, (3) [-se:d] –
is observed in Mode seat These two types of approach, synchronic
and diachronic, give rise to two different principles of arranging
morphologically related words into groups. In the first case series of words
with a common root morpheme in which derivatives are opposable to their
unsuffixed and unprefixed bases, are combined cf. heart, hearty, etc..The
second grouping results in families of historically cognate words, cf. heart,
cor (Lat), etc. Unlike roots, affixes are always bound
forms. The difference between suffixes and prefixes, it will be remembered, is
not confined to their respective position, suffixes being «fixed after» and
prefixes «fixed before» the stem. It also concerns their function and meaning. A suffix is a derivational morpheme
following the stem and forming a new derivative in a different part of speech
or a different word class, cf. – en, – y, – less in hearten, hearty, heartless.
When both the underlying and the resultant forms belong to the same part of
speech, the suffix serves to differentiate between Lexico-grammatical classes
by rendering some very general lexico-grammatical meaning. For instance, both –
ify and – er are verb suffixes, but the first characterizes causative verbs,
such as horrify, purify, whereas the second is mostly typical of frequentative
verbs: flicker, shimmer, twitter and the like. If we realize that suffixes render the
most general semantic component of the word"s lexical meaning by marking the
general class of phenomena to which the referent of the word belongs, the
reason why suffixes are as a rule semantically fused with the stem stands
explained. A prefix is a derivational morpheme
standing before the root and modifying meaning, cf. to hearten – to dishearten.
It is only with verbs and statives that a prefix may serve to distinguish one
part of speech from another, like in earth n–unearth v, sleep n – asleep (stative). Preceding a verb stem, some prefixes
express the difference between a transitive and an intransitive verb: stay v
and outstay (smb) v t. With a few exceptions prefixes modify the stem for time (pre-t
post-), place (in-, ad-), negation (un-, dis-) and remain semantically rather
independent of the stem. An infix is an affix placed with in the
word, like – n – in stand. The type is not productive. An affix should not be confused with a
combining form. A combining form is also a bound form but it can be
distinguished from an affix historically by the fact that it is always borrowed
from another language, namely, from Latin or Greek, in which it existed as a
free form, i.e. a separate word, or also as a combining form. Thus, the
combining form cyclo – and its variant cycl – are derived from the Greek word kuklos
"circle", giving the English word cyclic. The French adjective mat "bad" gives
the English combining form mat-, as in malnutrition. The same mean ing we
observe in the Greek combining form kako – derived homkakos "bad" (cacophony "ill
sound", cacoepy "bad pronunciation^). They differ from all other
borrowings in that they occur in compounds and derivatives that did not exist
in their original language but were formed only in modern times in English,
Russian, French, etc. Cf. polyclinic, polymer; stereophonic, stereoscopic,
telemechanics, television. Combining forms are mostly international.
Descriptively a combining form differs from an affix because it can occur as
one constituent of a form whose only other constituent is an affix, as in
cyclic1. 1.2 Aims and principles of
morphemic and word-formation analysis A synchronic description of the English
vocabulary deals with its present-day system and its patterns of word-formation
by comparing words simultaneously existing in it. If the analysis is limited to stating the
number and type of morphemes that make up the word, it is referred to as
morphemic. For: instance, the word girlishness may be analysed into three
morphemes: the root – girl – and two suffixes – ish and – ness. The morphemic
classification of words is as follows: one root morpheme– a root word (girl), one
root morpheme plus one or more affixes – a derived word (girlish, girlishness),
two or more stems– a compound word (girl-friend), two or more stems and a
common affix – a compound derivative (old-maidish). The morphemic analysis
establishes only the ultimate constituents that make up the word. A structural word-formation analysis
proceeds further; it studies the structural correlation with other words, the
structural patterns or rules on which words are built. This is done with the help of the
principle of oppositions, i.e. by studying the partly similar elements, the
differences between which are functionally relevant; in our case this
difference is sufficient to create a new word. Girl and girlish are members of
a morphemic opposition. They are similar as the root morpheme – girl – is the
same. Their distinctive feature is the suffix – ish. Due to this suffix the
second member of the opposition is a different word belonging to a different
part of speech. This binary opposition comprises two elements. A correlation is a set of binary
oppositions. It is composed of two subsets formed by the first and the second
elements of each couple, i.e. opposition. Each element of the first set is
coupled with exactly one element of the second set and vice versa. Each second
element may be derived from the corresponding first element by a general rule
valid for all members of the relation.1 Observing the proportional opposition: child = woman
= monkey = spinster = book childish womanish monkeyish spinsterish bookish it is possible to conclude that there is
in English a type of derived adjectives consisting of a noun stem and the
suffix – ish. Observation also shows that the stems are mostly those of animate
nouns, and permits us to define the relationship between the structural pattern
of the word and its meaning. Any one word built according to this pattern
contains a semantic component common to the whole group, namely: "typical of,
or having the bad qualities of. In the above example the results of
morphemic analysis and the structural word-formation analysis practically
coincide. There are other cases, however, where they are of necessity
separated. The morphemic analysis is, for instance, insufficient in showing the
difference between the structure of inconvenience v and impatience n; it
classifies both as derivatives. From the point of view of word-formation
pattern, however, they are fundamentally different. It is only the second that
is formed by derivation. Compare: impatience n = patience n
= corpulence n impatient a patient a corpulent a The correlation that can be established
for the verb inconvenience is different, namely: inconvenience v = pain v =
disgust v = anger v = delight v inconvenience n pain n disgust n anger n
delight n Here nouns denoting some feeling or state
are correlated with verbs causing this feeling or state, there being no
difference in stems between the members of each separate opposition. Whether
different pairs in the correlation are structured similarly or differently is
irrelevant. Some of them are simple root-words, others are derivatives; they
might be compounds as well. In terms of word-formation we state that the verb inconvenience
when compared with the noun inconvenience shows relationships characteristic of
the process of conversion. Cf. to position where the suffix – tion does not
classify this word as an abstract noun but shows it is derived from one. This
approach also affords a possibility to distinguish between compound words
formed by composition and those formed by other processes. The words honeymoon n
and honeymoon v are both compounds, containing two free stems, yet the first is
formed by composition: honey n+moon n=honeymoon n, and the second by
conversion: honeymoon n>honeymoon v. The treatment remains synchronic
because it is not the origin of the word that is established but its present
correlations in the vocabulary and the patterns productive in present-day
English. The analysis into immediate constituents
described below permits us to obtain the morphemic structure and provides the
basis for further word-formation analysis. Analysis into immediate
constitute A synchronic morphological analysis is
most effectively accomplished by the procedure known as the analysis into
immediate constituents1 (IC"s). First suggested by L.
Bloomfield2 it was later developed by many
linguists.3 The main opposition dealt with is the
opposition of stem and affix. It is a kind of segmentation revealing not the
history of the word but its motivation, i.e. the data the listener has to go by
in understanding it. It goes without saying that unmotivated words and words
with faded motivation have to be remembered and understood as separate signs,
not as combinations of other signs. The method is based on the fact that a
word characterized by morphological divisibility (analysable into morphemes) is
involved in certain structural correlations. This means that, as Z. Harris puts
it, «the morpheme boundaries in an utterance are determined not on the basis of
considerations interior to the utterance, but on the basis of comparison with
other utterances. The comparisons are controlled, i.e. we do not merely scan
various random utterances but seek utterances which differ from our original
one only in stated portions. The final test is in utterances which are only
minimally different from ours. «1 A sample analysis which has become almost
classical, being repeated many times by many authors, is Bloomfield"s analysis
of the word ungentlemanly. As the word is convenient we take the same example.
Comparing this word with other utterances the listener recognizes the morpheme un-as
a negative prefix because he has often come across words built on the pattern
un-adjective stem: uncertain, unconscious, uneasy, unfortunate, unmistakable,
unnatural. Some of the cases resembled the word even more closely; these were: unearthly,
unsightly, untimely, unwomanly and the like. One can also come across the
adjective gentlemanly. Thus, at the first cut we obtain the following immediate
constituents: un + gentlemanly. If we continue our analysis we see that
although gent occurs as a free form in low colloquial usage, no such word as lemanly
may be found either as a free or as a bound constituent, so this time we have
to separate the final morpheme. We are justified in so doing as there are many
adjectives following the pattern noun stem+ly, such as womanly, masterly,
scholarly, soldierly with the same semantic relationship of "having the quality
of the person denoted by the stem"; we also have come across the noun gentleman
in other utterances, The two first stages of analysis resulted in separating a
free and a bound form: 1) un + gentlemanly, 2) gentleman + ly. The third cut
has its peculiarities. The division into gent-+-leman is obviously impossible
as no such patterns exist in English, so the cut is gentle+man. A similar
pattern is observed in nobleman, and so we state adjective stem + – man. Now,
the element man may be differently classified as a semi – affix or
as a variant of the free form man. The word gentle is open to discussion. It is
obviously divisible from the etymological viewpoint: gentle<.0Fr
gentil If, however, we compare the adjective gentle
with such adjectives as brittle, fertile, fickle, juvenile, little, noble,
subtle and some more containing the suffix – le-ile added to a bound stem, they
form a pattern for our case. The bound stem that remains is present in the
following group: gentle, gently, gentleness, genteel, gentile, gentry, etc. One might observe that our procedure of
looking for similar utterances has shown that the English vocabulary contains
the vulgar word gent that has been mentioned above, meaning "a person
pretending to the status of a gentleman" or simply "man", but then there is no
such structure as noun stem + – le, so the word gent should be interpreted as a
homonym of the bound stem in question. To sum up: as we break the word we obtain
at any level only two IC"s, one of which is the stem of the given word. All the
time the analysis is based on the patterns characteristic of the English
vocabulary. As a pattern showing the interdependence of all the constituents
segregated at various stages we obtain the following formula: Un – + {[(gent -+ – le) + – man]
+ – ly-} Breaking a word into its immediate
constituents we observe in each cut the structural order of the constituents
(which may differ from their actual sequence). Furthermore we shall obtain only
two constituents at each cut, the ultimate constituents, however, can be
arranged according to their sequence in the word: un-un – + gent-+ – le +-man
+-ly. We can repeat the analysis on the
word-formation level showing not only the morphemic constituents of the word
but also the structural pattern on which it is built, this may be carried out
in terms of proportional oppositions. The main requirements are essentially the
same: the analysis must reveal patterns observed in other words of the same
language, the stems obtained after the affix is taken away should correspond to
a separate word, the segregation of the derivational affix is based on
proportional oppositions of words having the same affix with the same lexical
and lexico-grammatical meaning. Ungentlemanly, then, is opposed not to ungentleman
(such a word does not exist), but to gentlemanly, Other pairs similarly
connected are correlated with this opposition. Examples are: ungentlemanly = unfair = unkind =
unselfish gentlemanly fair kind selfish This correlation reveals the pattern
un-+adjective stem. The word-formation type is defined as
derivation. The sense of un-as used in this pattern is either simply "not", or
more commonly "the reverse of, with the implication of blame or praise. The next step is similar, only this time
it is the suffix that is taken away: gentlemanly = womanly =
scholarly gentleman woman scholar The series shows that these adjectives are
derived according to the pattern noun stem-Mi/. The common meaning of the
numerator term is "characteristic of (a gentleman, a woman, a scholar). The analysis into immediate constituents
as suggested in American linguistics has been further developed in the above
treatment by combining a purely formal procedure with semantic analysis. A
semantic check means, for instance, that we can distinguish the type gentlemanly
from the type monthly, although both follow the structural pattern noun stem+-ly.
The semantic relationship is different, as – ly is qualitative
in the first case and frequentative in the second, i.e. monthly means
"occurring every month". This point is confirmed by the following
correlations: any adjective built on the pattern personal noun stem+-ly is
equivalent to "characteristic of or "having the quality of the person denoted
by the stem". gentlemanly→ having the
qualities of a gentleman masterly→ having the qualities of a
master soldierly → having the qualities of
a soldier womanly→ having the qualities of a
woman Monthly does not fit into this
series, so we write: monthly ↔ having the qualities of a
month On the other hand, adjectives of this
group, i.e. words built on the pattern stem of a noun denoting a period of time
+-ly are all equivalent to the formula "occurring every period of time denoted
by the stem": monthly→ occurring every month hourly → occurring every hour yearly → occurring every year Gentlemanly does not show this sort
of equivalence, the transform is obviously impossible, so we write: gentlemanly ↔*occurring every
gentleman The above procedure of showing the process
of word-formation is an elementary case of the transformational analysis, in
which the semantic similarity or difference of words is revealed by the
possibility or impossibility of transforming them according to a prescribed
model and following certain rules into a different form, called their "transform.
The conditions of equivalence between the original form and the transform are
prefixed. In our case the conditions to be fulfilled are the sameness of
meaning and of the kernel morpheme. Transformational analysis will be discussed
in the chapter on Methods of Linguistic Study. E.O. Nida1
discusses another complicated case: untruly might, it seems, be divided both
ways, the IC"s being either un-+truly or untrue-^–ly. – Yet observing
other utterances we notice that the prefix un~ is but rarely combined with
adverb stems and very freely with adjective stems; examples have already been
given above. So we are justified in thinking that the IC"s are untrue+-ly. Other
examples of the same pattern are: uncommonly, unlikely. There are, of course, cases, especially
among borrowed words, that defy analysis altogether; such are, for instance, calendar,
nasturtium or chrysanthemum. The analysis of other words may remain open or
unresolved. Some linguists, for example, hold the view that words like pocket cannot
be subjected to morphological analysis. Their argument is that though we are
justified in singling out the element – et, because the correlation may be
considered regular (hog: hogget, lock: locket), the meaning of the suffix being
in both cases distinctly diminutive, the remaining part pock – cannot be
regarded as a stem as it does not occur anywhere else. Others, like Prof. A, I.
Smirnitsky, think that the stem is morphologically divisible if at least one of
its elements can be shown to belong to a regular correlation.2 Controversial issues of this nature do not
invalidate the principle of analysis into immediate constituents. The second
point of view seems more convincing. To illustrate it, let us take the word hamlet
"a small village". No words with this stem occur in present-day English, but it
is clearly divisible diachronically, as it is derived from OFr hamelet of
Germanic origin, a diminutive of hamel, and a cognate of the English noun home.
We must not forget that hundreds of English place names end in – ham, like Shoreham,
Wyndham, etc. Nevertheless, making a mixture of historical and structural
approach will never do. If we keep to the second, and look for recurring
identities according to structural procedures, we shall find the words booklet,
cloudlet, flatlet, leaflet, ringlet, tîwnlet etc. In all these – let is a clearly
diminutive suffix which does not contradict the meaning of hamlet. Smirnitsky"s
approach is, therefore, supported by the evidence afforded by the language
material.and also permits us to keep within strictly synchronic limits. Another example of the same nature
discussed by a number of authors is the word ceiling. Does it contain one
morpheme or two? It may, be argued that ceiling should at present be considered
a root word, because the root ceil – is no longer current, and the speaker no
longer understands it as a covering or lining of the roof, although the
existence of the words covering and lining is, as we have seen, sufficient in
itself to consider the word divisible. There are, however, other words in which
the same suffix performs a similar function. Thus, in flooring, decking,
piping, paving, etc, – ing is equivalent to the semi-affix – work, so that framing
is synonymous with frame-work. There is also one more procedure that
helps differentiation and can be offered as a test. This is substitution within
similar or identical contexts. This testifies in favour of taking ceiling as
consisting of two morphemes, since one may contrast ceiling and flooring. S.
Potter quotes the following example: Every apartment is floored with sandal and
ceiled with nacre. This permits us to make one more
conclusion, namely, that in lexicological analysis words may be grouped not
only according to their root morphemes but according to affixes as well. 2.1
Derivation and functional affixes Lexicology is primarily concerned with
derivational affixes, the other group being the domain of grammarians. The
derivational affixes in fact, as well as the whole problem of word-formation,
form a boundary area between lexicology and grammar and are therefore studied
in both. Language being a system in which the
elements of vocabulary and grammar are closely interrelated, our study of
affixes cannot be complete without some discussion of the similarity and
difference between derivational and functional morphemes. The similarity is obvious as they are so
often homonymous. Otherwise the two groups are essentially different because
they render different types of meaning. Functional affixes serve to convey
grammatical meaning. They build different forms of one and the same word. A
word-form, or the form of a word, is defined as one of the different aspects a
word may take as a result of inflection. Complete sets of all the various forms
of a word when considered as inflectional patterns, such as declensions or
conjugations, are termed paradigms. A paradigm is therefore defined as the
system of grammatical forms characteristic of a word, e.g. near, nearer,
nearest; son, son"s, sons, sons". Derivational affixes serve to supply the
stem with components of lexical and lexico-grammatical meaning, and thus form
different words. One and the same lexico-grammatical meaning of the affix is
sometimes accompanied by different combinations of various lexical meanings.
Thus, the lexico-grammatical meaning supplied by the suffix – y consists in the
ability to express the, qualitative idea peculiar to adjectives and creates
adjectives from noun stems. The lexical meanings of the same suffix are
somewhat variegated: "full of, as in bushy or cloudy, "composed of, as in stony,
"having the quality of, as in slangy, "resembling", as in baggy and some more.
This suffix sometimes conveys emotional components of meaning. E.g. My school
reports used to say: «Not amenable to discipline; too fond of organizing» which
was only a kind way of saying: «Bossy?» (M. DICKENS) Bossy not only means
"having the quality of a boss" or "behaving like a boss"; it is also an unkind
derogatory word. This fundamental difference in meaning and
function of the two groups of affixes results in an interesting relationship:
the presence of a derivational affix does not prevent a word from being
equivalent to another word, in which this suffix is absent, so that they can be
substituted for one another in context. The presence of a functional affix
changes the distributional properties of a word so much that it can never be
substituted for a simple word without violating grammatical standard. To see
this point consider the following familiar quotation from Shakespeare: Cowards die many times before their
deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once. Here no one-morpheme word can be
substituted for the words cowards, times or deaths because the absence of a
plural mark will make the sentence ungrammatical. The words containing
derivational affixes can be substituted by morphologically different words, so
that the derivative valiant can be substituted by a root word like brave. 2.2
Semi-Affixes and Boundary cases between derivation and inflection There
are cases, however, where it is very difficult to drawer hard and fast line
between roots and affixes on the one hand, and derivational affixes and in
flexional formatives on the other. The distinction between these has caused
much discussion and is no easy matter altogether. There
are a few roots in English which have developed great combining ability in the
position of the second element of a word and a very general meaning similar to
that of an affix. They receive this name because semantically, functionally,
structurally and statistically they behave more like affixes than like roots.
Their meaning is as general. They determine the lexicon-grammatical class the
word belongs to. Cf sailor: seaman, where – man is a
semi-affix. Another
specific group is farmed by the adverb-forming suffix – ly, following
adjective stems, and the noun-forming suffixes: – ing, – ness, –
er and by – ed added to a combination of two stems: fainthearted,
long legged. By their almost unlimited combining possibilities (high
valiancy) and the almost complete fusion of lexical and lexicon-grammatical
meaning they resemble inflectional formatives. The derivation with these
suffixes is so regular and the meaning and function of the derivatives so obvious
that such derivatives are very often considered not worth an entry in the
dictionary and therefore omitted as self-evident. Almost every adjective stem
can produce an adverb with the help of – ly and an abstract noun by
taking up the suffix – ness. Every verbal stem can produce the name of
the doer by adding – er and the name of the process or its result by
adding – ing. A suffix approaching those in productivity is – ish
denoting a moderate degree of the quality named in the stem. Therefore these
words are explained in dictionaries by referring the reader to the underlying
stem. For example, in Concise Oxford dictionary we read: «womanliness–the
quality of being womanly; womanized in senses of the verb; womanishly-in
a womanish manner; womanly adv-in a womanly manner, womanishness-the
quality or state of being womanish.» These
affixes are remarkable for their high valence also in the formation of compound
derivatives corresponding to free phrases. Examples are: every day:
everydayness. 2.3
Allomorphs The
combining from allo-from Greek allo «other» is used in linguistic terminology
to denote elements of a group whose members together constitute a structural
unit of the language (allophones, allomorphs). Thus, for example, – ion
/ – tion / – sion / – ation are the positional variants of
the same suffix. To show this they are taken together and separated by the
sign/. They do not differ in meaning or function but shav a slight difference
in sound from depending on the final phoneme of the preceding stem. They are
considered as variants of one and the same morpheme and called its allomorphs.
Descriptive linguistics deals with the regularities in the distributional
relations among the features and elements of speech, i. e. their occurrence
restively to each other within utterances. The approach to the problem is
consequently based on the principles of distributional analysis. An
allomorph is defined as a positional variant of a morpheme occurring in
a specific environment and so characterized by complementary
distribution. Complementary distribution is said to take place
hen two linguistic variants cannot appear in the same environment. Thus, stems
ending in consonants take as a rule – ation (liberation); stems
ending in pt, however, take – tion (corruption) and the
final t becomes fused with the suffix. Different
morphemes are characterized by, contrastive distribution, i.e. if
they occur in the same environment they signal different meanings. The suffixes
– able and – ed, for instance are different morphemes, not
allomorphs, because adjectives in – able mean «capable of being»:
measurable «capable of being measured», whereas – ed as a suffix of
adjectives has a resultant force: measured «marked by due proportion», as the
measured beauty of classical Greek art; hence also «rhythmical» and «regular in
movement», as in the measured from of verse, the measured tread. In
same cases the difference is not very clear-cut – ic and – ical,
for example, are two different affixes, the first a simple one, the second a
group affix; they are characterized by contrastive, distribution. That is, many
adjectives have both the – ic and – ical form, often without a distinction in
meaning COD points out, that the suffix – ical shows a vaguer connection
with what is indicated by the stem: comic paper but comical story.
However, the distinction between them is not very sharp. Allomorphs
will also occur among prefixes. Their form then depends on the initials of the
stem with which the will assimilate. A prefix such as im-occurs before
bilabials (impossible), its allomorph ir-before r (irregular),
il-before l (illegal). It is in – before all other consonants and
vowels (indirect, inability). Two
or more sound forms of a stem existing under conditions of complementary
distribution may also be regarded as allomorphs, as, for instance, in long a:
length n, excite y: excitation, n. In
American descriptive linguistics allomorphs are treated on a purely semantic
basis, so that not only [iz] in dishes, [z] in dreams and [s] in dreams
and [s] in books, which are allomorphs in the sense given above, but
also formally unrelated [in] in oxen, the vowed modification in tooth:
teeth and zero suffix in many sheep, are considered to be
allomorphs of the same morpheme on the strength of the sameness of their
grammatical meaning. This surely needs some serious re-thinking, as within that
kind of approach morphemes cease to be linguistic units combining the two
fundamental aspects of form and meaning and become pure abstractions. The very
term morpheme (from the 6 reek morphe «form») turns in to a misnomer
because all connection with form is lost. Allomorphs there sore are
phonetically conditioned positional variants of the same derivational or
functional morpheme (suffix, root or suffix) identical in meaning and function
and differing in sound only insomuch, as their complementary distribution produces
various phonetic assimilation effects. 2.4
Suffixation 2.4.1
Classification of suffixes Depending
on purpose of research, various classifications of suffixes have been used and
suggested. Suffixes have been classified according to their origin, parts of
speech they served to form, their frequency, productivity and other
characteristics. Within
the parts of speech suffixes have been classified semantically according to lexico-grammatical
groups, and last but not least, according to the types of stems they are added
to. In
conformity with our primarily synchronic approach it seems convenient to begin
with the classification according to the part of speech in which the most frequent
suffixes of present-day English occur. They will be listed accordingly together
with words illustrating their possible semantic force. It
shall be, noted that diachronic approach would view the problem of
morphological analysis differently, for example, in the word complete
they would look for the traces of the Latin complet-us. Noun-forming
suffixes: – age
(bondage, breakage, mileage, vicarage); – ance/ – ence (assistance, reference);
– ant/ – ent (disinfectant, student); – dom (kingdom, freedom, officialdom); – ee
(employee); – eer (profiteer); – er (writer, type-writer); – ess (actress,
lioness); – hood (manhood); – ing (building, meaning, washing); – ion, – sion, –
tion, ation (rebellion, creation, tension, explanation); – ism/ – icism
(heroism, criticism); – ist (novelist, communist); – ment (government,
nourishment); – nees (tenderness); – ship (friendship); – (i) ty (sonority). Adjective-forming
suffixes: – able/
– ible/ – uble (unbearable, audible, soluble); – al (formal); – ic (poetic); – ical
(ethical); – ant/ – ent (repentant, dependent); – ary (revolutionary); – ate/ –
ete (accurate, complete); – ed/ – d (wooded); – ful (delightful); – ian
(African, Australian); – ish (Irish, reddish, childish); – ive (active); – less
(useless); – like (lifelike); – ly (manly); – ous/ ious (tremendous, curious); –
some (tiresome); – y (cloudy, dressy). Numeral-forming
suffixes: – fold
(twofold); – teen (fourteen); – th (seventh); – ty (sixty) Verb-forming
suffixes: – ate
(facilitate); – er (glimmer); – en (shorten); – fy/ – ify (terrify, speechify,
solidify); – ize (equalize); – ish (establish). Adverb-forming
suffixes: – ly
(coldly); – ward/ – wards (upward, northwards); – wise (likewise). If
we change our approach and become interested in the lexico-grammatical meaning
the suffixes serve to signalize, we obtain within each part of speech more
detailed lexico-grammatical classes or subclasses. A
lexico-grammatical class may be defined as a class of lexical elements
possessing the same lexico-grammatical meaning and a common system of forms in
which the grammatical categories inherent in these units are expressed. The
elements of one class are substituted by the same prop-words the term prop-word
is a term of syntax. It denotes a word whose main function is to provide the
structural completeness of a word-group. A prop-word or an an aphonic word
stands for another word already said or written. Personal pronouns he or
she substituting nouns class them as personal nouns for either male or
female beings. The
words one, do and to are the most specifically English
examples of prop-words. Compare the various functions of do and to
in the Following: «Even if I did go, couldn^t do any good» Charles
paused and said: «I m afraid that I want you to». «Why do you? (SAAU)» and
characterized by identical morphological patterns and a common set of
derivational affixes. Taking up nouns we can subdivide them into proper
and common nouns. Among common nouns we shall distinguish personal
names, names of other animate beings, collective nouns, falling into several
minor groups, material nouns, abstract nouns and names of things. Abstract
nouns are signaled by the following suffixes: – age,
– ance/ – ence, – ancy/ – ensy, – dom, – hood, – ing, – ion/ – tion/ – ation, –
ism, – ment, – ness, – ship, – th, – ty. See
examples above. Personal
nouns that are emotionally neutral occur with the following suffixes: – an
(grammarian), – ant/ – ent (servant, student), – arian (vegetarian), – ee
(examinee), – er (porter), – ician (musician), – ist (linguist), – ite
(sybarite), – or (inspector), and a few others. Feminine
suffixes may be classed as a subgroup of personal noun suffixes. These are few
and not frequent: – ess (actress), – ine (heroine), – rix (testatrix), – ette
(suffragette). The
above classification should be accepted with caution. It is true that in a
polysemantic word at least one of the variants witl show the class meaning
signaled by the affix. There may be other variants, however, whose different
meaning will be signaled by a difference in distribution, and these will belong
to some other lexico-grammatical class. C.f. settlement, translation
denoting a process and its result, or beauty which, when denoting
qualities that give pleasure to the eye or to the mind, is an abstract noun,
but occurs also as a personal noun denoting a beautiful woman. The word witness
is more often used in its several personal meanings that (in accordance with its
suffix) as an abstract noun meaning evidence or «testimony». The coincidence of
two classes in the semantic structure of some words may be almost regular.
Collectivity, for instance may be signaled by such suffixes as – dom, –
ery, – hood, – ship. It must be borne in mind, however, that
words with these suffixes are poly semantic and show a regular correlation of
the abstract noun denoting state and a collective noun denoting a group of
persons of whom this state is characteristic. CF. knighthood. Alongside
with adding some lexico-grammatical meaning to the stem, certain suffixes
charge it with emotional force. They may be derogatory: – ard (drunkard);
– ling (underling); – ster (gangster); – ton
(simpleton). These seem to be more numerous in English that the suffixes
of endearment. Emotionally
coloured diminutive suffixes rendering also endearment differ from the
derogatory suffixes in that they are used to name not only persons but things
as well. This point may be illustrated by the suffix – y/ – ie/ – ey: auntie,
cabbie (cabman), daddie, but also: hanky (handkerchief), nightie
(nightgown). Other suffixes that express smallness are – en (chicken): –
kin/ kins (mannikin); – let (booklet); – ock
(hillcack); et (cornet). The
connotation of same diminutive suffixes is not one or endearment but of some
outlandish elegance and novelty, particularly in the case of the borrowed
suffix – ette (kitchenette, launderette, lecturette, maisonette,
etc). The diminutive suffixes being not very productive, there is a tendency to
express the same meaning by the semiaffix mini– : mini-bus, mini-car,
mini-crisis, mini-skirt, etc. Which may be added to words
denoting both objects situations. A
suffix is a derivative final element which as or formely was productive in
forming words. A suffix has semantic value, but it does not occur as an
independent speech unit. 2.4.2
Suffixes and endings It
is necessary to point out the similarity and difference between derivative and
functional morphemes. Morphologically, two words such as citizen and citizenry
are formed after the same principle of root plus affix. At first sight, the
conceptual structure also looks very much alike: the-s of citizens and
the – ry of citizenry both express the idea of plurality,
collectivity. But the difference in valued is one between grammatical function
and lexical meaning. The – s of citizens is the inflectional formative
of the grammatical category «plural» where – ry forms a class of words
with the semantic basis «group», collectivity of…». A
suffixal derivative is primarily a lexical form. It is a two-morpheme word
which behaves like a one-morpheme word in that it is «grammatically equivalent
to any simple word in all the constructions where it occurs» (Bloch-Trager, OLA
54). An inflected word is primarily a grammatical form which does not meet the
requirements just stated. While in a sentence such as this citizenry feels
insulted we could substitute the simple, one-morpheme words crowd, multitude,
nation for bi-morphemic citizenry without any change in the
behavior of the other members of the sentence, replacement by the two-morpheme
word citizens would involve a change of this to these and
of feels to feel. The formatives – er, – est as
expressing degree of comparison are endings, not suffixes. In a sentence such
as Paul is older than Peter we could not substitute any one-morpheme
word for bi-morphemic old-er whereas in he is rather o l dish the adj old
can take the place of old-ish. It will also be interesting to note the
different phonetic make-up of comparatives and super lateness compared with
derived adjectives. Youngish, longish betray the morpheme
boundary before – ish in that the final consonant does not change before
the initial vowel of the derivative suffix whereas in younger, longer
the consonants are treated as standing in medial position in unit words, just
like finger or clangor, [jg] being the ante vocalic (and ante
sonantic) allophone of [j]. 2.4.3
The origin of suffixes As
to the origin of suffixes, there are two ways in which a suffix may come into
existence: 1) the suffix was once an independent word but is no longer one; 2)
the suffix has originated as such, usually as a result of secretion. Case 1)
applies to a few native suffixes only. The suffixes – dem and hood
are independent words still in OE, so the process where by a second-word
becomes a suffix can be observed historically. An instance of case 2) is the
suffix – ling which is simply the extended form of suffix – ing
in words whose stem ended in – l. Hall-way
between second-words and suffixes are certain second elements which are still
felt to be words though they are no longer used in isolation: – monger, wright
and-wise exist only as second parts of suffixs. I have treated them as
semi suffixes. The fact that a word is frequently used as the second element of
a suffix gives us no right to call it a suffix. Thus the following are not
suffixes: – caster (as in broadcaster, gamecaster, newscaster),
fiend (as in the AE words cigarette fiend, opium-fiend, absinthe-fiend,
cocaine – fiend etc…), craft (as in witchcraft, leechcrajt,
prestaraft, statecraft, smith raft, mother craft),
or – proof (as in bomb-, fire-, rain-, sound-, water-,
hole kiss-, humor-etc. proof) which Jazzperson wrongly terms one. The
contact of English with various foreign languages has led to the adoption of
countless foreign words. In the process, many derivative morphemes have also
been introduced, suffixes as well as prefixes. As a consequence, we have many
hybrid types of composites. We have to distinguish between two basing groups. A
foreign word is combined with a native affix, as in dear-ness, un-button.
Just as the in production of a foreign word is an essentially uncomplicated
matter, so is its combination with a native derivative element. As no
structural problem is involved in the use of a foreign lexical unit, it can be
treated like native words. This is the reason why native prefixes and suffixes were
added to French words almost immediately after the words had been introduced.
Suffixes such as – ful, – less, ness were early used with French
words so we find faithful, faithless, clearness and others
recorded by 1300. The case is different with foreign affixes added to native
words. Here, the assimilation of a structural pattern is involved, not merely
the adoption of a lexical unit. Before the foreign affix can be used, a foreign
syntagma must have come to be familiar with speakers so that the pattern of
analysis may be imitated and the dependent morpheme be used with native words.
This is much more complicated. When it does happen, such formations are found
much later than those of the first type. This is to be regarded as a general
linguistic phenomenon. It explains why combinations of the types break-age,
hindr-ance, yeoman-ry crop up much later and the less numerous.
The early assimilation of – able is exceptional. Some foreign affixes,
as – ance, – al (type arrival), ity have never become
productive with native words. The
majority of foreign suffixes owe their existance to the reinterpretation of
loons. When a foreign word comes to be analyzed as a composite, a syntagma, it
may acquire derivative force. The syntagmatic character of a word there fore is
a precondition for the development of a derivative morpheme. From
landscape (which is Du landsdap) resulted scrape which is
almost entirely used as the second element of suffixs, as in seascape
1799 and later earths cape, cloudscape, sands cape, mountains
cape, moonscape, parks cape, skyscape, waterscape,
house-scape, roads-cape, mindscape. Bottlegger attracted
booklegger one trading in obscene books, foodlegger
«illicit food-seller, meatlegger, tirelegger» (used
at a time when things were rationed in US). The
word hierarchy attracted squir(e) archy 1804, which does not,
however, mean that there is a suffix – arohy. The attraction is prob due
to the rime only, and other coinages have not been made. Another
AE suffix is-eteria with meaning «shop, store, establishment». The
starting-point is prob. Mexican Spanish cafeteria which passed into
American English (first used about 1898). As it was immediately analyzable in
American English, with the first element interpreted as an allomorph of [kafi]
it attected a good number of words (chiefly since 1930). Mencken has about 50
words, such as basketeria, caketeria, candyteria, cleaneteria,
luncheteria, drygoodsteria, drugteria, fruiteria, shoeteria,
chccolateria, furnitureteria. The original implication was «place
where articles are sold on the self-service plant» (so in the recent coinage gas-a-teria,
Life International). The only common word, however, is cafeteria,
stressed as indicated. The
process of secretion requires some more comment. The basic principle is that of
re-interpretation: but there are several ways in which re-interpretation
occurs. 1).
A suffix may be analyzed by the general speaker as having two contituent
elements, the basis as an independent morpheme and the suffix as a derivative
element. This is the case of the preceding types lemonade and land-scape.
This process of direct re-interpretation is the form secretion commonly
assumes. 2).
A suffix is not made up of two constituent elements as far as the general
speaker is concerned. If aristocracy, democracy, plutocracy
yield more or less jocular words such as landocracy, mobocracy, cottoncracy,
this is due to a meeting and blending of two heterogeneous structural systems:
a certain structural element of one linguistic system is isolated and
introduced into another linguistic system. The speaker with a knowledge of
Greek isolates – ocracy «rule» in a series of 6 reek-coined words and
introduces it as a derivative element into the structural system of English.
But dependent structural elements are tied up with certain morphologic
conditions of the linguistic system to which they belong and cannot there fore
be naturally transplanted, unlike words, which are independent lexical
elements, not subject to any specific morphological conditions. Such coinages
are felt to be hybrids by the word-coiner himself, so the process is not used
for serious purposes as a rule. Admittance of such foreign derivative elements
is also impeded by the fact that they bear no resemblance to any morpheme with
which the hearer of the hybrid suffix is familiar. The linguistic situation is
different with foreign-coined words of which one element is immediately
associated with a morpheme of the hearers language. Words like barometer,
thermometer are automatically connected with the independent word mater
whose unstressed allomorph the words contain. This explains the rise and currency
of speedometer, cream ometer and quite recent drunkometer. But
otherwise, hybrid coinages of this derivative pattern will always have a
limited range of currency or the tinge of faketiousness, as bumpology,
bumposopher (both jocular from hump «protuberance on the cranium as the sign
of special mental faculies»), storiology, weather logy, dollolaty a.
o. Parallel to the above words in – ocracy are such in – ocrat, as
mobocrat bancrat bankocrat. Very similar to the case of barometer / speed
omoter is that of the American suffix – fest. Fom the German words Sincerest
and Turn fest, which were first used in the early 50 s in U.S. a series
of other words were derived, such as smoke fest, walkfest, eatfest,
stuntfest, bookfest, gabfest. The element – fest
was obviously interpreted as the allomorph of feast. The word cavalcade
was re-interpreted as containing the element caval-» horse» and the
suffix-cade «parade» and attracted such coining as aerocade, aquacade
(on a Latin basis of coining), autocade, camelcade, motorcade (on
a native basis of coining), recent words which may not stand the test of time.
From the word panorama the characteristic ending-rama was
secreted with the meaning «pageant, show» and has recently led to such words as
cinerama, motorama, autorama. Sometimes
ignorant but pretentious people take to coining words, re-interpreting foreign
word in their own way. They vaguely feel that there is some characteristic
termination in a 6 reek or Latin word which they then attach to some English
basis to give the c.b.a «learned» tinge. As a result, we get barbarisms in-athon,
coined after Marathon, such as danceathon, swimathon etg,
in-thorium, such as corsetorium, lubritorium etc. Thus,
the rise of suffix illustrated by types aristocracy/ landocracy, barometer/
speedometer and others treated in the preceding passage can stay out pf
accounted for suffixal derivation. There
is yet a third way in which suffixes may arise. Words of apparently only one
constituent element may develop derivative morphemes. If we take such a word as
hamburger, we observe that it has attracted other coining like cheeseburger,
bufburger, fishburger. The analysis of the word cannot be, as one may
feel tempted to assume, that of ham and burger as there is no ham
in the humburger. So the word cheeseburger has not arisen from
re-interpretation. What has taken place is a shortening of the morpheme hamburger
into a fore-clipped – burger, this part being taken as representative of
the semantic elements contained in hamburger. The suffix cheeseburger
there fore is a clipped word for non-existent cheese hamburger. Parallel
to – burger words are such in – furture, as shrimpfurder, krautfurter,
chicenfurter. In election campaign words such as Hoovercrat, Willkiecrat,
– crat was short for democrat. The word telegram 1852 gave
rise to cablegram, radiogram, pidgeongram, lettergram
where – gram is short for telegram/ Tnr diminutive suffix – ling
prginated in the same way. Wolfling «young wolf» is a blend pf wol fand,
young-ling «young animal» 2.4.4
Nominal and verbal suffixes In
ME there are nominal and verbal suffixes. The suffixs – fold, – most
and – ward form words which are used both as adjectives and adverbs. The
meaning of a suffix is conditioned by the particular semantic character of the
basis to which the suffix is attached, also by the linguistic circumstances in
which the coinage is made. In general parlance, a fiver is a bill of
five (dollars or pounds), in crikret, jargon it is a hit for five, in school
life it may denote a boy who always scrapes through with a five. A greening
is a green variety of apple or pear, but a whiting is a white variety of
fish. For other possibilities see – er and – ing, for instance.
Some concepts are apt to be represented by suffixes in many languages as those
of condition (state, quality etc), appurtenance, collectivity, endearment agent
a.o, but theoretically there is no telling what concept may not develop to find
expression in a suffix. French has a suffix – ier (type pommier)
to denote fruit trees, there I – ile for the idea of stable for demos
tic animals, 0.6 has a suffix – it is (type nephritis) meaning disease.
These have no parallels in English, or in German either. But no intrinsic
linguistic principle is involved in the absence of such morphemes. The rise of
new suffix in English goes to corroborate this. A
new words are needed with regard to adverbal derivatives. Adeverbal derivative
is not fundamentally different from a cpd whose first member is a verb stem, so
as in the case of denominal suffixes, a great number of meanings are possible.
In practice, however, the possibilities are much restricted. Deverbal suffixes
express grammatical functions than semantic concepts, and the usual
implications are «act, fact, instance of…» (arrival, quidanse, warning),
sometimes «state of…» (starvation, bewilderment), «agent»
(personal or impersonal: baker, eraser, disinfectant), «personal
object» (direct or indirect, only with – ee, transferee, draftee),
«object of result» (breakade, savings), «plase» (settlement,
brewery, lodgings). Similar considerations apply to derivation by a zero
morpheme (pickpocket, blackaut, look). 2.5
The valency of affixes and stems Another
essential feature of affixes that should not be overlooked is their combining
power or valency, i.e. the types of types of the stems with which
they they occur. We
have already seen that not all combinations of existing morphemes are actually
used. This, unhappy, untrue and unattractive are quite regular
combinations, while seemingly analogous unsad, unfalse, un-pretty
seems unusual. The possibility of particular stem taking a particular affix
depends on phonomor-phological, morphological and semantic factors. The suffix
ance – ence, for instance, occurs onli after b, t, d, dz, v, l, r, m, n,: disturbance,
insistence, indepence, but not after s or z: condensation,
organization. It
is of course impossible to describe the whole system. To make our point clear
we shall take adjectives as an example. The adjective-forming suffixes are
mostly attached to noun stems. They are: – ed (barbed), – en (golden), –
ful (careful), – less (careless), – ly (soldierly), – like (childlike), – y
(hearty) and some others. The highly productive suffix-able can be combined
with noun stems and verbal stems alike (clubbable). It is especially frequent
in the pattern in the pattern un – + verbal stem + able (unbearable).
Sometimes it is even attached to phrases producing compound derivatives (unbrushoffable,
ungetatable). These characteristics are of great importance both
structurally and semantically. Their
structural significance is clear if we realize that to describe the system of a
given vocabulary one must know the typical patterns on which its words are
coined. To achieve this it is necessary not only to know the morphemes of which
they consist but also to reveal their recurrent+ regular combinations and the
relationship existing between them. This approach ensures a rigorously
linguistic basis for the identification of lexico-grammatical classes within
each part of speech. In the English language these classes are so far little
studied, although inquiry info this problem seems very promising and begins to
affect attention. It
is also worthy of note that from the viewpoint of the information theory the
fact that not every affix is capable of combining with any given stem makes the
code more reliable, protects it from noise. Noise as a term of the theory
of information is used to denote any kind of interference with the process of
communication, mistakes, and misunderstanding. The
valiancy of stems is not therefore unlimited. Noun stems can be followed by the
noun-forming suffixes: – age (bondage), – dom (serfdom), – eer, – ier
(profitter, collier), ess (waitress), – ful (spoonful), – hood (childhood), – ian
(physician), ics (linguistics), – ie / – y (daddy), – ing (flooring), – ism
(heroism), – ist (violinist), – let (cloudlet), – ship (friendship); by the
adjective-forming suffixes: – a/ – ial (doctoral), – an (African), – ary
(revolutionary), – ed (wooded), – ful (hopeful), – ic, – ical (historic,
historical), – ish (childish), – like (businesslike), – ly (friendly)/ – ous/ –
ious/ – eous (spacious), – some (handsome), – y (cloudy); verb – forming
suffixes: – ate (aerate), – en (hearten), – fy/, – ify (speechify), – ize
(sympathize). Verbal
stems are almost equal to noun stems in valiancy. They combine with the
following noun-forming suffixes: – age (breakage), – al (betrayal), – ance/ – ense
(guidance, reference), – ant/ – ent (assistant, student), – ee (evacuee), – er/
– or (painter, editor), – ing (uprising), – ion/ – tion/ ation (action,
information), – ment (government). The adjective – forming suffixes used with
verbal stems are: – able/ – ible (agreeable, comprehensible), – ive/ – sive/ – tive
(talkative), – some (meddlesome). Adjective
stems furnish a shorter list: – dom (freedom), – ism (realism), – ity/ – ty (reality,
cruelty), – ness (brightness), ish (reddish), – ly (firmly), – ate
(differentiate), – en (sharpen), – fy/ – ify (solidify). The
combining possibilities (or valiancy) are very important semantically because
the meaning of the derivative depends not only on the morphemes of Wichita^s
composed but also on combinations of stave and affix that can be contrasted
with it. Contrast is to be local for in the use of the same morpheme in
different environment and also in the use of different morphemes in environments
otherwise the same. The
difference between the suffixes – ity and – ism, for instance, will
become clear if we compare them as combined with identical stems in the
following oppositions: formality: formalism: humanity: humanist:
reality: realism. Roughly, the words in – ity mean the
quality of being what the corresponding adjective describes, or an instance of
this quality. The resulting nouns are countable. The suffix – ism forms
nouns, naming a disposition to what the adjective describes or a corresponding
type of ideology. Beng uncountable they belong to a different
lexico-grammatical class. The
similarity on which an apposition is based may consist, for the material under
consideration in the present paragraph, in the sameness of a suffix. A description
of suffixes according to the stems with which they are combined and the
lexico-grammatical classes they serve to differentiate may be helpful in the
analysis of the meanings they are used to render. A
good example is furnished by the suffix – ish, as a suffix of
adjectives. The combining possibilities of the suffix – ish are vast but
not unlimited. Boyish and waspish are used, where as enmesh
and aspish are not. The constraints here are of semantic nature. It is
regularly present in the names of nationalities as for example: British, Irish,
Spanish. When added to noun stems, it formes adjectives of the type «having the
nature of with a moderately derogatory colouring» bookish, churlish,
monkeyish, sheepish, swinish. Chidish has a
derogatory twist of meaning, the adjective with a good sense is childlike.
A man may be said to behave with a childish petulance, but with a childlike
simplicity. Compare also womanly having the qualities befitting a
woman, as in womanly compassion, womanly grace, womanly tact,
with the derogatory womanish effeminate as in: Womanish tears, traitors
to love and duty. (Cole ridge). With
adjective stems the meaning is not derogatory, the adjective renders a moderate
degree of the quality named: greenish somewhat green, stiffish
somewhat stiff, thinnish somewhat thin. The model is especially frequent
with colours: blackish, brownish, reddish. A similar but
stylistically peculiar meaning is observed in combinations with numeral stems. eightyish,
fortyish and the like are equivalent to round about eighty, round about
forty: Whats she like, Min? «Sixtyish Stout Grey hair.
Tweeds. Red face.» (MCCRONE) In
colloquial speech the suffix – ish is added to words denoting the time
of the day: four-oclockish or more often fourish means round
about four o^clock For example: Robert and I went to a cocktail party at
Annette^s. (Ituas called «drinks at six thirty ish» – the word «cocktail»
was going out). (W. COOPER). The
study of correlations of derivatives and stems is also helpful in bringing into
relief the meaning of the affix. The lexico-grammatical meaning of the suffix–ness
that forms nouns of quality from adjective stems becomes clear from the study
of correlations of the derivative and the underlying stem. A few examples
picked up at random will be sufficient proof: good: goodness: kind:
kindness: lonely: loneliness: ready: readiness:
righteous: righteousness: slow:slowness. The
suffixes – ion (and its allomorphs) and – or are
noun-forming suffixes combined with verbal stems. The opposition between them
serves to distinguish between two subclasses of noun abstract noun and agent
nouns, e.g. accumulation: accumulator; action:actor;
election:elector; liberation:liberator, oppressor;
vibration:vibrator, etc. The abstract noun in this case may mean
action, state or result of action remaining within the same subclass. Thus, cultivation
denotes the process of cultivating (most often of cultivating the soil) and the
state of being cultivated. Things may be somewhat different, with the suffix –
or because a cultivator is a person who cultivates and a machine for
breaking up ground, loosening the earth round growing plants and destroying
weeds. Thus two different subclasses are involved: one of animate beings, the
other of inanimate things. They differ not only semantically but grammatically
too: there exists a regular opposition between animate and inanimate nouns in
English: the first group is substituted by he or she, and the
second by the pronoun it. In derivation this opposition of animate
personal noun to all other noun is in some cases sustained by such suffixes as –
ard/ – art (braggart), – ist (novelist) and a
few others, but most often neutralized. The term neutralization may be
defined as c temporary suspension of an otherwise functioning opposition.
Neutralization as in the word Cultivator, is also observed with such
suffixes as – ant, – er that also occur in agent nouns, both
animate and inanimate. CF. accountant a person who keeps accounts and coolant
a cooling substance; fitter mechanic who fits up all kinds of metalwork
and shutter (in photography) device regulating the exposure to light of
a plate of film: runner a messenger and a millstone. Structural
observations such as these show that an analysis of suffixes in the light of
their valiancy and the lexico-grammatical subclasses that they serve to
differentiate may be useful in the analysis of their semantic properties. The
notions of opposition, correlation and neutralization introduced into
linguistics by N. Trubetzkoy and discussed in previous chapters prove relevant
and helpful in morphological analysis. 2.6
Prefixation 2.6.1
Prefixes of native and foreign origin We
call prefixes such particle s as can be prefixed to full words but are them
selves not words with an independent existence. Native prefixes have developed
out of independent words. Their number is small: a-, be-, un-, (negative and
reversative), fore-, mid-and (partly) mis-, Prefixes of foreign origin came
into the language ready made, so to speak. Tey are due to syntagmatic loans
from other languages: when a number of analyzable foreign words of the same
strucure had been introduced into the language, the pattern could be extended to
new formations. i. e. the prefix then became a derivative morpheme. Some
prefixes have second le-rely developed uses as independent words, as counter,
sub, arch which does not invalidate the principle that primarily
they were particles with no independent existence. The same phenomenon occurs
with suffixes also. 2.6.2
Prefixing on a Neo-Latin basis of coining There
are many prefixes, chiefly used in learned words or in scientific terminology,
which have come into the language through borrowing from Modern Latin, as ante-,
extra-, intra-/ meta, para – etc. The practice of
word coining with there particles begins in the 16th century, but really
develops with the progress of modern science only, i.e. in the 18th and esp the
19th century. With these particles there is a practical difficulty. They may
represent 1) such elements as are prefixes (in the above meaning) in Latin or 6
reek, as a – (acaudal etc.), semi – (semi-annual), 2) such
elements as exist as prepositions or particles with an independent word
existence, as intra, circum / hyper, para, 3) such
as are the stems of full words in Latin or 6 reek, as multi-, omni-/
astro-, hydro. This
last group is usually termed combining forms (OED Webster). In principle, the
three groups are on the same footing from the point of view of English wf, as
they represent loan elements in English with no independent existence as words.
That macro-, micro – a. o. should be termed combining from while hyper-,
hypro-, intro-, intra – a. o. are called prefixes by the
OED, is by no means justified. Only
such pts as are prefixed to fool English words of generals, learned, scientific
or technical character can be termed prefixes. Hyper-in hypersensitive
is a prefix, but hyper – in hypertrophy is not, as-trophy
is no word. We
cannot, however, under take to deal with all the prepositive elements occurring
in English. Such elements as astro-, electro-, galato-, hepato-,
oscheo – and countless others which are used in scientific or technical
terminology have not been treated in this book. They offer a purely dictionary
interest in any case. In the main, only those pts howe been considered that
fall under the above groups 1) and 2) But we have also in duded a few prefixes
which lie outside this scope, as prfs denoting number (poly-, multi-),
the pronominal stem auto, which is used with many words of general
character, and pts which are type – forming with English words of wider
currency (as crypto-, neo-, pseudo-). There
is often competition between prefixes as there is between suffixes and in
dependent words: over – and out – sometimes overlap, there is
overlapping between un – (negative) and in-, un – (reversative),
dis – and de-, between ante and pre-, super
– and trans-, super – and supra. 2.6.3
The conceptual relations underlying prefixed words A
pre-particle or prefix combination may be based on three different conceptual
patterns and accordingly present the prefixing three functional aspects: 1) the
prefix has adjectival force (with sbs, as in anteroom, archbishop,
co-hostess, ex-king); 2) the prefix has adverbial force (with
adjectives and verbs, as in unconscious, hypersensitive, informal,
overanxious/ unroll, revrite, mislay); 3) the
prefix has prepositional force (as in prewar years, postgraduate
studies, antiaircraft gun) afire, aflutter/anti-Nazi,
afternoon/encage: sbs and vbs must be considered syntagmas with a zero
determinate, the suffixs anti-Nazi, afternoon, encage
being the respective determinants). The
preceding conceptual patterns are important in the determination of the stress:
while a suffix. Based on an adjunct (primary relation tends to have two heavy
stresses (as in arch – enemy)) or may even have the main stress on the
prefix (as in subway), the prf. Has not more than a full middle stress in the
other types. 2.6.4
The phonemic status of prefixes The
semi-independent, word-like status of prefixes also appears from their
treatment in regard to stress. With the exception of regularly unstressed a
– (as in afire, aflutter), be – (as in befriend),
and em-, en – (as in emplace, encage) all prefixes
have stress. To illustrate this important point a comparison with non-composite
words of similar phonetic structure will be useful. If we compare the words re-full
and repeat, morphemic re- / ri / in refill is basically
characterized by presence of stress whereas non-morphemic re – [ri] is
basically characterized by absence of stress. This is proved by the fact that
under certain phonetically unpredictable circumstances, the phonemic stress of re-in
re-full, though basically a middle stress, can take the form of heavy
stress where as phonemic absence of stress can never rise to presence of
stress. They refilled the tank may become they refilled the
tank (for the sake of contrast) or they refilled the tank (for
emphasis), but no such shift is conceivable for mono-morphemic repeat, incite,
prefer etc. Which invariably maintain the pattern no stress/heavy
stress. 2.7
Productive and non-productive affixes The
synchronic analysis of the preceding paragraph studies the present-day system
and patterns characterized of the English vocabulary by comparing
simultaneously existing words. In diachronic analysis Lexical elements are
compared with those from which they have been formed and developed and their
present productivity is determined. The diachronic study of vocabulary
establishes whether the present morphological structure of each element of the
vocabulary is due to the process of affixation or some other word-forming
process, which took place within the English vocabulary in the course of its
development, or whether it has some other source. The possible other sources
are: (1) the borrowing of morphologically divisible words, e.g. i/-liter-ate
from lat. Illiterates or litera-ture from lat litteratura: (2)
reactivation, e.g. When in a number of Latin verbs harrowed in the second
participle form with the suffix – at (us), this suffix became – ate
(separate), and came to be understood as a characteristic mark of the
infinitive; (3) False etymology: when a difficult, usually borrowed, word
structure is destroyed in to some form suggesting a motivation, as, for
instance, in the change of asparagus into sparrowgrass, or OF r
and ME crevice into crayfish. Synchronic
analysis concentrates on structural types and treats word-formation as a system
of rules, aiming at the creation of a consistent and complete theory by which
the observed facts cab be classified, and the non-observed facts can be
predicted. This aim has not been achieved as yet, so that a consistently synchronic
description of the English language is still fragmentary still requires
frequent revision. Diachronic analysis concentrating on word-forming possesses
is more fully worked out. All
the foregoing treatment has been strictly synchronic i.e. only the present
state of the English vocabulary has been taken into consideration. To have a
complete picture of affixation, however one must be acquainted with the
development of the stock of morphemes involved. A diachronic approach is thus
indispensable. The
basic contrast that must be detalt with in this connection is the opposition of
productive and non-productive affixes. Conclusion Affixation
is the formation of words with the help of derivational affixes. Affixation is subdivided
into prefixation and suffixation. Ex. if a prefix «dis» is added to the stem
«like» (dislike) or suffix «ful» to «law» (lawful) we say a word is built by an
affixation. Derivational morphemes added before the stem of a word are called
prefixes (Ex. un+ like) and the derivational morphemes added after the stem of
the word are called suffixes (hand+ ful). Prefixes modify the lexical meaning
of the stem meaning i. e. the prefixed derivative mostly belongs to the same
part of speech. Ex. like (v.) – dislike (v.).kind (adj.) – unkind (adj.) but suffixes
transfer words to a different part of speech, ex. teach (v.) – teacher (n.). But
new investigations into the problem of prefixation in English showed
interesting results. It appears that the traditional opinion, current among
linguists that prefixes modify only the lexical meaning of words without
changing the part of speech is not quite correct. In English there are about 25
prefixes which can transfer words to a different part of speech. Ex. – head (n)
– behead (v), bus(n) – debus(v), brown (adj) – embrown(u), title(n) – entitle(v),
large (adj). – enlarge (v), camp(n). – encamp(u), war(n). – prewar (adj). If it
is so we can say that there is no functional difference between suffixes and
prefixes. Besides there are linguists1 who treat prefixes as a part
of word-composition. They think that a prefix has.he same function as the first
component of a compound word. Other linguists2 consider prefixes as
derivational affixes which differ essentially from root–morphemes and stems.
From the point of view of their origin affixes may be native and borrowed. The suffixes-ness,
– ish, – dom, – ful, – less, – ship and prefixes be-, mis-, un-, fore-, etc are
of native origin. But the affixes – able, – ment, – ation, – ism, – ist, re-, anti-,
dis-, etc are of borrowed origin. They came from the Greek, Latin and French languages.
Many of the suffixes and prefixes of native origin were independent words. In
the course of time they have lost their independence and turned into derivational
affixes. Ex. – dom, – hood. /O.E. had – state, rank, – dom (dom condemn, –
ship has developed from noun «scipe» (meaning: state); the adjective forming suffix
«-ly» has developed from the noun «lic» (body, shape). The prefixes out-,
under-, over etc also have developed out of independent words. Another
problem of the study of affixes is homonymic affixes. Homonymic affixes are
affixes which have the same sound form, spelling but different meanings and
they are added to different parts of speech. Ex.
ful (1) forms adjectives from a noun: love (v) – loveful (adj/, man (n), – manful
(adj). – ful
(2) forms adjective from a verb: forget (v.) – forgetful, (adj) thank (v.) –
thankful (adj). – ly(l)
added to an adjective stem is homonymous to the adjective forming suffix – ly(2)
which is added to a noun stem. Ex. quickly, slowly, and lovely, friendly. The
verb suffix-en (1) added to a noun and adjective stem is homonymous to the
adjective forming suffix – en (2) which is added to a noun stem. Ex. to
strengthen, to soften, and wooden, golden. The
prefix un – (l) added to a noun and a verb stem is homonymous to the prefix un
– (2) which is added to an adj¬ective stem. Ex. unshoe, unbind, unfair, untrue. In
the course of the history of English as a result of borrowings there appeared
many synonymous affixes in the language. Ex. the suffixes – er, – or, –
ist, – ent, – ant, – eer, – ian, – man, – ee, –
ess form synonymous affixes denoting the meaning «agent». Having the meaning of
negation the prefixes un-, in-, non-, dis-, rnis – form synonymic group of
prefixes. It is interesting to point out that the synonymous affixes help us to
reveal different lexico–semantic groupings of words. Ex. the words formed by
the suffixes – man, – er, – or, – ian, – ee, – eer, – ent,
ant etc. belong to the lexico-semantic groupings of words denoting «doer of the
action». The affixes may also undergo semantic changes, they may be
polysemantic. Ex. the noun forming suffix «er» has the following meanings: 1)
persons following some special trade and profession (driver, teacher, hunter);
2) persons doing a certain action at the moment in question (packer, chooser,
giver); 3) tools (blotter, atomizer, boiler, transmitter). The
adjective forming suffix «-y» also has several meanings: 1)
composed of, full of (bony, stony) 2)
characterized by (rainy, cloudy) 3)
having the character of resembling what the stem denotes (inky, bushy etc.) Thus,
affixes have different characteristic features. The
Comparative analysis of the English language with other languages showed that
English is not so rich in suffixes as, for example, the Uzbek language. The
total number of suffixes is 67 in English but the Uzbek suffixes are 171 and,
vice versa, prefixation is more typical to the English language than Uzbek
(Compare: 79:8) In
Uzbek there are following prefixes: be-, no-, ba, bo-, nim– By their origin the
Uzbek affixes like English ones are divided into native and borrowed. The
suffixes:chi, – gar, – zor, – li, – lik, – o^q are native suffixes but. – izm,
– atsiya, bo, no-, namo-, – ki are of borrowed origin. The affixes may be
divided into different semantic groups. These semantic groups of affixes may be
different in different languages. For example, diminutive affixes in Uzbek are
more than in English (see the table) As
compared with the Uzbek language the negative affixes are more widely used in
English. In
Uzbek: – siz (qo^lsiz), be – (berahm), no – (noxush) In
English: – less – (handless), a-, an – (anomalous); – un – (unkind) dis – (dislike),
anti – (antibiotic), de – (decode), in – (innocent) ir – (irregular), im – (impossible),
non – (nondeductive) Though
the number of Uzbek prefixes is very few (they are – 8) they are capable of changing
words from one part of speech into another. Ex. adab. (n.)» – boadab(adj),
hosil (n) – serhosil(adj) There
are different classifications of affixes in linguistic literature. Affixes may
be divided into dead and living. Dead affixes are those which are no longer
felt in Modern English as component parts of words. They can be singled out
only by an etymological analysis. Ex.admit (fromL ad+mit-tere); deed, seed (-d)
flight, bright(-t). Living
affixes are easily singled out from a word. Ex. freedom, childhood, marriage. Living
affixes are traditionally in their turn divided into productive and
non-productive. Productive affixes are those which are characterized by their
ability to make new words. Ex. – er (baker, lander (kosmik kema); – ist
(leftist – (chap taraf)) – ism, – ish (baldish) – ing, – ness, – ation, – ee.
– ry, – or – ance, ic are productive suffixes re-, un-non-, anti – etc are
productive prefixes. Non-productive
affixes are those which are not used to form new words in Modern English. Ex, –
ard, – cy, – ive, – en, – dom, – ship, – ful, – en, – ify etc are not
productive suffixes; in, ir (im-), mis – dis-, are non-productive prefixes.
These affixes may occur in a great number of words but if they are not used to
form new words in Modern English they are not productive. But
recent investigations prove that there are no productive and non-productive
affixes because each affix plays a certain role in wordformation. There are
only affixes with different degrees of productivity, besides that productivity
of affixes should not be mixed up with their frequency of occurence in speech.
Frequency of affixes is characterised by the occurence of an affix in a great
number of words. But productivity is the ability of a given suffix or prefix to
make new words. An affix may be frequent but not productive, ex, the suffix
«-ive» is very frequent but non-productive. Some
linguists distinguish between two types of prefixes: 1)
those which are like functional words (such as prepositions or adverbs) (ex.
out-, over-, up – .) 2)
those which are not correlated with any independent words, (ex. un-, dis-, re-,
mis-, etc). Prefixes
out-, over-, up-, under-, etc are considered as semibound morphemes. However,
this view is doubtful because these prefixes are quite frequent in speech and
like other derivational affixes have a generalized meaning. They have no
grammatical meaning like the independent words. We think they are bound morphemes
and should be regarded as homonyms of the corresponding independent words, ex.
the prefix «out-» in outdoor, outcome, outbreak etc is homonymous to the
preposition «out» in «out of door» and the adverb «out» in «He went out». Prefixes
and suffixes may be classified according to their meaning. 1)
prefixes of negative meaning such as; de-, non-, un – in-, ir-, il-, im-, dis –
(ex. defeat, decentralize, disappear, impossible, discomfort etc); 2) prefixes,
denoting space and time relations: after, under-, for-, pre-, post-, over-,
super – (ex, prehistory, postposition, superstructure, overspread, after¬noon,
forefather); 3) prefixes denoting relation of an action such as: re – (ex.
reread, remake). Like
prefixes the suffixes are also classified according to their meaning: 1)
the agent suffixes: – er, – or, – ist, – ee etc. (baker, sailor, typist,
employee); 2) appurtenance: – an, – ian, – ese (Arabian, Russian, Chinese,
Japanese); 3) collectivity: – age, – dom, – hood, – ery (peasantry, marriage,
kingdom, childhood); 4) dimi-nutiveness: – let, – ock, – ie etc (birdie,
cloudlet, hillock); 5) quan-titativeness1: – ful, – ous, – y, – ive,
– ly, – some. Suffixes
may be divided into different groups according to what part of speech they
form: 1)
noun – forming, i. e. those which are form nouns: – er, – dom, – ness, – ation,
– ity, – age, – ance. – ence, – ist, – hood, – ship, – ment etc; 2)
adjective-forming: – able/, – ible/. – uble, – al, – ian, – ese, – ate, – ed,
– ful, – ive, – ous, – y etc; 3) numeral-forming: – teen, – th, – ty etc; 4)
verb-forming: – ate, – en, – ify, – ize etc.; 5) adverb-forming: – ly, – ward, –
wise etc. Suffixes
may be added to the stem of different parts of speech. According to this point
of view they may be: 1)
those added to verbs: – er, – ing, – ment, – able; 2) those added to nouns: – less,
– ish, – ful, – ist, some etc; 3) those added to adjectives: – en, – ly, – ish,
– ness etc. Suffixes
are also classified according to their stylistic reference: 1) suffixes, which
characterize neutral stylistic reference: – able, – er, – ing (ex. dancer,
understandable (helping); 2) suffixes which characterize a certain stylistic
reference: – oid,
– form, – tron etc (astroid, rhomboid, cruciform, cyclo¬tron etc). Bibliography 1. Ginsburg R.S.
et al. A Course in Modern English Lexicology. M., 1979 pp.72–82 2. Buranov,
Muminov Readings on Modern English Lexicology T. O^qituvchi 1985 pp. 34–47 3. Arnold I.V.
The English Word M. High School 1986 pp. 143–149 4. O.
Jespersen. Linguistics. London, 1983, pp. 395–412 5. Jespersen,
Otto. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Oxford, 1982 pp. 246–249 5. The Concise
Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford 1964. pp. 147, 167, V.D. Arakin
English Russian Dictionary M. Russky Yazyk 1978 pp. 23–24, 117–119, 133–134 7. Abayev V.I.
Homonyms T. O^qituvchi 1981 pp. 4–5, 8, 26–29 8. Smirnitsky
A.I. Homonyms in English M.1977 pp.57–59, 89–90 9. Dubenets
E.M. Modern English Lexicology (Course of Lectures) M., Moscow State Teacher
Training University Publishers 2004 pp. 17–31 10. Akhmanova
O.S. Lexicology: Theory and Method. M. 1972 pp. 59–66 12. Burchfield
R.W. The English Language. Lnd. 1985 pp. 45–47 13. Canon G.
Historical Changes and English Wordformation: New Vocabulary items. N.Y., 1986.
p. 284 14. Howard Ph.
New words for Old. Lnd., 1980. p. 311 15. Sheard,
John. The Words we Use. N.Y., 1954.p. 3 16. Maurer D.W.,
High F.C. New Words – Where do they come from and where do they go. American Speech. 1982.p. 171 17. Aïðåñÿí Þ.Ä. Ëåêñè÷åñêàÿ
ñåìàíòèêà. Îìîíèìè÷åñêèå ñðåäñòâà ÿçûêà. Ì. 1974. ñ. 46 18. Áåëÿåâà Ò.Ì., Ïîòàïîâà È.À. Àíãëèéñêèé
ÿçûê çà ïðåäåëàìè Àíãëèè. Ë. Èçä-âî ËÃÓ 1971 Ñ. 150–151 19. Àðíîëüä È.Â. Ëåêñèêîëîãèÿ
ñîâðåìåííîãî àíãëèéñêîãî ÿçûêà. Ì. Âûñøàÿ øêîëà 1959. ñ. 212–224 20. Âèíîãðàäîâ Â.Â. Ëåêñèêîëîãèÿ
è ëåêñèêîãðàôèÿ. Èçáðàííûå òðóäû. Ì. 1977 ñ. 119–122 21. Bloomsbury
Dictionary of New Words. M. 1996 ñ. 276–278 22. Hornby The
Advanced Learner"s Dictionary of Current English. Lnd. 1974 ñ. 92–93, 111 23. Longman
Lexicon of Contemporary English. Longman. 1981 pp. 23–25 24. Òðîôèìîâà Ç.C. Dictionary of New
Words and New Meanings. "Ïàâëèí", 1993. 25. World Book
Encyclopedia NY Vol 8 1993 p. 321 26 Internet: http://www.wikipedia.com/English/articles/homonymy.htm 27. Internet:
http://www mpsttu.ru/works/english philology/ Ý.Ì. Äóáåíåö. Êóðñ ëåêöèé è ïëàíû ñåìèíàðñêèõ çàíÿòèé ïî
ëåêñèêîëîãèè àíãëèéñêîãî ÿçûêà
2. Second part
Diminutive
Suffixes
In English
In Uzbek
-ie (birdie),
– let (cloudlet), – ting (wolf ling), – ette (mountainette), – ock (hillock),
– y (Jony), – et (whippet), – kin (tigerkin),
-akay (yol-yolakay),
alak(do^ngalak), – gina(qizgina), jon(dadajon)
[1] See also: Ï A. Coáîëåâà, îá ocíîâàõ ñëîâ, ñâÿçàííûõ îòíîøåíèÿìè êîíâåðñèè. Ñá «Èíîñòðàííûå ÿçûêè â âûñøåé øêîëå», âûï. 2, 1963.
[2] A paradigm is defined as the system of grammatical forms characteristic of a word.
[3] Historical lexicology shows how sometimes the stem becomes bound due to the internal changes in the stem that accompany the addition of affixes; cf. broad: breadth, clean: cleanly ["klenhj, dear: dearth [dε:θ ], grief : -.grievous.
1 S. Potter, Modern Linguistics, p. 81, London, 1957
1 The contribution of Soviet scholars to this problem is seen in the works by M. D. Stepanova, E. S. Koobryakova and many others. See: È.È. Èâàíîâà, Î ìîðôîëîãè÷åñêîé õàðàêòåðèñòèêå ñëîâà â ñîâðåìåííîì àíãëèéñêîì ÿçûêå, «Ïðîáëåìû ìîðôîëîãè÷åñêîãî ñòðîÿ ãåðìàíñêèõ ÿçûêîâ», Ì., 1963; Å.Ñ. Êóáðÿêîâà, ×òî òàêîå ñëîâîîáðàçîâàíèå, Ì., 1965; Ì.Ä.Ñòåïàíîâà, Ìåòîäû ñèíõðîííîãî àíàëèçà ëåêñèêè, Ì.: 1968.
1H. Pilch, Comparative Constructions in English, "Language", vol. 41, No1, Jan.-March 1965, p. 40
1 Immediate constituents — pny of the two meaningful parts forming a larger linguistic unity.
2 L. Bloomfield, Language, London, 1935, p. 210.
3 See: E. O. Nida, Morphology. The Descriptive Analysis of Words, Ann Arbor, 1946 p. Fl.
1 2.S. Harris, Methods in Structural Linguistics, p. 163.
1 E. Nida, Morphology, University of Michigan Press, 1946, pp. 81-82.
2 A.H. Cìèðíèöèñêèé, Ëåêñèêîëîãèÿ àíãëèéñêîãî ÿçûêà, M., 1956, ñ. 63.
(zip - application/zip)
Ñòàòèñòèêà ôàéëîâîãî àðõèâà
