THE MINISTRY OF HIGHER AND SECONDARY SPECIAL
EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
THE UZBEK STATE WORLD LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY
ENGLISH Y FACULTY II
ENGLISH LEXICOLOGY DEPARTMENT
COURSE PAPER
Affixation as a major type of word
formation
Written by the student of the 3rd course, 312 group
Hoshimqulova M
Scientific superviser:
Azimbayeva D.A.
TASHKENT 2016
CONTENTS
Introduction……………………………………………………………….....…....3
Chapter I. The historical background of the English lexicology
1.1.Word-formation as a subject of study....................................................6
1.2.Various types and ways of Forming-words............................................8
Chapter II. Affixation as a productive type of word formation
2.1. Productivity of affixation………………………………………….................19
2.2. Structural and Semantic analysis of affixes……………………….…............31
Conclusion………………………………………………......................................40
The list of used literature…………………………………………………….....42
Introduction
As President Islam Karimov stated “Today the world demands that we
should say our word, demonstrate our intellectual capacities,”1 and that is why “The
most important thing for us is to give young people an opportunity to master a
certain speciality, to provide them with a reliable start in life”2.
Undoubtedly nowadays there are many opportunities for the youth of Uzbekistan to
show their full capacity in any field. Using these opportunities wisely, I am also
trying to research my bachelor diploma work in my speciality.
The given course paper is dedicated to the study of affixation as a productive way
of word-formation, which presents a certain interest both for theoretical
investigation and for the practical language use.
The aim of this course paper describes the main productive way of wordformation in Modern English according to this general aim there put forward the
following particular tasks:
1. to define word-formation as a subject;
2. to describe the various types and ways of forming words
3. to analyze the productive way of English word formation ;
4. to study the types of affixation
The theoretical significance of this course paper is that, the theoretical
position can be used in scientific works besides, that they may be used delivering
lectures on Lexicology. The practical value of the course paper is that, the practical
results and conclusion can be used in seminars on Lexicology.
The structure of this course paper is as follows: Introduction, main part,
four paragraphs conclusion and bibliography.
Introduction deals with the description of the structure of a course paper.
The first paragraph deals with word-formation as a subject.
The second paragraph deals with the types of forming words.
Islam Karimov (1998). Ideology – the Uniting Principle of Nation, Society and State. Answers to the questions of Editor-in-Chief of the
Taffakkur magazine. Tashkent: Uzbekistan. (p. 25)
2 The same book, (p. 21)
1
In the third paragraph we discuss about the productive ways of
word-formation. It consists of two paragraphs :
In the forth paragraph we discuss the Structural and Semantical analysis of affixes
and the types of affixation and its problem.
Introduction establishes the purpose, the tasks, novelty, the methods used in
the investigation, practical and theoretical significance of the work and explains
the reasons of choosing the theme for studying.
The list of used literature contains more then 20 units which deal with the
question under discussion.
Chapter I. The historical background of the English lexicology
1. 1. Word-formation as a Subject of Study
Before turning to the various processes of making words, it would be useful to
analyze the related problem of the composition of words of their constituent parts.
If viewed structurally, words appear to be divisible into smaller units, which
are called morphemes. Morphs don't occur as free forms, but only as constituents
of words. Yet, they possess meanings of their own.
All morphemes are subdivided into two large classes: roots and affixes. The latter,
in their turn, fall into prefixes which precede the root in the structure of the word
(as in re - read, mis - pronounce, un - well) and suffixes which follow the root (as
in teach- er, cur - able, dec - ate).
Words which consist of a root and an affix (or several affixes) are called
derived words or derivatives and are produced by the process of word-building,
known as affixation (or derivation).
Derived words are extremely numerous in the English vocabulary.
Successfully competing with this structural type is the, so-called, root word which
has only a root morpheme in its structure. This type is widely represented by a
great number of words belonging to the original English stock or to earlier
borrowings (house, room, book, work, port,, street, table) and , in Modern English ,
has been greatly enlarged by the type oi word- building called conversion.
Another wide-spread word structure is a compound word consisting of two
or more stems (dining-room). Words of this structural type are produced by the
word-building process called composition.
The somewhat odd-looking words like flu, pram, lab, M.P., V-day, H-bomb
are called shortenings. Derivation and composition are the most productive ways
of word-building.
To return to the question posed by the title of this chapter, of how words are made,
let us try and get a more detailed picture of each of the major types of Modern
English word-building and, also, of some minor types.
Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches.
As a subject of study, word-building is that branch of Lexicology, which
studies the patterns on which a language, in this case the English language, builds
new words. It's self-evident that word-formation can deal only with words which
are analyzable both structurally and semantically. The study of the simple word
has no place in it. Therefore, writer, displease, atom- free and others are relevant to
word-formation, but to write, to please, atom, free are not.
Like any other linguistic phenomenon word-formation may be studied from
two angles - synchronically and diachronically. It's necessary to distinguish
between these two approaches, for synchronically the linguist investigates the
present-day system of the types of the word-formation while diachronically, he is
concerned with the history of word-building. To illustrate the difference of
approach we shall consider affixation.
Synchronically a derived word is structurally and semantically more complex
than a simple one, while diachronically it was formed from some other word. On
the synchronic plane a derived word is regarded as having a more complex
structure than its correlated simple word regardless of the fact whether it was
derived from a simple stem or not. There are cases in the history of the English
language when a word structurally more complex served as the original element
from which a simpler word was derived. Those are cases of the process called
back-formation (or back-derivation): beggar - to beg, editor - to edit, chauffeur - to
chauff and some others.
The fact that historically the verbs to beg, to chauff, to edit and others were
derived from the corresponding agent-nouns is of no synchronous relevance. For
the present day speaker no such relationship exists, therefore they are all simple
words in Modern English.
While analyzing and describing word-formation synchronically it's not
enough to extract the relevant structural elements from a word, describe its
structure in terms of morphemes and allomorphs and determine the type of wordformation; it is absolutely necessary to determine the position of the constituents
within the structural system of the language as a whole. Productivity of a
derivative type, therefore, can not be overlooked in this description.
Some of the ways of forming words in present-day English can be resorted
to for the creation of new words whenever occasion demands - these are called
productive ways of forming words ; other ways of forming words can not now
produce new words and these are commonly termed non-productive or
unproductive. For instance, affixation has been a productive way of forming words
ever since the Old English period fiscere1 and MnE striker and steamer. On the
other hand, sound-interchange must have been at one time a word-building means
but in Modern English it can't be used to coin new words. Actually, its function in
Modern English is only to distinguish one word from another, a verb from a noun,
as is the case with:
food - to feed, blood - to bleed, full - to fill and so on.
The delimitation between productive and non-productive ways and means of
word-formation as stated above is not, however, accepted by all linguists without
reserve.
Some linguists consider it necessary to define the term "productivity of a wordbuilding means" more accurately. They hold the view that productive ways and
means of word-formation are only those that can be used for the formation of an
unlimited number of new words in the Modern Language, such means that "know
no bounds" and easily form occasional words. This divergence of opinion is
responsible in particular, for the difference in the lists of derivational affixes
considered productive in various books on English Lexicology.
2.2. Various Types and Ways of Forming Words
The available linguistic literature on the subject cites various types and ways
of forming words. Books dealing with the problems of word-formation in the
Russian language, as well as some books on English Lexicology usually mention
morphologic, syntactic and semantic types of word-formation.
In conformity with the basic structural types of stems and words described
above the following two types of word
formation may be distinguished : word derivation and word-composition
(or compounding) words created by word-derivation have only one primary stem
and one derivational affix in terms of word-formation analysis, for example,
cleanness (from clean), to overestimate (from to estimate), chairmanship (from
chairman), waterproofness (from waterproof), openhandedness (from openhanded) etc. Some derived words have no affixes, because derivation is achieved
through conversion, for instance, to paper (from paper), a fall, and so on.
Words created by word-composition have at least two primary stems, e.g. ,
coal-black , ice-cold , looking-glass , daydream, hotbed, speedometer etc. Besides,
there are words built by a simultaneous application of composition and derivation
(suffixation or conversion) - derivational compounds, eg., long- legged, openminded, a breakdown and others.
The shortening of words stands apart from the above two-fold division of
word-formation. It can not be regarded as part of either word-derivation or wordcomposition for the simple reason that neither the root morpheme nor the
derivational affix can be singled out from the shortened word (lab, exam, V- day,)
Consequently, the shortening of words should be treated separately as a specific
type of word-formation.
Within the types, further distinction may be made between ways of forming
words, he basic ways of forming words in word- derivation, for instance, are
affixation and conversion. The lexicalization of grammatical forms, sound and
stress interchange and some others are usually referred to as minor ways of
forming words.
In describing the technique of word-formation it is important to point out the
means by which word-formation is effected. For instance, affixation is
characterized by the use of suffixes and prefixes, some cases of compounding by
the use of connecting elements etc.
Another classification of the types of word-formation worked out by
H.Marchand is also of interest. Proceeding from the distinction between complete
motivation as found in such composites as rain-bow, do-er, un-do and others are
partial motivation as exemplified by phonetic symbolism (pish, pooh, crack) he
considers two major groups:
1. Words formed as grammatical syntagmas, i.e. combination of full linguistic
signs;
2. Words which are not grammatical syntagmas, i.e. which are composites not
made up of full linguistic signs.
To the first group belong Compounding, Prefvcation, Derivation by a
Zero Morpheme and Back-derivation; To the second Expressive Symbolism,
Blending, Clipping, Rhyme and Abhut Gemination, Word-manufacturing.
There are two types of word-formation in Modern English: word -derivation and
word-composition. Within the types further distinction is made between the
various ways and means of word-formation.
Sound and stress-interchange in Modern English are means distinguished
between different words of different parts of speech.
The degrees of productivity and factors favoring it make an important aspect
of synchronic description of every derivational pattern within the two types of
word-formation.
Compound word is a productive way of Word-Formation
A compound word is a combination of two or more words that function as a
single unit of meaning. When two (or more) elements which could potentially be
used as stems are combined to form another stem, the form is said to be a
compound. A compound lexeme (or simply a compound) can thus be defined as a
lexeme containing two or more potential stems, Since each potential stem contains
at least one root, a compound must contain at least two roots.( If one of the
potential stems that makes up the compound is itself compound, the resultant form
may, of course, contain more than two roots, paint-box.)
However, this definition is not quite sufficient, since derivational process
may at times apply to forms containing more than one root (e.g. school-master,
super-highway). In such cases it is said that the base of the derivational process is
compound, but not that the whole lexeme is a compound. A compound may
therefore be more fully defined as a lexeme containing two or more potential stems
that has not subsequently been subjected to a derivational process. It should be
noted that while derivation may apply to forms containing more than one root, the
presence of two roots is not criteria for derivation as it is for compounding.
It is frequently useful to have a term to cover both the forms produced by
compounding to contrast these with forms produced by inflection and words which
are made up of just roots.
There are three types of compounds: those are written as single words, with no
hyphenation, are called closed compounds the word “flowerpot”, for example.
Hyphenated compounds, such as “merry-go-round” and “well-being”, are the
second type. Those in the third group, called open compounds, are written as
separate words – the nouns “school bus” and “decision making”.
Keep in mind that compounds can function as different parts of speech. In
such cases, the type of compound “carryover” as a noun and an adjective:
The money from that line item will carry over to next year`s budget.
The money we used for the trip was part of the carryover from last year`s
budget.
Carryover funds can be used to cover a deficit.
When you don`t know in which category a particular compound belongs, first
try looking it up in the dictionary. You will see there that some compounds are
hyphenated regardless of their function in a sentence. For example, “on-site” is a
hyphenated compound when it functions as an adjective or as an adverb: “The
team conducted on-site visits” and “The team conducted its review on-site”.
The real confusion begins when the compound is not given in the dictionary.
That is, it is a compound that is being formed for a very specific situation. In such
cases, we have rely on guidelines provide by the style manual to which we adhere.
Our style manual of choice, the Chicago Manual of Style, has a lengthy section
devoted to compound words- evidence that the rules are not simple.
One way to decide if a hyphen is necessary is to see if the phrase might be
ambiguous without it. For example, “large-print paper” might be unclear written as
“large print paper” because the reader might combine “print” and “paper” as a
single idea rather than combining “large” and “print”. Another such example is
“English-language learners”. Without the hyphens, a reader might think we are
talking about English people who are learning any language rather than people
who are learners of the English language.
On the other hand, no one is going to be confused by the phrase “chocolate
chip cookies” or “Saturday morning cartoons”. In other words, the open
compounds (i.e., no hyphen) “chocolate chip” and “Saturday morning” are so well
known that there is no room for ambiguity. The open compound “high school” is
so common, for another example, that we would not hyphenate the high phrase
“high school students”. We would, however, hyphenate “high risk” in phrase “high
risk students”.
The other time we must use hyphenation is to join a word to past participle to
create a single adjective preceding the noun it modifies: “a well-intentioned plan”,
or “a horseshoe-shaped bar”. Be aware, however, that we do not hyphenate these
same phrases when they follow the nouns they modify:
This is a government-mandated program.
The program is government mandated.
She is a well-respected student.
She is well respected as a teacher.
Another basic rule is that we never hyphenate compounds that are created with “ly” adverbs, even when they precede the nouns they modify: “a fully developed
plan”, or “a nationally certified teacher”. Here are more examples:
We sent heavily fortified troops.
The troops were heavily fortified.
All newly employed nurses must be evaluated regularly.
All the nurses on the eight floors are newly employed.
Compound words are two words put together. Knowing when to use a
hyphen and when to spell them as one word is difficult. British & U.S. usages do
not always agree, and different dictionaries published in the same country do not
always agree. In U.S. usage, fewer hyphens are than in British usage. Many more
compound words are written as one word today than were written that way in past.
Compound adjectives are two separate words that together modify a noun. They
are usually written with a hyphen if they come before the word they modify, but
sometimes usage changes and they become one word.
Written as
written with
written as two
One word
words
a hyphen separate
Firsthand
first-degree
first aid
Stream boat engine
post-Victorian
land office
Postgraduate meridium
post-mortem
stream
In English, words, particularly adjectives and nouns, are combined into
compound structures in a variety of ways. And once they are formed, they
sometimes metamorphose over time. A common pattern is that two words- fire fly,
say- will be joined by a hyphen for a time- fire-fly- and then be joined into one
word – firefly. In this respect, a language like German, in which words are happily
and immediately linked one to the other, might seem to have an advantage. There
is only one sure way to know how to spell compounds in English; use an
authoritative dictionary.
There are three forms of compound words:
1. the closed form, in which the words are melded together, such is firefly,
secondhand, softball, childlike, cross-town, redhead, keyboard, makeup, notebook;
2. the hyphenated form such is daughter-in-law, master-at-arms, over –the-counter,
six-pack, six-years-old, mass-produced;
3. the open form, such as post office, real estate, middle class, full moon, half sister
attorney general.
How are words modified by an adjective – “a little school.” “The yellow
butter”- is different from a compound word-“a high school”, “the peanut butter”- is
a nice and philosophical question. In clearly has something to do with the degree to
which preceding word changes the essential character of the noun, the degree to
which the modifier and the noun is separable. If you were diagramming a sentence
with a compound word, you would probably keep the words together, on the same
horizontal line.
Modifying compounds are often hyphenated to avoid confusion. The New
York Public Library`s Writers Guide points out than an old-furniture salesman
clearly deals in old furniture, but an old furniture salesman would be an old man.
We probably would not have the same ambiguity, however, about a car used
dealer. When compounded modifiers precede a noun, they are often hyphenated:
part-time teacher, fifty-yard wide field, fire-resistant curtains, and high –speed
chase. When those same modifying words came after the noun, however, they are
not hyphenated: a field fifty yard wide, curtains that are fire resistant, etc. the
second-rate
opera
company gave a
performance
that
was
first
rate.
Comparative and superlative forms of adjectives are hyphenated when
compounded with other modifiers: a highly rated bank, a partially refunded ticket,
publicly held securities. Sometimes hyphenated modifiers lost their hyphens when
they become compound nouns: A clear decision-making process was evident in
their decision making. The bluish was very slowly disappearing from the bluish
grey- sky. This is not always s, however: your high- rise apartment building is also
known as a high-rise.When modifying a person with his or her age, the
compounded phrase is hyphenated: my six-years-old son. However, when the age
comes after the person, we don`t use a hyphen. My son is six years old. He is,
however, a six-years-old.
Plurals and Possessives
Most dictionaries will give variant of compound plurals. When you have
more than one truck fuddled with sand, do you have several truck fuddled with
sand, do you have several truckfuls or trucksful? The dictionary will give you both,
with the first spelling usually preferred. (And the same is true of teaspoonfuls,
cupfuls, etc.) The dictionary will help you discover that only one spelling is
acceptable for some compounds –like passersby.
For hyphenated forms, the pluralizing –s is usually attached to the element
that is actually being pluralized: daughters-in-law, half-moons, mayors-elect. The
Chicago manual of Style says that “hyphenated and open compound are regularly
made plural by the addition of the plural inflection to the element that is subject to
the change in number” and gives as examples “father-in-law”, sergeants-in-arms”,
“doctors-in-arms”, “doctors of philosophy” and “courts martial”. The NYPL
Writer`s Guide puts this way: “the most significant word – generally the noun-
takes the plural form. The significant word may be at the beginning, middle, or end
of the term”. And then we get examples such as “attorney at law”, “bills of fare”,
“chiefs of staff”, “notaries public”, “assistant attorney general”, “higher ups”,
“also-rans”, and “go-between”.
As a general rule, then the plural form of an element in a hierarchical term belongs
to the base element in the term, regardless of the base element`s placement:
- first sergeant
- sergeants major
- sergeant first class
- colonel generals(Russian)
-
lieutenant generals
-
lieutenant colonels
-
apprentice Journeyman and master mechanics
- deputy librarians
- deputy assistant secretaries of state
The possessive of a hyphenated compound is created by attaching an apostrophe
–s to the end of the compound itself: my daughter-in-law`s car, a friend of mine`s
car. To create the possessive of pluralized and compounded forms, a writer is wise
to avoid the apostrophe –s form and use an “of phrase (the “post genitive”) instead:
the meeting of the daughter-in-law, the schedule of half-moons. Otherwise, the
possessive form becomes downright weird: the daughter-in-law`s meeting, friends
of mine`s cars.
One of the most difficult decisions to make about possessives and plurals of
compound words occurs when you can`t decide whether the first noun in
compound structure is acting as a noun that ought to be showing possession or as
what is called an attribute noun, essentially an adjective. In other words, do we
write that: I am going to writer`s conference or to a writers` conference? The
Chicago Style Manual suggests that if singular nouns can act as attributive nouns –
city government, tax relief – then plural nouns should be able to act as attributive
nouns: consumer group, teachers union. This principle is not universally endorsed,
however, and writers must remember to be consistent within a document.
The section doesn`t speak to the matter of compounded nouns as “Professor
Villa`s and Professor Darling`s classes have been filled.”
Compound nouns can be further subdivided into four groups according to
semantic criteria. Consider first the examples beehive, armchair, redskin,
highbrow, maidservant. These can all be divided into a second element, which is
the grammatical head (this is the element marked for number, and also, in
languages which have grammatical gender, the element which determines the
gender of the compound) and a first element which id the modifying element
(which is not marked for number and doesn`t determine gender). In the first two
examples, the compound is a hyponym of the grammatical head: a beehive is a
kind of hive; an armchair is a kind of chair.
This type of compound is termed an endocentric compound. In the second
two examples, the compound is not a hyponym of the grammatical head: a redskin
is not a type of skin, nor is a highbrow a type of brow.
This type of compound, termed an exocentric compound (or sometimes a
bahuvrihi compound, using the Sanskrit terminology), is a hyponym of some
unexpected semantic head (‘person ‘ in both the examples given here). Since the
semantic head is unexpressed in such compounds, the compound is frequently seen
as metaphorical or synecdoche.
Thirdly, maidservant is a hyponym of both maid and servant: a maidservant
is a type of maid and also a type of servant.
This type of compound is called an appositional compound.
The final division of compound nouns is exemplified by Alsace-Loraine
and Rank-Hives. Here is not always clear which element is the grammatical head
and the compound is not a hyponym of either element, but the elements name
separate entities which combine to form the entity denoted by the compound. This
type of compound is normally given the Sanskrit name of dvandva, although the
English term copulative is also used to describe them.
These semantic divisions interact with syntactic divisions according to the
form class of whole compound (compound noun, compound adjective, etc.) and
the form classes of the individual elements in the compounds, so that redskin, as
well as being an exocentric compound, is a compound noun made up of an
adjective and a noun, and armchair is an endocentric compound noun made up of
two nouns.
Chapter II. Affixation as a productive type of word formation
2.1. Productivity of affixation
Mastering the rules which native speakers intuitively apply to form new
terms and knowing which patterns of word formation show a higher productivity
will help learners to make generalisations and to understand at least a significant
part of newly formed terms.
One of the most productive word-formation processes in English is
affixation, a process by which a new word is built from a base, usually through the
addition of an affix, either at the beginning (prefix) or end of the base (suffix).
In classifying the prefixes and affixes the following approaches were used:
-
synchronic approach
-
diachronic approach
In our research we’ve studied the productivity of derivational process. The
topic of productivity has become one of much interest and debate. We took the
presence of neologisms to be evidence for the contemporary productivity of an
affix. For this purpose we mainly used the classification from OED (Oxford
English dictionary) and thus paid more attention on the dictionary-based method
(counting neologisms in a certain period of time by using the dictionary - OE
Morphological productivity
Morphological productivity can be defined as "the property of a given word
formation process to be used to derive a new word in a systematic fashion" (Plag
1999). With reference to Bauer (1983), "a morphological process can be said to be
more or less productive according to the number of new words which it is used to
form".
Most linguists consider the following major word-formational processes:
- Affixation
- Compounding
- Conversion
The minor word-formational processes are:
- Blending
- Clipping
- Back-formation
- Borrowing
- Reduplication
- Acronymy
- Sound interchange
Some of the ways of forming words in nowadays English can be restored to
for the creation of new words whenever the occasion demands – these are called
productive ways of forming words, other ways of forming words cannot now
produce new words, and these are commonly termed non-productive or
unproductive. R. S. Ginzburg gives the example of affixation having been a
productive way of forming new words ever since the Old English period. It follows
that productivity of word-building ways, individual derivational patterns and
derivational affixes is understood as their ability of making new words which all
who speak English find no difficulty in understanding.The delimitation between
productive and non-productive ways and means of word-formation as stated above
is not, however, accepted by all linguists without reserve. Some linguists consider
it necessary to define the term productivity of a word-building means more
accurately. They hold the view that productive ways and means of word-formation
are only those that can be used for the formation of an unlimited number of new
words in the modern language, i.e. such means that “know no bounds” and easily
form occasional words. This divergence of opinion is responsible for the difference
in the lists of derivational affixes considered productive in various books on
English lexicology. Nevertheless, recent investigations seem to prove that
productivity of derivational means is the highest. Moreover there are no absolutely
productive means; derivational patterns and derivational affixes possess different
degrees of productivity. Therefore it is important that conditions favouring
productivity and the degree if productivity of a particular pattern or affix should be
established. All derivational patterns experience both structural and semantic
constraints. The fewer are the constraints, the higher is the degree of productivity,
the greater is the number of new words built on it. The two general constraints
imposed on all derivational patterns are: the part of speech in which the pattern
functions and the meaning attached to it which conveys the regular semantic
correlation between the two classes of words. It follows that each part of speech is
characterized by a set of productive derivational patterns peculiar to it. Three
degrees of productivity are distinguished for derivational patterns and individual
derivational affixes: highly productive, productive or semi-productive and nonproductive.
Affixation is generally defined as the formation of words by adding derivational
affixes to different types of bases. Derived words formed by affixation may be the
result of one or several applications of word- formation rule and thus the stems of
words making up a word-cluster enter into derivational relations of different
degrees. The zero degree of derivation is ascribed to simple words, i.e. words
whose stem is homonymous with a word-form and often with a root-morpheme
(e.g. atom, haste, devote, anxious, horror, etc.). Derived words whose bases are
built on simple stems and thus are formed by the application of one derivational
affix are described as having the first degree of derivation (e.g. atomic, hasty,
devotion, etc.). Derived words formed by two consecutive stages of coining
possess the second degree of derivation (e.g. atomical, hastily, devotional, etc.),
and so forth.
Types of affixes
Affixes usually are divided into:
- prefixes
- suffixes
- infixes
Prefixes may be classified on different principles. Diachronically distinction is
made
between
prefixes
of
native
and
foreign
origin.
Synchronically prefixes may be classified:
1) According to the class of words they preferably form. Recent investigations
allow one to classify prefixes according to this principle.
It must be noted that most of the 51 prefixes of Modern English function in more
than one part of speech forming different structural and structural-semantic
patterns. A small group of 5 prefixes may be referred to exclusively verb-forming
(en–, be–, un–, etc.).
2) As to the type of lexical-grammatical character of the base they are added to
into: (a) deverbal, e.g. rewrite, outstay, overdo, etc.; (b) denominal, e.g. unbutton,
detrain, ex-president, etc. and (c) deadjectival, e.g. uneasy, biannual, etc. It is
interesting that the most productive prefixal pattern for adjectives is the one made
up of the prefix un– and the base built either on adjectival stems or present and
past participle, e.g. unknown, unsmiling, untold, etc.
3) Semantically prefixes fall into mono– and polysemantic.
4) As to the generic denotational meaning there are different groups that are
distinguished in linguistic literature: (a) negative prefixes such as un–, non–, in–,
dis–, a–, im–/in–/ir– (e.g. employment ( unemployment, politician ( non-politician,
correct ( incorrect, advantage ( disadvantage, moral ( amoral, legal ( illegal, etc.);
(b) reversative of privative prefixes, such as un–, de–, dis–, dis– (e.g. tie ( untie,
centralize ( decentralize, connect ( disconnect, etc.);
(c) pejorative prefixes, such as mis–, mal–, pseudo– (e.g. calculate ( miscalculate,
function ( malfunction, scientific ( pseudo-scientific, etc.); (d) prefixes of time and
order, such as fore–, pre–, post–, ex–(e.g. see ( foresee, war ( pre-war, Soviet (
post-Soviet, wife ( ex- wife, etc.); (e) prefix of repetition re– (e.g. do ( redo, type (
retype, etc.); (f) locative prefixes such as super–, sub–, inter–, trans– (e.g. market (
supermarket, culture ( subculture, national ( international, Atlantic ( trans-Atlantic,
etc.).
5) When viewed from the angle of their stylistic reference, English prefixes fall
into those characterized by neutral stylistic reference and those possessing quite a
definite stylistic value. As no exhaustive lexico-stylistic classification of English
prefixes has yet been suggested, a few examples can only be adduced here. There
is no doubt, for instance, that prefixes like un–, out–, over–, re–, under– and some
others can be qualified as neutral (e. g. unnatural, unlace, outgrow, override, redo,
underestimate, etc.). On the other hand, one can hardly fail to perceive the literarybookish character of such prefixes as pseudo–, super–, ultra–, uni–, bi– and some
others (e. g. pseudo-classical, superstructure, ultra-violence, unilateral, bifocal,
etc.).Sometimes one comes across pairs of prefixes one of which is neutral, the
other is stylistically coloured. One example will suffice here: the prefix over–
occurs in all functional styles, the prefix super– is peculiar to the style of scientific
prose.
6) Prefixes may be also classified as to the degree of productivity into highlyproductive, productive and non-productive. Suffixation is the formation of words
with the help of suffixes. Suffixes usually modify the lexical meaning of the base
and transfer words to a different part of speech. There are suffixes however, which
do not shift words from one part of speech into another; a suffix of this kind
usually transfers a word into a different semantic group, e. g. a concrete noun
becomes an abstract one, as is the case with child—childhood, friend—friendship,
etc. Chains of suffixes occurring in derived words having two and more suffixal
morphemes are sometimes referred to in lexicography as compound suffixes:
–ably = –able + –ly (e. g. profitably, unreasonably) –ical–ly = –ic + –al +
–ly (e. g. musically, critically); –ation = –ate + –ion (e. g. fascination, isolation)
and some others. Compound suffixes do not always present a mere succession of
two or more suffixes arising out of several consecutive stages of derivation. Some
of them acquire a new quality operating as a whole unit. Let us examine from this
point of view the suffix –ation in words like fascination, translation, adaptation and
the like. Adaptation looks at first sight like a parallel to fascination, translation.
The latter however are first-degree derivatives built with the suffix –ion on the
bases fascinate–, translate–. But there is no base adaptate–, only the shorter base
adapt–. Likewise damnation, condemnation, formation, information and many
others
are
not
matched
by
shorter
bases
ending
in
–ate, but only by still shorter ones damn–, condemn–, form–, inform–. Thus, the
suffix –ation is a specific suffix of a composite nature. It consists of two suffixes –
ate and –ion, but in many cases functions as a single unit in first-degree
derivatives. It is referred to in linguistic literature as a coalescent suffix or a group
suffix. Adaptation is then a derivative of the first degree of derivation built with
the coalescent suffix on the base adapt–.
Of interest is also the group-suffix –manship consisting of the suffixes
–man and –ship. It denotes a superior quality, ability of doing something to
perfection, e. g. authormanship, quotemanship, lipmanship, etc. It also seems
appropriate to make several remarks about the morphological changes that
sometimes accompany the process of combining derivational morphemes with
bases. Although this problem has been so far insufficiently investigated, some
observations have been made and some data collected. For instance, the nounforming suffix –ess for names of female beings brings about a certain change in the
phonetic shape of the correlative male noun provided the latter ends in –er, –or,
e.g. actress (actor), sculptress(sculptor), tigress (tiger), etc. It may be easily
observed that in such cases the sound is contracted in the feminine nouns.
Further, there are suffixes due to which the primary stress is shifted to the syllable
immediately preceding them, e.g. courageous (courage), stability (stable),
investigation (investigate), peculiarity (peculiar), etc. When added to a base having
the suffix –able/–ible as its component, the suffix –ity brings about a change in its
phonetic shape, namely the vowel is inserted between and e. g. possible possibility,
changeable ( changeability, etc. There are different classifications of suffixes in
linguistic literature, as suffixes may be divided into several groups according to
different principles:
1) The first principle of classification that, one might say, suggests itself is the part
of speech formed. Within the scope of the part-of- speech classification suffixes
naturally fall into several groups such as: a) noun-suffixes, i.e. those forming or
occurring in nouns, e. g.–er, –dom, –ness, –ation, etc. (teacher, Londoner, freedom,
brightness, justification, etc.); b) adjective-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring
in adjectives, e. g. –able, –less, –ful, –ic, –ous, etc.(agreeable, careless, doubtful,
poetic, courageous, etc.); c) verb-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in verbs,
e. g.–en, –fy, –ize (darken, satisfy, harmonize, etc.); d) adverb-suffixes, i.e. those
forming or occurring in adverbs, e. g. –ly, –ward (quickly, eastward, etc.).
2) Suffixes may also be classified into various groups according to the lexicogrammatical character of the base the affix is usually added to. Proceeding from
this principle one may divide suffixes into: a) deverbal suffixes (those added to the
verbal base), e. g. –er,–ing, –ment, –able, etc. (speaker, reading, agreement,
suitable, etc.); b) denominal suffixes (those added to the noun base), e. g. –less,
–ish, –ful, –ist, –some, etc. (handless, childish, mouthful, violinist, troublesome,
etc.); c) de-adjectival suffixes (those affixed to the adjective base), e. g. –en, –ly, –
ish, –ness, etc. (blacken, slowly, reddish, brightness, etc.).
3) A classification of suffixes may also be based on the criterion of sense
expressed by a set of suffixes. Proceeding from this principle suffixes are classified
into various groups within the bounds of a certain part of speech. For instance,
noun-suffixes fall into those denoting: a) the agent of an action, e. g. –er, –ant
(baker, dancer, defendant, etc.); b) appurtenance, e. g. –an, –ian, –ese, etc.
(Arabian, Elizabethan,
Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.); c) collectivity, e. g. –age, –dom, –ery (–ry), etc.
(freightage, officialdom, peasantry, etc.); d) diminutiveness, e. g. –ie, –let, –ling,
etc. (birdie, girlie, cloudlet, squirreling, wolfing, etc.).
4) Still another classification of suffixes may be worked out if one examines them
from the angle of stylistic reference. Just like prefixes, suffixes are also
characterized by quite a definite stylistic reference falling into two basic classes: a)
those characterized by neutral stylistic reference such as
–able, –er, –ing, etc.; b) those having a certain stylistic value such as –old, –
i/form,–aceous, –tron, etc.
Suffixes with neutral stylistic reference may occur in words of different lexicostylistic layers. As for suffixes of the second class they are restricted in use to quite
definite lexico-stylistic layers of words, in particular to terms, e.g. rhomboid,
asteroid, cruciform, cyclotron, synchrophasotron, etc.
5) Suffixes are also classified as to the degree of their productivity.
Distinction is usually made between dead and living affixes. Dead affixes are
described as those which are no longer felt in Modern English as component parts
of words; they have so fused with the base of the word as to lose their
independence completely. It is only by special etymological analysis that they may
be singled out, e. g. –d in dead, seed, –le, –l,–el in bundle, sail, hovel; –ock in
hillock; –lock in wedlock; –t in flight, gift, height. It is quite clear that dead
suffixes are irrelevant to present-day English word-formation, they belong in its
diachronic study.
Living affixes may be easily singled out from a word, e. g. the noun- forming
suffixes –ness, –dom, –hood, –age, –ance, as in darkness, freedom, childhood,
marriage, assistance, etc. or the adjective-forming suffixes –en, –ous, –ive, –ful, –y
as in wooden, poisonous, active, hopeful, stony, etc.
However, not all living derivational affixes of Modern English possess the ability
to coin new words. Some of them may be employed to coin new words on the spur
of the moment, others cannot, so that they are different from the point of view of
their productivity. Accordingly they fall into two basic classes — productive and
non-productive word-building affixes.
It has been pointed out that linguists disagree as to what is meant by the
productivity of derivational affixes. Following the first approach all living affixes
should be considered productive in varying degrees from highly-productive (e. g. –
er, –ish,–less, re–, etc.) to non-productive (e. g. –ard, –cy, –ive, etc.).
Consequently it becomes important to describe the constraints imposed on and the
factors favouring the productivity of affixational patterns and individual affixes.
The degree of productivity of affixational patterns very much depends on the
structural, lexico-grammatical and semantic nature of bases and the meaning of the
affix. For instance, the analysis of the bases from which the suffix –ize can derive
verbs reveals that it is most productive with noun-stems, adjective-stems also
favour ifs productivity, whereas verb-stems and adverb-stems do not, e. g. criticize
(critic), organize (organ), itemize (item), mobilize (mobile), localize(local), etc.
Comparison of the semantic structure of a verb in –ize with that of the base it is
built on shows that the number of meanings of the stem usually exceeds that of the
verb and that its basic meaning favours the productivity of the suffix –ize to a
greater degree than its marginal meanings, e. g. to characterize — character, to
moralize — moral, to dramatize — drama, etc.
The treatment of certain affixes as non-productive naturally also depends on the
concept of productivity. The current definition of non-productive derivational
affixes as those which cannot hg used in Modern English for the coining of new
words is rather vague and maybe interpreted in different ways. Following the
definition the term non-productive refers only to the affixes unlikely to be used for
the formation of new words, e. g. –ous, –th, fore– and some others (famous, depth,
foresee).
If one accepts the other concept of productivity mentioned above, then nonproductive affixes must be defined as those that cannot be used for the formation
of occasional words and, consequently, such affixes as ; –dom, –ship, –ful, –en, –
ify, –ate and many others are to be regarded as non-productive.The theory of
relative productivity of derivational affixes is also corroborated by some other
observations made on English word-formation. For instance, different productive
affixes are found in different periods of the history of the language. It is extremely
significant, for example, that out of the seven verb-forming suffixes of the Old
English period only one has survived up to the present time with a very low degree
of productivity, namely the suffix –en (e. g. to soften, to darken, to whiten).
A derivational affix may become productive in just one meaning because that
meaning is specially needed by the community at a particular phase in its history.
This may be well illustrated by the prefix de– in the sense of ‘undo what has been
done, reverse an action or process’, e. g. deacidify (paint spray), decasualize (dock
labour), decentralize (government or management), deration (eggs and butter), de-
reserve (medical students), desegregate (coloured children), and so on.
Furthermore, there are cases when a derivational affix being nonproductive in the
non-specialized section of the vocabulary is used to coin scientific or technical
terms. This is the case, for instance, with the suffix –ance which has been used to
form some terms in Electrical Engineering, e. g. capacitance, impedance,
reactance. The same is true of the suffix –ity which has been used to form terms in
physics, and chemistry such as alkalinity, luminosity, emissivity and some others.
Measuring morphological productivity
There are basically two approaches to measure morphological productivity:
A dictionary-based method (counting neologisms in a certain period of time by
using a dictionary; e.g. you can count how many new English words ending in –ian
were formed in the 20th century)
A corpus-based method (finding words that occur only once in a large text corpus,
so-called hapax legomena; these hapaxes are an indicator of the word-building
power of an affix or another word-forming element).
We’ll focus our attention on the first method.
R. S. Ginzburg says that productivity of derivational patterns and affixes should
not be identified with the frequency of occurrence in speech, although there may
be some interrelation between them. Frequency of occurrence is characterized by
the fact that a great number of words containing a given derivational affix are often
used in speech, in particular in various texts. Productivity is characterized by the
ability of a given affix to make new words.
The dictionary-based method that is probably the most widely used and the
most widely rejected at the same time.
According to this measure, the productivity of an affix can be discerned by
counting the number of attested different words with that affix at a given point in
time. This has also been called the type-frequency of an affix.
The severe problem with this measure is that there can be many words with a given
affix, but nevertheless speakers will not use the suffix to make up new words. An
example of such a suffix is -ment, which in earlier centuries led to the coinage of
hundreds of then new words. Many of these are still in use, but today’s speakers
hardly ever employ -ment to create a new word and the suffix should therefore be
considered as rather unproductive (cf. Bauer 2001:196). Thus the sheer number of
types with a given affix does not tell us whether this figure reflects the productivity
of that affix in the past or its present potential to create new words.
Counting derivatives can nevertheless be a fruitful way of determining the
productivity of an affix, namely if one does not count all derivatives with a certain
affix in use at a given point in time, but only those derivatives that were newly
coined in a given period, the so-called neologisms. In doing this, one can show that
for instance an affix may have given rise to many neologisms in the 18th century
but not in the 20th century. The methodological problem with this measure is of
course to reliably determine the number of neologisms in a given period. For
students of English this problem is less severe because they are in the
advantageous position that there is a
dictionary like the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). This dictionary has about
500,000 entries and aims at giving thorough and complete information on all
words of the language and thus the development of the English vocabulary from its
earliest attestations onwards.
Affix
OED Neologisms
-able
185
-full (measure)
22
-full (property)
14
-ion
625
-ish
101
-ist
552
-ity
487
-ize
273
-less
103
-ness
279
-th
2
-ter
1
-wise
12
-er
312
To summarize our discussion of how productivity can be measured, it should have
become clear that the different measures have the great advantage that they make
certain intuitive aspects of morphological productivity explicit and calculable.
Furthermore, we have learned that productivity is largely a function of the
frequency of words and that the reason for the connection between frequency and
productivity lies in the nature of the storage and processing of (complex) words in
the lexicon.
2.2. Structural and Semantic analysis
The process of affixation consists in coining a new word by adding an
affix or several affixes to some root morpheme. The role of the affix in this
procedure is very important and, therefore it is necessary to consider certain facts
about the main types of affixes.
From the etymological point of view affixes are classified into the same two
large groups as words: native and borrowed.
Some Native Suffixes.
-er worker, miner, teacher, painter . . .
-ness coldness, loneliness, loveliness . . .
-ing feeling, meaning, singing, reading . . .
-dom freedom, kingdom, wisdom . . .
-hood childhood, manhood, motherhood . . .
-ship friendship, mastership, companionship . . .
-ful careful, joyful, wonderful, sinful, skillful...
-less careless, sleepless, cloudless, senseless . . .
-y tidy, merry, snowy, showy . . .
-ish English, Spanish, reddish, childish . . .
-ly lonely, lovely, usly, likely, lordly . . .
-en wooden, woolen, silken, golden . . .
-some handsome, quarrelsome, tiresome . . .
-en widen, redden, darken, sadden . . .
-ly warmly, hardly, simply, carefully, coldly . . . .
Borrowed affixes, especially of Romance origin are numerous in the English
vocabulary. It would be wrong though, to suppose that affixes are borrowed in the
same way and for the same reasons as words. An affix of foreign origin can be
regarded as borrowed only after it has begun an independent and active in the
recipient language, that is, is taking part in the word- making processes of that
language. This can only occur when the total of words with this affix is so great in
the recipient language as to affect the native speakers subconscious to the extent
that they no longer realize its foreign flavor and accept it as their own.
Affixes can also be classified into productive and nonproductive types. By
productive affixes we mean the ones, which take part in deriving new words in this
particular period of language development. The best way to identify productive
affixes is to look for them among neologisms and so-called nonse-words, words
coined and used only for this particular occasion. The latter are usually formed on
the level of living speech and reflect the most productive and progressive patterns
in word-building. When a literary critic writes about a certain book that it is an
unputdownable thriller, we will seek in vain this strange and impressive adjective
in dictionaries, for it is a nonse- word coined on the current pattern of Modern
English and is evidence of the high productivity of the adjective-forming borrowed
suffix -able and the native prefix un- .
The adjective thinnish and baldish bring to mind dozens of other
adjectives made with the same suffix: oldish, youngish, mannis , girlish ,fattish,
longish, yellowish.
But dispectic - lookingish is the author's creation aimed at a humorous effect
and, at the same time, proving beyond doubt that the suffix -ish is a live and active
one.
The same is well-illustrated by the following popular statement: "I don`t like
Sunday evenings. I feel so Mondayish ". (Mondayish is certainly a nonce-word.)
One should not confuse the productivity of affixes with their frequency of
occurance. There are quite a number of high-frequency affixes which, nevertheless
, are no longer used in word-derivation.
Some Productive Affixes
Noun-forming suffixes
-er, -ing, -ness, -ism, -ist, -ance
Adjective-forming suffixes
-y, -ish, -ed, -able, -less...
Verb-forming suffixes
-ise/-ize, -ate...
Adverb-forming suffixes
-ly...
Prefixes
-un-, re-, dis-...
Some Non- Productive Affixes
Noun-forming suffixes
-th,-hood...
Adjective-forming suffixes
-ly,-some,-en,-ous...
Verb-formingsuffixes-en...
Affixation is generally defined as the formation of words by adding derivational
affixes to stems. On the morphemic level every word formed by means of
affixation has only one root- morpheme, which is its semantic center and one or
more derivational affixes to stems On the morphemic level every word formed by
means of affixation has only one root-morpheme, which is its semantic center and
one or more derivational affixes.
For instance , the words displease and realism have each only one root-morpheme
and one derivational affix - the prefix dis- and the suffix -ism , whereas the noun
reappearance consists of the prefix re- , the root-morpheme appear- and the suffix
- ance.
On the derivational level derived words comprise a primary stem (the stem
being in itself either a simple, a derived or a compound stem), friendliness = (noun
+ ly) + -ness (a derived stem), chairmanship = (noun + noun) +ship (a compound
stem). The stems of words making up a word-cluster enter into derivational
relations of different degrees. The zero degree of derivation is ascribed to simple
words, i.e. words whose stem is homonymous with a root-morpheme, e.g. atom,
haste , devote... Derived words whose stems consist of a root-morpheme and a
derivational affix are described as having the first degree of derivation , e.g. atomic
, hasty , devotion ... Derived words formed by two consecutive stages of coining
possess the second degree of derivation, e.g. atomic hasty, devotion...
The following diagram graphically represents the hierarchy of derivational
relations within a word-cluster, the indexes 0, 1, 2, etc. indicating the
corresponding degree of derivation:
In conformity with the division of derivational affixes into suffixes and
prefixes affixation is subdivided into suffixation and prefixation. Distinction is
naturally made between prefixal and suffixal derivatives: unjust, rearrange; justify,
arrangement.
Words like reappearance, unreasonable, denationalize are generally
qualified as prefixal-suffixal derivatives. The reader should clearly realize that this
qualification is relevant only in terms of the constituent morphemes such words are
made up of i.e. from the angle of morphemic analysis. From the point of view of
derivational analysis such words are mostly suffixal or prefixal derivatives e.g.
reappearance = (re + appear -) + -ance, unreasonable = un- + (reason- + -able),
denationalize = de- + (nation + ize) .A careful study of a great many suffixal and
prefixal derivatives has revealed an essential difference between them. In Modern
English suffixation is characteristic of noun and adjective formation, while
prefixation is typical of verb formation. As a general rule, prefixes modify the
lexical meaning of stem to which they are added. A prefixal derivative usually
joins the part of speech the unprefixed word belongs to e.g.
un - usual -cf. usual; indefinite -cf. definite; discomfort -cf. comfort etc.
In a suffixal derivative the suffix doesn't only modify the lexical meaning of
the stem it is affixed to, but the word itself is usually transferred to another part of
speech e.g.
care - less a - cf care n ; suit - able - a ; good - ness good. Furthermore, it's
necessary to point out that a suffix closely knit together with a stem forms a prefix
which is as a general rule, more independent semantically, reading - "the act of
one who reads " ; "ability to read" ; and to re-read - "to read again".
The origin of affixes.
Affixation is the formation of words with the help of derivational affixes.
Affixation is subdivided into prefixation and suffixation.
For instance, 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 (e.g. 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.
Examples include, like (v) - dislike (v); kind (adj) - unkind (adj), but suffixes
transfer words to different part of speech.
Another example, 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, such as , head (n) - behead (v), bus (n) - debus (v), brown (adj) - embrown
(v), title (n) - entitle (v),large (adj) - enlarge (v), camp (n) - encamp (v), war (n) prewar (v)...
If it is so we can say that there is no functional difference between suffixes and
prefixes. Besides, there are linguists who treat prefixes as a part of wordcomposition. They think that a prefix has the same function as the first component
of a compound word. Other linguists consider prefixes as derivational affixes
which differ essentially from root- morphemes and stems. From that 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. They
came from the Greek, Latin and French language 3 . Many of suffixes and the
suffixes of native origin were independent words. In the course of time they have
lost their independence and turned into derivational affixes. For instance, -dom, hood "head-state " , rank, -dom (dom condemn), -ship has developed from noun
"scipe" (meaning:state); the adjective forming suffix -ly has developed from the
noun "lie" (body, shape). The prefixes out-, under- , over- and others have
developed out of independent words. Another problem of the study of affixes
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.
² Зягковский P.Т. "Суффиксальная система n современного Английском языке" Масква 1966,
Examples include, -ful(l) forms adjectives from a noun : love (v) - loveful
(adj) ; man (v) - manful (adj);
-ful(2) forms adjective from a verb : forget (v) - forgetful
(adj) ; thank (v) - thankful (adj).
-ly( 1) added to an adjective stem is homonymous to the
adjective forming suffix ;
-ly(2) which is added to a noun stem : quickly, slowly and lovely, friendly.
The verb suffix -en(l) is added to a noun and adjective stem is homonymous to the
adjective forming suffix;
-en(2) which is added to a noun stem:
Examples are to strengthen, to soften, to wooden, to golden. The prefix un- (1) is
added to a noun and a verb stem is homonymous to the prefix;
un- (2) which is added to an adjective stem, such as: unshoe, unbind, unfair,
untrue.
In the course of the history of the English as a result of borrowings there appeared
many synonymous affixes in the language , such as :the suffixes -er , -or , -ist, -ent,
-ant, -eer , -ian, -man , -ее , -ess form synonymous affixes denoting the meaning
"agent". Having the meaning of negation the prefixes un- , in-, non-, dis-, misform synonymic group of prefixes. If s interestng to point out that the synonymous
affixes help us to reveal, different lexico-semantic grouping of words.
For example, the words formed by the suffixes -man , -er , -or , -ion , -ее , -eer , ent, -ant and some others belong to
the lexico-semantic groupings of words denoting "doer of the action ".
The affixes may be undergo semantic changes, they may be polysemantic.
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).
Thus, affixes have different characteristic features. The Comparative analysis
of the English is not so rich in suffixes as, for example, the Uzbek language. The
total number of suffixes is 6 7 in English, but the Uzbek suffixes are 1713 and vice
versa, prefixation is more typical to the English language than Uzbek. In Uzbek
there are following prefixes: бе -, но-, ба-, бо-, ним- . By their origin the Uzbek
affixes like English ones are divided into native and borrowed.
The suffixes: -чи , -rap , -зор ,-ли , -лик , -ок are native suffixes , but: -изм ,
-ация , бо-, но-, нома-, -ки are of borrowed origin. The affixes may be divided
into different semantic groups. These semantic groups of affixes mat be different
in different languages. For example, diminutive affixes in Uzbek are more than in
English.
DIMINUTIVE
SUFFIXES
In English
-ie (birdie)
-let (cloudlet)
In Uzbek
-акай (йул-йулакай), -алак
(дунгалак)
-ling (wordling)
-жон (дадажон)
-ette (mountainette)
-кач (тахтакач)
-ock (hillock)
-у (Jony)
-кина (гудаккина)
-ой (Салимаой)
-et (whippet)
-ча (аравача)
-kin (tigerkin)
-чак (тугунчак)
As compared with the Uzbek language the native affixes are more widely used
in English.
In Uzbek : -сиз (кулсиз), бе- (берахм), но- (нохуш)
In English : -less , а- , an- (anomalous), un- (unkind), dis- (dislike), anti(antibiotic), de- (decode), in- (innocent), ir- (irregular), im- (impossible), non(nondeductive). Though the number of Uzbek prefixes are very few, they are
capable of changing words from one part of speech into another.
Here are given some examples: адаб (от) - боадаб (сифат),
хосил (от) - cерхосил (сифат),
илхом (от) - ноилхом (сифат),
бахт (от) - бебахт (сифат),
ранг (от) - нимранг (сифат).
Non-productive affixes are those which are not used to form new words in
Modern English.
For instance, -ard , -cy , -ive , -en , -dom , -ship , -ful, - en , -ify are not
productive suffixes ; in(i), 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.
Conclusion
Word-formation is the process of creating words from the material available in
the language after certain structural and semantic formulas and patterns.
As a subject of study, word-formation is that branch of Lexicology which studies
the patterns on which the English language builds words. Like another linguistic
phenomenon word-formation may be studied synchronically and diachronically.
There are two principal types of word-formation in Modern English: wordderivation and word-composition. Within the types further distinction is made
between various ways and means of word-formation.
Distinction is made by Productive and Non-Productive ways of word-formation.
In the practical analysis of derived words the following characteristics of
derivational affixes (suffixes and prefixes) should be pointed o u t :
1. The productivity of the affix (highly productive, semi- productive or nonproductive).
2. The part of speech the affix forms (nouns, adjectives, verbs etc.).
Affixation (prefixation and suffixation) is the formation of words by adding
derivational affixes to primary stems. One distinguishes between derived words of
different degrees of derivation.
Many of Modern English derivational affixes were at one time independent words.
Others have always been known as suffixes or prefixes within the history of the
English language.
As a summary to the study of affixation as a productive way of wordformation, which presents a certain interest both for theoretical investigation and
for the practical language use.
Word-formation is the process of creating words from the material
available in the language after certain structural and semantic formulas and
patterns.
As a subject of study, word-formation is that branch of Lexicology
which studies the patterns on which the English language builds words. Like
another
linguistic
phenomenon
word-formation
may
be
studied
synchronically and diachronically.
There are two principal types of word-formation in Modern English:
word-derivation and word-composition. Within the types further distinction
is made between various ways and means of word-formation.
Distinction is made by Productive and Non- Productive ways of
word-formation. In the practical analysis of derived words the following
characteristics of derivational affixes (suffixes and prefixes) should be
pointed out:
The first the productivity of the affix (highly productive, semiproductive or non-productive).
The second the part of speech the affix forms (nouns, adjectives, verbs etc.).
Affixation (prefixation and suffixation) is the formation of words by adding
derivational affixes to primary stems. One distinguishes between derived words of
different degrees of derivation.
Many of Modern English derivational affixes were at one time independent
words. Others have always been known as suffixes or prefixes within the history of
the English language.
The list of used literature
1. D.J.Buranov, A.Muminov “A practical course in English Lexicology",
Publishing house "O`qituvchi", 1990.
2. Ginzburg "A course in Modern Lexicology", Moscow High School, 1976.
3. AntrushinaG.B., Afanasyeva V.A."English Lexicology", Moscow High School,
1985.
4. Arbekova T.I. "English Lexicology", Moscow, 1977.
5. Каращук П.М. " Словообразование Аглийского языка", Moscow High
School, 1977.
6. Татаулин Р.Г. "Словообразованние и текст"-, Куйбишев , 1986.
7. Царев В.П. "Словообразованние и синтаксис", И.ЯШ., 1982.
8. Улуханов " Словообразовательного относиекич между частьями речи ", "
Вопросы языкознания " , 1979.
10. Зятковский Р.Т. "Суффиксальная система в современного Английском
языке'' Масква 1966,
11. Мешков " Словосложение в современном Английском языке Москва,
В.Ш., 1985;
12. Arnold "The English Word" , Moscow High School,1973
13. Aзнаурова Э.С. “Словообразование и текст”, Куйбишев, 1986
14. Adams V. Introduction into English Word formation. Lond. 1983
15. Potter S. Modern Linguistics. Lond. 1957.
16. Cannon G. Historical Changes and English Word formation: New Vocabulary
items. N.Y., 1986
17. Marchand, H. The categories and types of present day word-formation.
Harrassowitz. 1960.
Dictionaries:
Berg, P. A dictionary of new words in English. London. 1953.
Jones, D. An English pronouncing dictionary. London. 1957
The Oxford pocket Russian dictionary. Oxford. 1994