Lexicology of the English language

Problems for discussion.

1. Discuss the morphemic structure of the word given in different books on Lexicology. 2. Discuss the difference between the morpheme, the phoneme and the word and expres your point of view. 3. Discuss the morphemic analysis of the words in different languages with the help of I. C. method.4. Compare types of morphemes given in different books on Lexicology. 5. Discuss different liguistists' point of views about the stem and its types. 6. Discuss synchronic and diachronic approaches to the analysis of the stem of the word. 7. Discuss about the difference between morphemic and derivational analysis of words in English

CHAPTER 3. WORDFORMATION

1. Wordformation and its basic pecularities

«Wordformation is the process of creating new words from the material available in the language after certain structural and semantic formulas and patterns (Ginzburg}.

Wordformation is that branch of the science of language which the patterns on which a language forms new lexical units, i.e. words». (H.Marchand.)

The term «wordformation» is applied to the process by which new words are formed by adding prefixes and suffixes or both to a root -- form already in existance. (J.A. Sheard).

Wordformation is the creation of new words from the elements existing in the language. Every language has Its own structural patterns of wordformation. Words like «writer», «worker», «teacher», «manager» and many others follow the structural pattern of wordformation «V + er».

Word-formation may be studied synchronically and diachronically. «With regard to compounding, prefixing and suffixing wordformation proceeds either on a native or on a foreign basis of coining. The term native basis of coining means that a derivative must be analysable as consisting of two independent morphemes (in the event of a compound as rainbow) or of a combination of independent and dependent morpheme (in the case of prefixal and suffixal derivatives as un-just, boy-hood).

By wordformation on a foreign basis of coining we understand derivation on the morphologic basis of another language. In English most learned, scientific or technical words are formed on the morphologic basis of Latin or Greek.

( Marchand)

Two principal approaches are applied in the science of language: the synchronic and the diachronic one. With regard to wordformation the synchronic linguist would study the present day system of formatting words types while the scholar of the diachronic school would write the history of wordformation .

Marchand points of out that mere semantic correlation is not enough to establish a phonological (phonemic), morpho-phonemic opposition. For the speaker «dine» and «dinner», «maintain» and «maintenance» and many others are semantically. connected but a derivative connection has not developed out of such pairs, so their opposition is not relevant to wordformation.

Thus, synchronically we study those of wordformation which characterize the present-day English linguistic system, while diachronically we investigate the history of wordformation. The synchronic type of wordformation does not always coincide with the historical system of wordformation.

For example. The words childhood, kingdom were compound words: hood OE had (state, rank), dom OE dom condemn. But synchronically they are considered as derived words because «-dom,» «-hood» became affixes. The words «return» and «turn» historically had semantic relations and «return» was considered as a word derived from «turn». But synchronicslly these words have no semantic relations and we can't say that «return» is derived from «turn».

Synchronically the most important and the most productive ways of wordformation are: affixation, conversion, word-composition. Besides them there are other types of wordformation such as: shortening, soundinterchange, blending, back-formation. In the course of the historical development of a language the productivity of this or that way of wordformation changes.

For example. soundinterchange (blood -- bleed, strike -- stroke) was a productive way of wordformation in old English and it is an important subject-matter for a diachronic study of the English language. Soundinterchange has lost its productivity in Modern English and no new words can be formed by means of soundinterchange. Affixation on the contrary was productive in Old English and is still one of the most productive ways of wordformation in Modern English.

Two types of wordformation may be distinguished: word-derivation and word-composition. Words formed by word-derivation have only one stem and one or more derivational affixes (For example. kindness from kind). Some derived words have no affixes because derivation is achieved through conversion (For example. to paper from paper). Words formed by wordcomposition have two or more stems (For example. bookcase, note-book). Besides there are words created by derivation and composition. Such words are called derivational compounds (For example. long-legged).

So the subject of study of wordformation is to study the patterns on which the English language builds words.

The English and Uzbek languages differ in the types of wordformation. Their ways of wordformation are also different. Affixation, composition, shortening are very productive ways of wordformation in both languages. In Uzbek conversion, blending, soundinterchange (stressinterchange), backformation are less common type of wordformation. As for as the English language concerned these types of wordformation are very common. We can find a few words which formed by these types of wordformation in the Uzbek language. The Comparative value of the wordformation of English and Uzbek languages demands further investigations.

Prefixation and suffixation

Affixation is the formation of words with the help of derivational affixes.

As it was said above all morphemes are subdivided into two large classes: roots (or radicals) 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, unwell) and suffixes which follow the root (as in teach-er, cur-able, diet-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.

Affixation is subdivided into prefixation and suffixation. For example. if a prefix «dis» is added to the stem «/i/re» (dislike) or suffix «ful» to «Iaw» (lawful) we say a word is built by an affixation. Derivational morphemes added before the stem of a word are called prefixes (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.!, e. the prefixed derivative mostly belongs to the same part of speech. For example. like (v.)-- dislike (o.). kind (adj.) -- unkind (adj.) but suffixes transfer words to a different part of speech, For exampleteach (v.) -- teacher (n.).

«We call prefixes such particles as can be prefixed to full words but are themselves 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. They are due to syntagmatic loans from other languages: when a number of analysable foreign words of the same structure 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 secondarily 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 , . . »

(H. Marchand) 1. H. Marchand. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-formation. Weisbaden. 1960

2. E. Kruizsinga. A Handbook of Present-Day English. pt II Z. 1939

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. For example.-- head (n) -- behead (u), bus(n) -- debus(u), brown (adj) -- embrown(o), title(/t) -- entitle(u), large (adj). -- enlarge (v), camp(n).-- encamp(u), war(rc).-- 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 ihe 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 pre_: fixes of native origin were independent words. In the course of time they have lost their independence and turned into derivational affixes. -dom, -hood. /O. E. had -- state, rank, -dom (dom condemn,-ship has developed from noun «scipe» (meaning: state); ihe adjective forming suffix «-Iy» has developed from the noun dic» (body, shape).

The prefixes out-, under-, over etc also have developed out of independent words.

. . . 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.

1) applies to a few native suffixes only. The suffixes -dom and -hood are independent words still in OE, so the process whereby a second word becomes a suffix can be observed historically . . .

2) in the suffix «-ling» which is simply the extended form of the suffix -ing in words whose stem ended in -1 ...

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 . . . Some foreign affixes as -ance, -al, -ity have never become productive with native words (H. Marchand).

2. Semantics of Affixes

The morpheme, and therefore affix, which is a type of morpheme, is generally defined as the smallest indivisible component of the word possessing a meaning of its own. Meanings of affixes are specific and considerably differ from those of root morphemes. Affixes have widely generalised meanings and refer the concept conveyed by the whole word to a certain category, which is vast and all-embracing. So, the noun-forming suffix -er could be roughly defined as designating persons from the object of their occupation or labour (painter -- the one who paints} or from their place of origin or abode (southerner -- the one living in the South). The adjective-forming suffix -ful has the meaning of "full of, "characterised by" (beautiful, careful) whereas -ish may often imply insufficiency of quality (greenish -- green, but not quite; youngish -- not quite young but looking it).

Such examples might lead one to the somewhat hasty conclusion that the meaning of a derived word is always a sum of the meanings of its morphemes: un/eat/able = "not fit to eat" where not stands for un- and fit for -able.

There are numerous derived words whose meanings can really be easily deduced from the meanings of their constituent parts. Yet, such cases represent only the first and simplest stage of semantic readjustment within derived words. The constituent morphemes within derivatives do not always preserve their current meanings and are open to subtle and complicated semantic shifts.

Let us take some of the adjectives formed with the same productive suffix -y, and try to deduce the meaning of the suffix from their dictionary definitions:

brainy (inform.) -- intelligent, intellectual, i. e. characterised by brains

catty --- quietly or slyly malicious, spiteful, i. e. characterised by features ascribed to a cat chatty -- given to chat, inclined to chat

dressy (inform.) --- showy in dress, i. e. inclined to dress well or to be overdressed

fishy (e. g. in a fishy story, inform.) -- improbable, hard to believe (like stories told by fishermen)

foxy -- foxlike, cunning or crafty, i. e. characterised by features ascribed to a fox

stagy -- theatrical, unnatural, i. e. inclined to affectation, to unnatural theatrical manners

touchy -- apt to take offence on slight provocation, i. e. resenting a touch or contact (not at all inclined to be touched)

The Random-House Dictionary defines the meaning of the -y suffix as "characterised by or inclined to the substance or action of the root to which the affix is at-

Some of the listed adjectives have several meanings, but only one is given so as to keep the list manageable.

Yet, even the few given examples show that, on the one hand, there are cases, like touchy or fishy that are not covered by the definition. On the other hand, even those cases that are roughly covered, show a wide variety of subtle shades of meaning. It is not only the suffix that adds its own meaning to the meaning of the root, but the suffix is, in its turn, affected by the root and undergoes certain semantic changes, so that the mutual influence of root and affix creates a wide range of subtle nuances,

But is the suffix -y probably exceptional in this respect? It is sufficient to examine further examples to see that other affixes also offer an interesting variety of semantic shades. Compare, for instance, the meanings of adjective-forming suffixes in each of these groups of adjectives.

1 . eatable (fit or good to eat) lovable (worthy of \ov\ng] questionable (open to doubt, to question) imaginable (capable of being imagined)

2. lovely (charming, beautiful, i. e. inspiring love) lonely (solitary, without company; lone; the meaning of the suffix does not seem to add any thing to that of the root)

friendly (characteristic of or befitting a friend) heavenly (resembling or befitting heaven; beautiful, splendid)

3. childish (resembling or befitting a child)

tallish (rather tall, but not quite, i, e. approaching the quality o/'big si/.e)

Another problem of the study of affixes is homonymic affixes. Homonymic affixes are affixes which have the same soundform, spelling but different meanings and they are added to different parts of speech.

Ex.-ful (I) forms adjectives from a noun: love (v) -- loveful (adj/, man (n), -- manful (adj).

-ful (2) forms adjective from a verb: forget (ti.) -- forgetful, (adj) thank (u.)--thankful (adj).

*Iy(l) added to an adjective stem is homonymous to the adjective forming suffix -Iy(2) which is added to a noun stem. For example. 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. For example. to strengthen, to soften, and wooden, golden.

The prefix un-(I) added to a noun and a verb stem is homonymous to the prefix un-(2) which is added to an adjective stern. For exampleunshoe, unbind, unfair, untrue.

In the course of the history of English as a result of borrowings there appeared many synonymous affixes in the language. For example. 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-, mis- 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 actions. The affixes may also undergo semantic changes, they may be polysemantic. For example. 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: бe-,но-, ба, бо-, ним-. By their origin the Uzbek affixes like English ones are divided into native and borrowed. The suffixes: -чи, -гap, -зop, -лик, -ли, -о? are native suffixes but. -изм, -ация, -бо, -но,- намо,- ки 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)

Diminutive	Suffixes
In English	In Uzbek
-ie (birdie), -let (cloudlet), -ling (wolf ling), -ette (mountainette), -ock (hillock), -y (Jony), -et (whippet), -kin (tigerkin),	-акай (йўл-йўлакай), -алак (дўнгалак), -гина (?изгина), -жон (дадажон), -ка (йўлка), -кач (тахтакач), -кина (гўдаккина), -ло? (?изало?), -ой (Салимой), -он (ў?лон), -о? (бошо?), -ча (аравача),-чак (тугунчак), -чи? (?опчи?), -чо? (?ўзичо?)

As compared with the Uzbek language the negative affixes are more widely used in English. In Uzbek: -сиз (?ўлсиз), бe-(6epa?м), -но (нохуш),In English: -less -- (handless), a-, an- (anomalous); -un-(unkind) dis-(dislike), anti-(antibiotic), de-(decode), in-(innocent) ir-(ir regular), 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. For example. aдaб. (cyщ.) -- боадаб (npил.), ?осил (cyщ.)- cep?ocил (прил.) илож (cyщ.) -- ноилож (прил.), бахт (cyщ.) -- бебахт (прил.), paнг (cyщ.)-- нимранг (прил.).

3. The Classification of Affixes

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 ba singled out only by an etymological analysis. For example. admit (from L ad -(-mit-tere); deed, seed (-d) flight, bright (-t).

Living affixes are easily singled out from a word. For example. freedom, childhood, marriage. Living affixes are traditionally in their turn divided into productive and non-productive. The term “productivity” is a subject of discussion among the linguists

K.E. Zimmer1. K.E. Zimmer. Affixal negation in English and other languages. Suppliment to Word, vol 20, №2, August 1964, Monograph №5 argues that «The term «productive» is often used rather indiscriminately to refer both to certain aspects of the behavior of the speakers of a language and to certain diachronic trends while there is presumably in many cases a connection between these two aspects of productivity. It is necessary to keep the distinction in mind. Morover, and more importantly the concept of what we might term «synchronic productivity» is itself often used in a rather illdefined way in the area of word formation, and it is in many cases difficult to decide just what is being implied when a morphological process is said to be synchronically productive. (K. E. Zimmer)

However, «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, we speak English, find no difficulty in understanding, in particular their ability to create what are called occasional words». (Ginzburg R. S. and others)

«A derivational pattern or a derivational affix are qualified as productive provided there are in word-stock dozens and hundreds of derived words built on the pattern or with the help of the suffix in questions. Derivational productivity is distinguisned from wordformation activity by which is meant the ability of an affix to produce new words. (E. C. Ky6pякoвa)

«We call productive those affixes and types of word-formation which are used to form new words in the period in question. The proof of productivity is the existence of new words coined by these means. Therefore when we see that a notion that couid not possibly have existed at some previous stage has a name formed with the help of some affix the affix is considered productive)). (Arnold I. V.)

Another point of view is given by Ch. Hockett «The productivity of any pattern-derivational, inflectional or syntactical -- is the relative freedom with which speakers coin new grammatical forms by it. Thus the formation of English noun-plurals with z, s, iz is highly productive. The addition of -ly to produce an adverbial is fairly productive. (Ch. Hockett.)

Productive affixes are those which are characterized by their ability to make new words. For example. -er (baker, lander ) -ist (leftist) -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. For example. -ard, -cy, -ive, -en, -dom, -ship, -en, -ify etc are not productive suffixes; in (il) ir- (im-), 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 Modem 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, For example. the suffix «-ive» is very frequent but non-productive.

Note. The native noun-forming suffixes ~dom and -ship ceased to_> be productive centuries ago. Yet, Professor I. V. Arnold in The English Word gives some examples of comparatively new formations with the suffix -dom: boredom, serfdom, slavedom. The same is true about -ship (e. g. salesmanship). The adjective-forming -ish, which leaves no doubt as to its productivity nowadays, has comparatively recently regained it, after having been non-productive for many centuries. Some linguists 1. Е.С. Кубрякова. Что такое словообразование? -М. , 1965 distinguish between two types of prefixes:

1) those which are like functional words (such as prepositions or adverbs) (For example. out-, over-, up--)

2) those which are not correlated with any independent words, (For example. 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, For example. 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.

I) prefixes of negative meaning such as: de- non-, un- in-, ir-, il-, im-, dis- (For example. defeat, decentralize, disappear, impossible, discomfort etc); 2) prefixes, denoting space and time relations: after-, under-, for-, pre-, post-, over-, super-(For example. prehistory, postposition, superstructure, overspread, afternoon, forefather); 3) prefixes denoting relation of an action such as: re- (For example. 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) diminutiveness: -let, -ock, -ie etc (birdie, cloudlet, hillock); 5) quantitativeness: -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 refer-rence: -able, -er, -ing (For example. dancer, understandable «helping»; 2) suffixes which characterize a certain stylistic reference:-oid, -form, -tron etc (astroid, rhomboid, cruciform, cyclotron etc)

4. Word Cluster

Language is a system. The elements of the language are interrelated and interdependent.

Word cluster is a group of words which have semantically and phonetically correlated with identical root morphemes.

For example. to lead, leader, leadership, city, citify, cityism, cityful, cityish, citywards, cityite, citiness, citied, citiward, cityless; family, familial, subfamily, superfamily, non - family, familist, familism, non-familial; finger, fingerlet, fingerling, finger (v), fingered, fin-gerless, fingerish, fingery, unfigered, fingerer, fingering, re-finger, forefinger, fingerable, fingerative; baron, baronize, baronial, baronry, barony, baroness, baronage, baronet, baronetical, baronetcy, baronetess, baro-nethood, baronetship.

The members of a word cluster belong as a rule to different parts of speech and are joined together only by the identity of the root morpheme.

Now most of the linguists are sure that in the vocabulary system there are different micro systems or subsystems (For example. synonyms, antonyms or homonyms), different lexico-semantic groupings and etc. And word cluster is one of the subsystems of the vocabulary of such kind.

The terms can give a large word cluster, For example. the word cluster of polymer (хим. полимер) include the following words: polymerize, polymerization, copolymer, copolymerize, cop-olymerization, etc.

The stems of words making up a word cluster enter into derivational relations of different degrees. The sero degree of derivation is a simple word or a word which its stem is ho-monymous with a word form and often with a root morpheme. For example. boy, atom, devote, girl etc.

Derived words which are formed from the simple stems and which are formed by the application of one derivational affix are described as words having the first degree of derivation. For example. boyish, atomic, girlish, devotion etc. Derived words which are formed by two stages of coining are the second degree of derivation. For example. boyishness, atomi-cal, girlishness, devotional.

The members of the word cluster may be derivatives formed by affixation, conversion, compounding. For example. heart, to disheart, to dishearten, disheartenment, to heart, hearted, he-artedness, to hearten, heartening, hearteningly, heartful ,hea-rtfully, heartfulness, heartily, heartiness, heartless, heartlessly, heart lessness, heartlet, heartlike, heartling, heartsome, heart-somely, hearty.

The structure of a word cluster may be given as a diagram.

derived verb derived adject

derived noun derived adverb

A word cluster includes the derivatives which are structurally and semantically related. 1) possess --эгалламо? (владеть), possession -- эгаллаш (владение), possessioner -- хўжайин (владелец) , possessor -- хўжайин (владелец), possessory -- эга бўлмо?, (относящийся к владению), possessive -- мулкка эга бўлмо? (относящийся к собственности)

2) read -- ў?имо? (читать), read adj -- ў?имишли (начитанный), read n -- ў?иш (чтение), readable -- ў?иб бўладиган (удобочитаемый), readability -- ў?иб бўлишлик (удобочитаемость)

reader -- ў?увчи (читатель), readership -- ў?увчилар доираси (круг читателей), reading n -- reading adj -- ў?иётган (читающий), reread --?айта ў?тмо? ( перечитать)

3) sport n-- cпopт (cпopт), sporter -- cпopтсмeн (cпортсмен), sportful -- xyшча?ча?, ?азилкаш (веселий, шутливый), sporting -- спорт билан шу?улланиш (увлекающийся спортом), sportless-- спорт билан шу?улланишга шароит бўлмаслик (не распологающий возможностями для спорта), sporty -- спортсменларча (спортсменский), sportsman -- спортсмен (спортсмен), sportsmanlike -- спортсменларча (спортсменский), sportsmanship -- спорт бўйича ?обилият (спортивное мастерство).

If we can't see these connections we can't include the derivative into a word cluster.

For example. «hand» -- «handsome». These words are structurally related, i. e they have structural relation but we can't say that the word «handsome» is formed from «hand» because in Modern English there is no semantic relation between «hand» and «handsome» (hand --?ўл, handsome -- чиройли). On the contrary in words knee (колено) and kneel (становиться на коленях) we see that there is a semantic relation between these words but we can't include the word «kneel» into the word cluster of «knee» because there is no structural relation between them. The same is true with dark -- to darkle (to grow dark). There is no structural relation between them too.

On the first step of the word cluster the derivatives of the first degree of derivation are in most cases nouns, verbs and adjectives.

The length (the final step of a word cluster) includes 4 steps.

Thus, the "word clusters of different parts of speech may have different peculiarities.

We must distinguish between the word cluster and the word family. The word-family includes not only words making up a word cluster but also the words which have a common meaning and semantic structure. For example. die--death, feed--food, think --thought, brother, brotherly, freturnal, mother, motherly, maternal. The words fraternal and maternal are not the members of a word cluster. They are the members""of a word-family because there is no derivational relation between mother and maternal, brother and fraturnal, think -- thought, feed -- food, die --death, high --height, strong -- strength

etc. The members of a word cluster have derivational and semantic relations and if they have no such relations they can't be members of a word cluster.

The members of the word cluster are increased and enlarged or decreased as a result of the development of the English language. For example. the verbs «to unite, «to combines, «to prevent up to the 16 th century did not give any derivatives but after 1500 (16 th century) they gave more than 20 derivatives, (united 1552, uniter 1587, unitive 1526, disunite 1560), (combiner 1610, combinable 1749, combination 1532, combinative 1855 etc), preventive 1639, preventer 1587, prevention 1528, preventingly 1731),

Different borrowed words may develop their word cluster differently. As a result of the development of the language in different historical periods of the English language a number of derivatives of words of different origin may be different.

For example. In the 15 th century the Latin words in English such as «to suspect», «to fix», «to interrupt» each of them had only one derivative but the words of Scandinavian origin «to trust», «to remark», «to guess» gave 5 derivative at that period of time. The Scandinavian verbs to dirty , to near, to skin gave 1 or 2 derivatives after the 15 th century. But the -Latin borrowings to «describe», «to suggest», «to persuade» gave 20 derivatives and each of them form s a large word cluster.

This shows that the Latin borrowings are more active in wordformation than the Scandinavian borrowings.

Properties of a word cluster in English and in Uzbek may be different. The totality of the notion may be given by the related words and in other languages they may correspond to different words, free or set phrases.

For example. heart -- юрак, hearten -- ру?лантирмо?, heartless --бера?м, hearty -- самимий; hook -- илгак, hooked -- эгик, букиг, hooker -- бали? овлайдиган кема; hope -- умид, ишонч, hopeful -- умид ?илувчи, hopefulness -- келажакка ишонч, hopelessness - иложсизлик.

The correlated words in Uzbek and English may have different steps of derivation.

Conversion

Definition of conversion

Conversion is a very productive way of forming new words in Modern English, (For examplework(n) -- to work(v), pen(n) -- to pen(v), to walk(v) -- walk(n)). The term «conversicn» was first used by Sweet in his book «New English Grammar) in 1892.

There are a lot of approaches to the study of conversion. Some linguists think that conversion is the formation of words without affixes. Others 1. H. Marchand. op. cit. say that conversion is the formation of new words with the help of a zero morpheme. Conversion is also defined as a shift from one part of speech to another 2. A.G. Kennedy. Current English. USA 1935. These treatments of conversion cause some doubt.

The treatment of conversion as a non-affixal word - building does not help us to distinguish the cases of conversion and sound interchange. For example. sing --song and paper n -- paper v.

If we accept the point of view of the linguists who treat conversion as «a shift from one part of speech to another we can't differ between parts of speech, i. e. between noun and verb, noun and adjective etc.

«Conversion has already been defined as a shift from one part of speech to another. But this functional change has also been observed in a shift from one kind of noun to another, or one kind of verbs to another, or one kind of adverb to another; and it seems logical to regard conversion as functional change not only between the parts of speech but also within each part of speech. It should be insisted also that conversion and derivational change are two distinct processes; derivational change by the use of prefixes and suffixes shift words between the parts of speech by producing different forms, as, for example, the adjective «wide», the noun «width», and the verb «widen». (A. G. Kennedy]

Prof. A.L. Smirnitsky 3. А.И Смирницкий. Лексикология англицского языкаю. -Москва. 1956 says that conversion is the formation of a new word by a change of paradigm. It is the paradigm that is used as a. wordbuilding means. For example. in Uzbek: китоблар китобнинг, китобни, китобга, китобдан, китобда, китоби, китобим, китобинг, -лар, -нинг,- ни, -га, -да, -дан, -и, -им, -инг etc are the paradigms of the noun «китоб». In English book, books; book's; -s, 's, s' are the paradigms of the noun «book»; book v -- booked, (he) books, booking, booked,-ed» ed (the ending of P II)-s,-ing, are the paradigms of the verb «to books».So conversion can be described as a morphological way of forming words.

There are two approaches to the study of conversion: syn-chronic and diachronic. On the diachronic level we study the origin of conversion, how the converted pairs appeared in the language. Conversion was born in XIII century as a result of the disappearance of inflexions in the course of the historical development of the English language in Middle English.

For example. lufu -- luf -- love n. lufian -- luf -- love v andswaru -- andswarian -- answer n, andswarian -- andswar -- answer v. Some new words formed by conversion were created on the anology of the semantic patterns existed in the language. For example. to motor -- travel by car to phone -- use the telephone to wire -- send a telegram. On the synchronic level conversion is considered as a type of forming new words by means of paradigms. The two words differ only in their paradigms.

The most common types of conversion

The most common types of conversion are the creation of verbs from nouns and the formation of nouns from verbs:

1) verbs converted from nouns:

ape -- to ape, a face -- to face, a butcher -- to butcher, a dust -- to dust, a doctor -- to doctor etc.

2) nouns converted from verbs:

to jump--.a jump, to move -- a move, to help -- a help, to drive -- a drive, to walk -- a walk etc.

Conversion is the main way of forming verbs in Modern English. Verbs can be formed from nouns of different semantic groups and have different meanings because of that, For example. a) verbs have instrumental meaning if they are formed from nouns denoting parts of a human body For example. to eye, to finger, to elbow, to shoulder etc. They have instrumental meaning if they are formed from nouns denoting tools, machines, instruments, weapons, For example. to hammer, to machine-gun, to rifle, to nail; b) verbs can denote an action characteristic of the living being denoted by the noun from which they have been converted, For example. to crowd, to wolf, to ape; c) verbs can denote acquisition, addition or deprivation if they are formed from nouns denoting an object, For example.to fish, to dust, to peel, to paper. d) verbs can denote an action performed at the place denoted by the noun from which they have been converted, For example. to park, to garage, to bottle, to corner, to pocket, e) verbs can denote an action performed at the time denoted by the noun from which they have been converted For example. to winter, to week-end .

Verbs can be also converted from adjectives, in such cases they denote the change of the state, For example. to tame (to become or make tame) , to clean, to slim etc.

Nouns can also be formed by means of conversion from verbs. Converted nouns can denote:

a) instant of an action For example. a jump, a move,

b) process or state For example. sleep, walk,

c) agent of the action expressed by the verb from which the noun has been converted, For example. a help, a flirt, a scold ,

d) object or result of the action expressed by the verb from which the noun has been converted, For example. a burn, a find, a purchase,

e) place of the action expressed by the verb from which the noun has been converted, For example. a drive, a stop, a walk.

Many nouns converted from verbs can be used only in the singular form and denote momentaneous actions. In such cases we have partial conversion. Such deverbal nouns are often used with such verbs as : to have, to get, to take etc., For example. to have a try, to give a push, to take a swim .

Derivations from the stems of other parts of speech are less common. For examplewrong (adj) -- to wrong, up (adj) -- to up, down (adv)-~ to down. Nouns may be also formed from verb + postpositive phrases. For example. to make up -- a make+up. to call up -- a call up, to take off -- a take off etc.

New words formed from simple or root stems are more frequent than those formed from suffixed stems.

5. Criteria of semantic derivation

In converted pairs the derived word and the underlying word are connected with each other in their meaning. The derived verb shows the act performed by the thing denoted by the noun. For example. «to finger» means «to touch with the finger», «to hand» means «to give the hand», «to help with the hand», «to train means «to go by train, «to bus» means «to go by bus», «to week-end» means «to spend the week-end». Derived nouns denote the act or the result of an action.

For example. «a knock» means «the result of knocking», «a cut» means «the result of cutting», «a call» means «the result of calling», a find means «the result of finding», «a run» means «the result of running». Synchronically it is difficult to define which of the two words within a converted pair is the derived member. How should we say that one of the members of converted pairs is a derived word?

The problem of the criterion of semantic derivation was raised in linguistic literature not so long ago. Prof. Smirnitsky was the first to put forward the theory of semantic derivation in his book on English Lexicology. Later on P. A, Soboleva developed Smirnitsky's ideas and worked out three more criteria.

1) If the lexical meaning of the root morpheme coincides with the lexico - grammatical meaning of the stem we say that the noun has the simple stem. For exampleman (n)-- man (v), father (n) -- father (v), map (n) -- map (u), paper(a) -- paper (v). The noun is the name for a concrete thing here the verbs map, man. father, paper denote a process, therefore the lexico-grammatical meaning of their stems does not coincide with the lexical meaning of the roots which is of a substantival character.

2) According to analogous synonymic word pairs like converse -- conversation, exhibit -- exibition, occupy -- occupation we say in converted pairs work (v}-- work (n), show (v),--show (n) chat (v)--chat(ft) the verb has the simple stem.

3) if the noun has more derivatives than the verb, the verb is a derived word in converted pairs and vice versa.

For example. hand (n) -- handed, handful, handy, handless etc.

hand (v) -- handable. Here the verb «hand» is formed from the noun «Hand», because the noun has more derivatives than the verb.

6. Substantivization of Adjectives

Some scientists (Jespersen 1. O.Jesperson. Growth and structure of the English Language. Leipzig. 1938, Kruisinga 2. E. Kruisinga. A Handbook of Present-day Enslish pt II, 1932 ) refer substantivization of adjectives to conversion. But most scientists disagree with them because in cases of substantivization of adjectives we have quite different changes in the language. Substantivization is the result of ellipsis (syntactical shortening ) when a word combination with a semantically strong attribute loses its semantically weak noun (man, person etc), For example. «a grown-up person» is shortened to «a grown-up». In cases of perfect substantivization the attribute takes the paradigm of a countable noun , For example a criminal, criminals, a criminal's (mistake), criminals' (mistakes). Such words are used in a sentence in the same function as nouns, For example I am fond of musicals, (musical comedies). There are also two types of partly substantivized adjectives: those which have only the plural form and have the meaning of collective nouns, such as: sweets, news, empties, finals, greens, those which have only the singular form and are used with the definite article. They also have the meaning of collective nouns and denote a class, a nationality, a group of people, For example the rich, the English, the dead .

«A.O.Kennedy argues that it is necessary to recognize various stages of conversion: in «The poor are with us always the adjective is not completely converted into a noun, but in «He sold his goods» has disappeared so completely that the word can take the plural ending «--s» like any other noun. When a word has changed its function to such an extent that it is capable of taking on new inflectional endings then the process of conversion may be considered complete.

Morеover, conversion may be regarded as complete when a word has been substantivized to the point where it can be modified by adjectives, as in «the others, a lunatic, goodreading»; or verbalized to the point where it can be modified by adverbs as in telephone soon», «motor often» . . . The substantivization of adjectives has always been an important process in English and is active today. Some of the earlier substantivizations have been so long established as nouns that English-speakers no longer realize that they ever were adjectives; in many instances, however, the substantival use of the adjective is only temporary, and as soon as the need is past, the word reverts to its usual adjectival function ...» (A. Q. Kennedy).

The problem whether adjectives can be formed by means of conversion from nouns is the subject of many discussions. In Modern English there are a lot of word combinations of the type , For example. price rise, wage freeze, steel helmet, sand castle etc.

If the first component of such units is an adjective converted from a noun,

combinations of this type are free word-groups typical of English (adjective + noun).

This point of view is proved by O. Jespersen by the following facts:

1. «Stone» denotes some quality of the noun «wall»; 2. «Stone)> stands before the word it modifies, as adjectives in the function of and attribute do in English; 3. «Stone» is used in the Singular though its meaning in most cases is plural,and adjectives in English have no plural form; 4. There are some cases when the first component is used in the Comparative or the Superlative degree, For example. the bottomest end of the scale; 5. The first component can have an adverb which characterizes it, and adjectives are characterized by adverbs, For example. a purely family gathering; 6. The first component can be used in the same syntactical function with a proper adjective to characterize the same noun, For example. lonely bare stone houses; 7. After the first component the pronoun «one» can be used instead of a noun, For example.I shall not put on a silk dress, I shall put on a cotton one.

However Henry Sweet and some other scientists say that these criteria are not characterisitc of the majority of such units. They consider the first component of such units to be a noun in the function of an attribute because in Modern English almost all parts of speech and even word-groups and sentences can be used in the function of an attribute, For example then the president (an adverb), out-of-the-way vilages (a word-group), a devil-may-care speed (a sentence).

There are different semantic relations between the components of «stone wall» combinations. E.I. Chapnik classified them into the following groups:

1. time relations, For example. evening paper,

2. space relations, For example. top floor,

3. relations between the object and the material of which it is made, For example. steel helmet,

4. cause relations, For example. war orphan,

5. relations between a part and the whole, For example. a crew member,

6. relations between the object and an action, For example. arms production,

7. relations between the agent and an action For example. government threat, price rise,

8. relations between the object and its designation, For example. reception hall,

9. the first component denotes the head, organizer of the characterized object, For example. Clinton government, Forsyte family,

10. the first component denotes the field of activity of the second component, For example. language teacher, psychiatry doctor,

11. comparative relations, For example moon face,

12. qualitative relations, For example. winter apples.

7. Wordcomposition compound words

Definition of compound words

Modern English is very rich in compound words. Compound words are made up by joining two or more stems.

For example. taxi-driver, paint-box, bookcase.

«Many scholars have claimed that a compound is determi, ned by the underlying concept, others have advocated stress some even seek the solution of the problem in spelling . ., Jesperson also introduced the criterion of concept and rejected Bloomfield`s criterion of stress. As for the criterion of stress, it holds for certain types'only . . .

For a combination to be a compound there is one condition to be fulfilled; the compound must be morphologically isolated from a parallel syntactic group.

«BIackbird» has the morpho-phonetic stress pattern of a compound «black markets, has not, despite its phrasal meaning; the latter therefore is a syntactic group, morphologically speaking stress is a criterion here. (H. Marchand)

«Word-compounding is a process similar to but not tha same as telescoping or blends; two words are joined, but compounding differs in that no part of either word is lost, For exampleblackbird, bookcase, in the examples the elements have been -fused, making one words. ( Sheard).

«Compound words are words consisting of at least two stems which occur in the language as free forms. In a compound word the immediate constituents obtain integrity and structural cohesion that make them function in a sentence as a separate lexical unit». (Arnold 1. V.}

«Word-composition» or compounding is a distinct type of words made up by joining together two stems (mostly stems of notional parts of speech)». (Ginzburg R. S. and others)

«Among the word-like features of the forms which we class as compound words, indivisibility is fairly frequent; we can say «black -- I should say» bluish black-birds, but we do not use the compound word «blackbird» with a similar interruption.

Generally, a compound-member cannot, like a word in a phrase, serve as a constituent in a syntactic construction. The word «black» in the phrase «black birds» can be modified by «very (very black birds)», but not so the compound -- member «black» in blackbirdss. (Bloomfield)