Exercises in lexicology

The basic concepts of lexicology, its subject. Characteristic features semasiology. Change ambiguity and homonymy. Consideration of the lexical paradigmatic. Syntagmatic relationship words. Morphological structure of English words and word formation.

Рубрика Иностранные языки и языкознание
Вид курс лекций
Язык английский
Дата добавления 16.06.2014
Размер файла 863,4 K

Отправить свою хорошую работу в базу знаний просто. Используйте форму, расположенную ниже

Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.

The second group embraces morphemes occupying a kind of intermediate position, morphemes that are changing their class membership.

The root-morphememan- found in numerous words likepostman['poustm?n],fisherman ['f???m?n],gentleman ['d??ntlm?n] in comparison with the same root used in the wordsman-made ['mжnme?d] and man-servant ['mжn?s?:v?nt] is, as is well-known, pronounced, differently, the [ж] of the root-morpheme becomes [?] and sometimes disappears altogether. The phonetic reduction of the root vowel is obviously due to the decreasing semantic value of the morpheme and some linguists argue that in words likecabman, gentleman, chairman it is now felt as denoting an agent rather than a male adult, becoming synonymous with the agent suffix-er. However, we still recognize the identity of [m?n] inpostman, cabman and [mжn] inman-made, man-servant. Abrasion has not yet completely disassociated the two, and we can hardly regard [m?n] as having completely lost the status of a root-morpheme. Besides it is impossible to say she is an Englishman (or a gentleman) and the lexical opposition of man and woman is still felt in most of these compounds (cf. thoughMadam Chairman in cases when a woman chairs a sitting and evenall women are tradesmen). It follows from all this that the morpheme -man as the last component may be qualified as semi-free.

Questions:

What are the two bases for morpheme classification?

Give classification of morphemes according to semantic basis.

Give classification of morphemes according to structural basis.

What is the relationship between the two classifications?

What are the two special groups of morphemes and how should they be treated?

Morphemic and Derivational Analyses

I.V. Arnold, The English Word, §5.2. Aims and Principles of Morphemic and Word-Formation Analysis, §5.3. Analysis into Immediate Constituents [pp. 81-87]

A synchronic description of the English vocabulary deals with its present-day system and its patterns of word-formation by comparing words simultaneously existing in it.

If the analysis is limited to stating the number and type of morphemes that make up the word, it is referred to as morphemic. For instance, the word girlishness may be analysed into three morphemes: the root -girl- and two suffixes -ish and -ness. The morphemic classification of words is as follows: one root morpheme -- a root word (girl), one root morpheme plus one or more affixes -- a derived word (girlish, girlishness), two or more stems -- a compound word (girl-friend), two or more stems and a common affix -- a compound derivative (old-maidish). The morphemic analysis establishes only the ultimate constituents that make up the word.

A structural word-formation analysis proceeds further: it studies the structural correlation with other words, the structural patterns or rules on which words are built.

This is done with the help of the principle of oppositions, i.e. by studying the partly similar elements, the difference between which is functionally relevant; in our case this difference is sufficient to create a new word. Girl and girlish are members of a morphemic opposition. They are similar as the root morpheme -girl- is the same. Their distinctive feature is the suffix -ish. Due to this suffix the second member of the opposition is a different word belonging to a different part of speech. This binary opposition comprises two elements.

A correlation is a set of binary oppositions. It is composed of two subsets formed by the first and the second elements of each couple, i.e. opposition. Each element of the first set is coupled with exactly one element of the second set and vice versa. Each second element may be derived from the corresponding first element by a general rule valid for all members of the relation. Observing the proportional opposition:

it is possible to conclude that there is in English a type of derived adjectives consisting of a noun stem and the suffix -ish. Observation also shows that the stems are mostly those of animate nouns, and permits us to define the relationship between the structural pattern of the word and its meaning. Any one word built according to this pattern contains a semantic component common to the whole group, namely: 'typical of, or having the bad qualities of'. There are also some other uses of the adjective forming -ish, but they do not concern us here.

In the above example the results of morphemic analysis and the structural word-formation analysis practically coincide. There are other cases, however, where they are of necessity separated. The morphemic analysis is, for instance, insufficient in showing the difference between the structure of inconvenience v and impatience n; it classifies both as derivatives. From the point of view of word-formation pattern, however, they are fundamentally different. It is only the second that is formed by derivation. Compare:

The correlation that can be established for the verb inconvenience is different, namely:

Here nouns denoting some feeling or state are correlated with verbs causing this feeling or state, there being no difference in stems between the members of each separate opposition. Whether different pairs in the correlation are structured similarly or differently is irrelevant. Some of them are simple root words, others are derivatives or compounds. In terms of word-formation we state that the verb inconvenience when compared with the noun inconvenience shows relationships characteristic of the process of conversion. Cf. to position where the suffix -tion does not classify this word as an abstract noun but shows it is derived from one.

This approach also affords a possibility to distinguish between compound words formed by composition and those formed by other processes. The words honeymoon n and honeymoon v are both compounds, containing two free stems, yet the first is formed by composition: honey n + moon n > honeymoon n, and the second by conversion: honeymoon n> honeymoon v. The treatment remains synchronic because it is not the origin of the word that is established but its present correlations in the vocabulary and the patterns productive in present-day English, although sometimes it is difficult to say which is the derived form.

The analysis into immediate constituents described below permits us to obtain the morphemic structure and provides the basis for further word-formation analysis.

A synchronic morphological analysis is most effectively accomplished by the procedure known as the analysis into immediate constituents (IC's). Immediate constituents are any of the two meaningful parts forming a larger linguistic unity. First suggested by L. Bloomfield it was later developed by many linguists. The main opposition dealt with is the opposition of stem and affix. It is a kind of segmentation revealing not the history of the word but its motivation, i.e. the data the listener has to go by in understanding it. It goes without saying that unmotivated words and words with faded motivation have to be remembered and understood as separate signs, not as combinations of other signs.

The method is based on the fact that a word characterized by morphological divisibility (analysable into morphemes) is involved in certain structural correlations. This means that, as Z. Harris puts it, "the morpheme boundaries in an utterance are determined not on the basis of considerations interior to the utterance but on the basis of comparison with other utterances. The comparisons are controlled, i.e. we do not merely scan various random utterances but seek utterances which differ from our original one only in stated portions. The final test is in utterances which are only minimally different from ours”.

A sample analysis which has become almost classical, being repeated many times by many authors, is L. Bloomfield's analysis of the word ungentlemanly. As the word is convenient we take the same example. Comparing this word with other utterances the listener recognizes the morpheme -un- as a negative prefix because he has often come across words built on the pattern un- + adjective stem: uncertain, unconscious, uneasy, unfortunate, unmistakable, unnatural. Some of the cases resembled the word even more closely; these were: unearthly, unsightly, untimely, unwomanly and the like. One can also come across the adjective gentlemanly. Thus, at the first cut we obtain the following immediate constituents: un- + gentlemanly. If we continue our analysis, we see that although gent occurs as a free form in low colloquial usage, no such word as lemanly may be found either as a free or as a bound constituent, so this time we have to separate the final morpheme. We are justified in so doing as there are many adjectives following the pattern noun stem + -ly, such as womanly, masterly, scholarly, soldierly with the same semantic relationship of 'having the quality of the person denoted by the stem'; we also have come across the noun gentleman in other utterances. The two first stages of analysis resulted in separating a free and a bound form: 1) un- + gentlemanly, 2) gentleman + -ly. The third cut has its peculiarities. The division into gent- + -leman is obviously impossible as no such patterns exist in English, so the cut is gentle- + -man. A similar pattern is observed in nobleman, and so we state adjective stem+ man.Now, the element man may be differently classified as a semi-affix or as a variant of the free form man. The word gentle is open to discussion. It is obviously divisible from the etymological viewpoint: gentle< (O)Fr gentil < Lat gentilis permits to discern the root or rather the radical element gent- and the suffix -il. But since we are only concerned with synchronic analysis this division is not relevant.

If, however, we compare the adjective gentle with such adjectives as brittle, fertile, fickle, juvenile, little, noble, subtle and some more containing the suffix-le/-ile added to a bound stem, they form a pattern for our case. The bound stem that remains is present in the following group: gentle, gently, gentleness, genteel, gentile, gentry, etc.

One might observe that our procedure of looking for similar utterances has shown that the English vocabulary contains the vulgar word gent that has been mentioned above, meaning 'a person pretending to the status of a gentleman'or simply'man', but then there is no such structure as noun stem + -/e, so the word gent should be interpreted as a shortening of gentleman and a homonym of the bound stem in question.

To sum up: as we break the word we obtain at any level only two IC's, one of which is the stem of the given word. All the time the analysis is based on the patterns characteristic of the English vocabulary. As a pattern showing the interdependence of all the constituents segregated at various stages we obtain the following formula:

un-+ {[(gent- + -le) + -man] + -ly}

Breaking a word into its immediate constituents we observe in each cut the structural order of the constituents (which may differ from their actual sequence). Furthermore we shall obtain only two constituents at each cut, the ultimate constituents, however, can be arranged according to their sequence in the word:

un-+gent-+-le+-man+-ly.

We can repeat the analysis on the word-formation level showing not only the morphemic constituents of the word but also the structural pattern on which it is built, this may be carried out in terms of proportional oppositions. The main requirements are essentially the same: the analysis must reveal patterns observed in other words of the same language, the stems obtained after the affix is taken away should correspond to a separate word, the segregation of the derivational affix is based on proportional oppositions of words having the same affix with the same lexical and lexico-grammatical meaning. Ungentlemanly, then, is opposed not to ungentleman (such a word does not exist), but to gentlemanly. Other pairs similarly connected are correlated with this opposition. Examples are:

This correlation reveals the pattern un- + adjective stem. The word-formation type is defined as affixational derivation. The sense of un- as used in this pattern is either simply 'not', or more commonly 'the reverse of', with the implication of blame or praise, in the case of ungentlemanly it is blame.

The next step is similar, only this time it is the suffix that is taken away:

The series shows that these adjectives are derived according to the pattern noun stem + -ly. The common meaning of the numerator term is 'characteristic of' (a gentleman, a woman, a scholar).

The analysis into immediate constituents as suggested in American linguistics has been further developed in the above treatment by combining a purely formal procedure with semantic analysis of the pattern. A semantic check means, for instance, that we can distinguish the type gentlemanly from the type monthly, although both follow the same structural pattern noun stem + -ly. The semantic relationship is different, as -ly is qualitative in the first case and frequentative in the second, i.e. monthly means 'occurring every month'.

This point is confirmed by the following correlations: any adjective built on the pattern personal noun stem+-ly is equivalent to 'characteristic of' or 'having the quality of the person denoted by the stem'.

gentlemanly>having the qualities of a gentleman

masterly>having the qualities of a master

soldierly > having the qualities of a soldier

womanly> having the qualities of a woman

Monthly does not fit into this series, so we write:

monthly- having the qualities of a month

On the other hand, adjectives of this group, i.e. words built on the pattern stem of a noun denoting a period of time + -ly are all equivalent to the formula 'occurring every period of time denoted by the stem':

monthly> occurring every month

hourly> occurring every hour

yearly > occurring every year

Gentlemanly does not show this sort of equivalence, the transform is obviously impossible, so we write:

gentlemanly - occurring every gentleman

The above procedure is an elementary case of the transformational analysis, in which the semantic similarity or difference of words is revealed by the possibility or impossibility of transforming them according to a prescribed model and following certain rules into a different form, called their transform. The conditions of equivalence between the original form and the transform are formulated in advance. In our case the conditions to be fulfilled are the sameness of meaning and of the kernel morpheme.

E.Nida discusses another complicated case: untruly adj might, it seems, be divided both ways, the IC's being either un-+truly or untrue+-ly. Yet observing other utterances we notice that the prefix un- is but rarely combined with adverb stems and very freely with adjective stems; examples have already been given above. So we are justified in thinking that the IC's are untrue+-ly. Other examples of the same pattern are: uncommonly, unlikely.

There are, of course, cases, especially among borrowed words, that defy analysis altogether; such are, for instance, calendar, nasturtium or chrysanthemum.

The analysis of other words may remain open or unresolved. Some linguists, for example, hold the view that words like pocket cannot be subjected to morphological analysis. Their argument is that though we are justified in singling out the element -et, because the correlation may be considered regular (hog : : hogget, lock : : locket), the meaning of the suffix being in both cases distinctly diminutive, the remaining part pock- cannot be regarded as a stem as it does not occur anywhere else. Others, like Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky, think that the stem is morphologically divisible if at least one of its elements can be shown to belong to a regular correlation. Controversial issues of this nature do not invalidate the principles of analysis into immediate constituents. The second point of view seems more convincing. To illustrate it, let us take the word hamlet 'a small village'. No words with this stem occur in present-day English, but it is clearly divisible diachronically, as it is derived from OFr hamelet of Germanic origin, a diminutive of hamel, and a cognate of the English noun home. We must not forget that hundreds of English place names end in -ham, like Shoreham, Wyndham, etc. Nevertheless, making a mixture of historical and structural approach will never do. If we keep to the second, and look for recurring identities according to structural procedures, we shall find the words booklet, cloudlet, flatlet, leaflet, ringlet, townlet, etc. In all these -let is a clearly diminutive suffix which does not contradict the meaning of hamlet. A.I. Smirnitsky's approach is, therefore, supported by the evidence afforded by the language material, and also permits us to keep within strictly synchronic limits.

Now we can make one more conclusion, namely, that in lexicological analysis words may be grouped not only according to their root morphemes but according to affixes as well.

The whole procedure of the analysis into immediate constituents is reduced to the recognition and classification of same and different morphemes and same and different word patterns. This is precisely why it permits the tracing and understanding of the vocabulary system.

Questions:

What is morphemic analysis? What classes of words does it distinguish?

Give example of structural word-formation analysis.

Give example when the results of morphemic and structural word-formation analysis differ.

Give example of analysis into intermediate constituents.

Give example of transformational analysis.

Give example of words that are hard or controversial to analyse.

Productive Ways of Word-Building. Affixation. Synonymity, homonymity and polysemy of affixes

R.S. Ginzburg, A Course in Modern English Lexicology, Affixation [pp. 114-125]

Affixation is generally defined asthe 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, etc., e.g.atomical, hastily, devotional, etc.

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 according to the last stage of derivation, which determines the nature of the ICs of the pattern that signals the relationship of the derived word with its motivatingsource unit, cf.unjust (un-+just),justify, (just+-ify), arrangement (arrange + -ment), non-smoker (non- + smoker). Words likereappearance, unreasonable, denationalize, are often 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 either suffixal or prefixal derivatives, e.g.sub-atomic = sub- + (atom+ -ic),unreasonable = un- + (reason + -able),denationalize = de- + (national + -ize),discouragement = (dis- + courage) + -ment.

A careful study of a great many suffixal and prefixal derivatives has revealed an essential difference between them. In Modern English suffixation is mostly characteristic of noun and adjective formation, while prefixation is mostly typical of verb formation. The distinction also rests on the role different types of meaning play in the semantic structure of the suffix and the prefix. The part-of-speech meaning has a much greater significance in suffixes as compared to prefixes which possess it in a lesser degree. Due to it a prefix may be confined to one part of speech as, e.g., enslave, encage, unbutton or may function in more than one partof speech as, e.g.,over- inoverkind a,to overfeed v,overestimation n; unlike prefixes, suffixes as a rule function in any one part-of speech often forming a derived stem of a different part of speech as compared with that of the base, e.g.careless a--cf.care n;suitable a--cf.suit v, etc. Furthermore, it is necessary to point out thata suffix closely knit together with a base forms a fusion retaining less of its independence than a prefix which is as a general rule more independent semantically, cf.reading--'the act of one who reads'; 'ability to read'; andtore-read--'to read again.'

Prefixation is the formation of words with the help of prefixes. Theinterpretation of the terms prefix and prefixation now firmly rooted in linguistic literature has undergone a certain evolution. For instance, some time ago there were linguists who treated prefixation as part of word-composition (or compounding). The greater semantic independence of prefixes as compared with suffixes led the linguists to identify prefixes with the first component part of a compound word.

At present the majority of scholars treat prefixation as an integral part of word-derivation regarding prefixes as derivational affixes which differ essentially both from root-morphemes and non-derivational prepositive morphemes. Opinion sometimes differs concerning the interpretation of the functional status of certain individual groups of morphemes which commonly occur as first component parts of words. H. Marchand, for instance, analyses words liketo overdo, to underestimate as compound verbs, the first components of which are locative particles, not prefixes. In a similar way he interprets words likeincome, onlooker, outhousequalifying them as compounds with locative particles as first elements.

There are about 51 prefixes in the system of Modern English word-formation.

According to the available word-counts of prefixal derivatives the greatest number are verbs--42.4%, adjectives comprise 33,5% and nouns make up 22.4%. To give some examples,

prefixal verbs: to enrich, to co-exist, to disagree, to undergo, etc.;

prefixal adjectives: anti-war, biannual, uneasy, super-human, etc.;

prefixal nouns: ex-champion, co-author, disharmony, subcommittee,etc.

It is of interest to mention that the number of prefixal derivatives within a certain part of speech is in inverse proportion to the actual number of prefixes: 22 form verbs, 41 prefixes make adjectives and 42-- nouns.

Proceeding from the three types of morphemes that the structural classification involves two types of prefixes are to be distinguished:

1) those not correlated with any independent word (either notional or functional), e.g.un-, dis-, re-, pre-, post-, etc.; and

2) those correlated with functional words (prepositions or preposition-like adverbs), e.g.out-, over-, up-, under-, etc.

Prefixes of the second type are qualified as semi-bound morphemes, which implies that they occur in speech in various utterances both as independent words and as derivational affixes, e.g.'overone's head','over the river' (cf. tooverlap,to overpass);'to run out', 'to take smb out' (cf. to outgrow, to outline);'to look up','hands up' (cf. upstairs, toupset);'under the same roof', 'to go under' (cf. to underestimate, undercurrent), etc.

It should be mentioned that English prefixes of the second type essentially differ from the functional words they are correlated with:

a) like any other derivational affixes they have a more generalized meaning in comparison with the more concrete meanings of the correlated words (see the examples given above); they are characterized by a unity of different denotational components of meaning--a generalized component common to a set of prefixes and individual semantic component distinguishing the given prefix within the set.

b) they are deprived of all grammatical features peculiar to the independent words they are correlated with;

c) they tend to develop a meaning not found in the correlated words;

d) they form regular sets of words of the same semantic type.

Of late some new investigations into the problem of prefixation in English have yielded 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 with regard to the English language. In English there are about 25 prefixes which can transfer words to a different part of speech in comparison with their original stems. Such prefixes should perhaps be called convertive prefixes, e.g.to begulf (cf. gulf n),to debus (cf. bus n);to embronze(cf. bronze n), etc. If further investigation of English prefixation gives more proofs of the convertive ability of prefixes, it will then be possible to draw the conclusion that in this respect there is no functionaldifference between suffixes and prefixes, for suffixes in English are also both convertive (cf.hand--handless) and non-convertive (cf.father--fatherhood, horseman--horsemanship, etc.).

Some recent investigations in the field of English affixation have revealed a close interdependence between the meanings of a polysemantic affix and the lexico-semantic group to which belongs the base it is affixed to, which results in the difference between structural and structural- semantic derivational patterns the prefix forms. A good illustration in point is the prefixen-.

When within the same structural patternen-+n> V, the prefixis combined with noun bases denoting articles of clothing, things of luxury, etc. it forms derived verbs expressing an action of putting or placingon, e.g.enrobe (cf. robe),enjewel.(cf. jewel),enlace (cf. lace), etc.

When added to noun bases referring to various land forms, meansoftransportation, containers and notions of geometry it builds derived verbs denoting an action of putting or placing in or into, e.g.embed(cf. bed),entrap (cf. trap),embark (cf. bark),entrain (cf. train),encircle (cf. circle), etc.

In combination with noun bases denoting an agent or an abstract notion the prefixen- produces causative verbs, e.g.enslave (cf. slave),endanger (cf. danger),encourage (cf. courage), etc.

Unlike suffixation, which is usually moreclosely bound up with the paradigm of acertain part of speech, prefixation is considered to be more neutral in this respect. It is significant that in linguistic literature derivational suffixes are always divided into noun-forming, adjective-forming, etc. Prefixes, however, are treated differently. They are described either in alphabetical order or subdivided into several classes in accordance with their origin, meaning or function and never according to the part of speech.

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 ofwords they preferably form. Recent investigations, as has been mentioned above, 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.).

The majority of prefixes (in their various denotational meanings) tend to function either in nominal parts of speech (41 patterns in adjectives, 42 in nouns) or in verbs (22 patterns);

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 of interest to note that the most productive prefixal pattern for adjectives is the one made up of the prefixun- and the base built either on adjectival stems or present and past participle, e.g.unknown, unsmiling, unseen, 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:un1-, non-, in-, dis-, a-, e.g.ungrateful(cf. grateful),unemployment (cf. employment),non-politician (cf. politician),non-scientific (cf. scientific),incorrect (cf. correct),disloyal (cf. loyal),disadvantage (cf. advantage),amoral (cf. moral),asymmetry (cf. symmetry), etc.

It may be mentioned in passing that the prefixin- occurs in different phonetic shapes depending on the initial sound of the base it is affixed to; in other words, the prefixal morpheme in question has several allomorphs, namelyil- (before [1]),im- (before [p, m],)ir- (before [r]), in- in all other cases, e.g.illegal, improbable, immaterial, irreligious, inactive, etc.;

b) reversative or privative prefixes, such asun2-, de-, dis2-, e.g. untie (cf. tie),unleash (cf. leash),decentralize (cf. centralize),disconnect(cf. connect), etc.;

c) pejorative prefixes, such asmis-, mal-, pseudo-, e.g.miscalculate(cf. calculate),misinform (cf. inform),maltreat (cf. treat),pseudo-classicism (cf. classicism),pseudo-scientific (cf. scientific), etc.;

d) prefixes of time and order, such asfore-, pre-, post-, ex-, e.g.foretell (cf. tell),foreknowledge (cf. knowledge),pre-war (cf.war),post-war(cf. war),post-classical (cf.classical),ex-president (cf.president);

e) prefix of repetitionre-, e.g.rebuild (cf, build),re-write (cf. write), etc.;

f) locative prefixes, such assuper-, sub-, inter-, trans-, e.g.superstructure (cf. structure),subway (cf. way),inter-continental (cf. continental),trans-atlantic (cf. atlantic), etc. and some other groups;

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 un1-, un2-, out-, over-, re-, under- and some others can be qualified as neutral prefixes, e.g.,unnatural, unknown, unlace, outnumber, oversee, resell, underestimate, etc. On the other hand, one can hardly fail to perceive the literary-bookish character of such prefixes aspseudo-, super-, ultra-, uni-, bi- and some others, e.g.pseudo-classical, superstructure, ultraviolet, 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 prefixover- occurs in all functional styles, the prefixsuper- is peculiar to the style of scientific prose.

6) prefixes may be also classified as to the degree of productivity into highly-productive, productive and non-productive.

Suffixation is the formation of words with the help of suffixes. Suffixes usually modify the lexical meaning ofthe 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 suffixof this kind usually transfers a word into a different semantic group, e.g. a concrete noun becomes an abstract one, as is the case withchild--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); -ically = -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 likefascination, translation, adaptation and the like.Adaptation looks at first sight like a parallel tofascination, translation. The latter however are first-degree derivatives built with the suffix-ion on the basesfascinate-, translate-. But there is no base adaptate-, only the shorter baseadapt-. Likewisedamnation, condemnation, formation, information and many others are not matched by shorter bases ending in -ate, but only by still shorter onesdamn-, 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 baseadapt-.

Of interest is also the group-suffix -manship consisting of the suffixes -manand -ship. It denotes a superior quality, ability of doing something to perfection, e.g.authormanship, quotemanship, lipmanship, etc. (cf.statesmanship, orchairmanship built by adding the suffix -ship to the compound basestatesman- andchairman- respectively).

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 noun-forming 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 (cf.actor),sculptress (cf. sculpter),tigress (cf. 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 (cf. courage), stability (cf. stable),investigation (cf. investigate),peculiarity (cf. 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 [b] and [1], e.g.possible--possibility, changeable--changeability, etc. Some suffixes attract the primary stress on to themselves, there is a secondary stress on the first syllable in words with such suffixes, e.g. ?employ'ee (cf. em'ploy),?govern'mental (cf. govern),pictu'resque (cf. picture).

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 lexico-grammatical 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, squireling, wolfling, 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-oid, -i/form, -aceous, -tron, etc.

Suffixes with neutral stylistic reference may occur in words of different lexico-stylistic layers e.g.agreeable, cf.steerable (steerable spaceship); dancer, cf.transmitter, squealer; meeting, cf.monitoring (the monitoring of digestive processes in the body), etc. 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.

As is known, language is never stable: sounds, constructions, grammatical elements, word-forms and word-meanings are all exposed to alteration. Derivational affixes are no exception in this respect, they also undergo semantic change. Consequently many commonly used derivational affixes are polysemantic in Modern English. The following two may well serve as illustrations. The noun-suffix-eris used to coin words denoting 1) persons following some special trade or profession, e.g.baker, driver, hunter, etc.; 2) persons doing a certain action at the moment in question, e.g.packer, chooser, giver, etc.; 3) a device, tool, implement, e.g.blotter, atomizer, boiler, eraser, transmitter, trailer, etc.

The adjective-suffix -y also has several meanings, such as 1) composed of, full of, e.g.bony, stony; 2) characterized by, e.g.rainy, cloudy; 3) having the character of, resembling what the base denotes, e.g.inky, bushy.

The various changes that the English language has undergone in the course of time have led to chance coincidence in form of two or more derivational affixes. Asa consequence, and this is characteristic of Modern English, many homonymic derivational affixes can be found among those forming both different parts of speech and different semantic groupings within the same part of speech. For instance, the adverb-suffix -lyadded to adjectival bases is homonymous to the adjective-suffix -lyaffixed to noun-bases, cf.quickly, slowly andlovely, friendly; the verb-suffix -en attached to noun- and adjectival bases is homonymous to the adjective-suffix -en tacked on to noun-bases, cf.to strengthen, to softenandwooden, golden; the verb-prefix -un1 added to noun- and verb-basesis homonymous to the adjective-prefix -un2 affixed to adjectival bases, cf. tounbind, to unshoe and unfair, untrue, etc.

On the other hand, there are two homonymous adjective-suffixes -ish1 and -ish2 occurring in words like bluish, greenish, and girlish, boyish. In some books on English Lexicology the suffix -ish in these two groups of words is regarded as one suffix having two different meanings. If we probe deeper into the matter, however, we shall inevitably arrive at the conclusion that we are dealing with two different homonymous suffixes: one in bluish, the other in girlish. The reasons are as follows: the suffix -ish1 in bluish, reddish, etc. only modifies the lexical meaning of the adjective-base it is affixed to without changing the part of speech. The suffix -ish2 in bookish, girlish, womanish, etc. is added to a noun-base to form an adjective. Besides, the suffixes -ish1 and -ish2 differ considerably in the denotational meaning so that no semantic connection may be traced between them: the suffix -ish1 means 'somewhat like' corresponding to the Russian suffix -оват- in stich adjectives asголубоватый, красноватый, etc.; the suffix -ish2 means 'of the nature of, resembling', often derogatory in force, e. g. childish --ребяческий, несерьезный(cf. childlike --детский, простой, невинный; hoggish --свинский, жадный, etc.)

In the course of its long history the Englishlanguage has adopted a great many words from foreign languages all over the world. One of the consequences of extensive borrowing was the appearance of numerous derivational affixes in the English language. Under certain circumstances some of them came to overlap semantically to a certain extent both with one another and with the native affixes. For instance, the suffix -er of native origin denoting the agent is synonymous to the suffix -ist of Greek origin which came into the English language through Latin in the 16th century. Both suffixes occur in nouns denoting the agent, e.g. teacher, driller; journalist, botanist, economist, etc. Being synonymous these suffixes naturally differ from each other in some respects. Unlike the suffix -er, the suffix -ist is:

1) mostly combined with noun-bases, e.g. violinist, receptionist,etc.;

2) as a rule, added to bases of non-Germanic origin and very seldom to bases of Germanic origin, e.g. walkist,rightist;

3) used to form nouns denoting those who adhere to a doctrine or system, a political party, an ideology or the like, e.g. communist, Leninist, Marxist, chartist, Darwinist, etc. Words in-ist denoting the upholder of a principle are usually matched by an abstract noun in -ism denoting 'the respective theory' (e.g. Communism, Socialism, etc.).

Sometimes synonymous suffixes differ in emotive charge. For instance, the suffix -eer also denoting the agent is characterized, in particular, by its derogative force, e.g. sonneteer --стихоплет, profiteer -- спекулянт, etc.

There is also a considerable number of synonymous prefixes in the English language. Recent research has revealed certain rules concerning correlation between words with synonymous prefixes of native and foreign origin. It appears, for instance, that in prefixal-suffixal derivatives the general tendency is to use a prefix of Romanic origin if the suffix is also of Romanic origin and a native prefix in the case of a native suffix, cf.unrecognized--irrecognizable; unlimited--illimitable; unformed--informal; undecided--indecisive, etc. Though adequately reflecting the general tendency observed in similar cases this rule has many exceptions. The basic exception is the suffix -able which may often occur together with the native prefixun-, e.g.unbearable, unfavourable, unreasonable, etc. In fact, the pattern un-+(v+-able)>A is wide-spread and productive in Modern English.

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 indead, seed, -le, -l, -elinbundle, sail, hovel; -ock inhillock; -lock inwedlock; -t inflight, 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 indarkness, freedom, childhood, marriage, assistance, etc. or the adjective-forming suffixes -en, -ous, -ive, -ful, -y as inwooden, 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 dependson the structural, lexico-grammatical andsemantic 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 its productivity, whereas verb-stems and adverb-stems do not,e.g.criticize (cf. critic), organize (cf.organ), itemize (cf.item), mobilize (cf.mobile), localize (cf.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, cf. tocharacterize--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 be used in Modern English for the coining of new words is rather vague and may be 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 (cf.famous, depth, to foresee).

If one accepts the other concept of productivity mentioned above, then non-productive 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 degree of productivity of a suffix or, to be more exact, of a derivational affix in general may be established on a statistical basis as the ratio of the number of newly-formed words with the given suffix to the number of words with the same suffix already operating in the language. To give an illustration, we shall take the suffix -ize. The dictionaries of new words compiled by P. Berg (1953) and M. Reifer (1958) as well as the Addenda section of Webster s New International Dictionary (1958) contain 40 new verbs built up with the help of the suffix -ize. On the other hand, The Thorndike Century Junior Dictionary (1941) has 127 verbs derived by means of the same suffix. Consequently, the productivity measure of the suffix -ize is 40 : 127=0.315. A similar examination of the verb-suffixes -ate, -en, -ify yields the following results characterizing the productivity measure of each of the verbs: the suffix -ate--0.034, the suffix -en--0.018 and the suffix -ify--0.017. Thus, these figures lead one to the conclusion that the suffix -ize is the most productive of the four under investigation and that the suffix -ate is more productive than -en and -ify.

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 (cf. 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), dereserve (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 tocoin 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 asalkalinity, luminosity, emissivity and some others.

Questions:

What is affixation and degrees of derivation?

What is the difference between suffixation and prefixation?

What are the two types of prefixation?

What is the difference between prefixes of the second type and functional words?

What is the correlation between meanings of polysemantic affixes and lexico-semantic group of the base word?

What are the bases for classification of prefixes?

What are compound and coalescent suffixes?


Подобные документы

  • The concept of semasiology as a scientific discipline areas "Linguistics", its main objects of study. Identify the relationship sense with the sound forms, a concept referent, lexical meaning and the morphological structure of synonyms in English.

    реферат [22,2 K], добавлен 03.01.2011

  • The structure of words and word-building. The semantic structure of words, synonyms, antonyms, homonyms. Word combinations and phraseology in modern English and Ukrainian languages. The Native Element, Borrowed Words, characteristics of the vocabulary.

    курс лекций [95,2 K], добавлен 05.12.2010

  • A word-group as the largest two-facet lexical unit. The aptness of a word, its lexical and grammatical valency. The lexical valency of correlated words in different languages. Morphological motivation as a relationship between morphemic structure.

    контрольная работа [17,4 K], добавлен 09.11.2010

  • Essence of the lexicology and its units. Semantic changes and structure of a word. Essence of the homonyms and its criteria at the synchronic analysis. Synonymy and antonymy. Phraseological units: definition and classification. Ways of forming words.

    курс лекций [24,3 K], добавлен 09.11.2008

  • The general outline of word formation in English: information about word formation as a means of the language development - appearance of a great number of new words, the growth of the vocabulary. The blending as a type of modern English word formation.

    курсовая работа [54,6 K], добавлен 18.04.2014

  • The connection of lexicology with other branches of linguistics. Modern Methods of Vocabulary Investigation. General characteristics of English vocabulary. The basic word-stock. Influence of Russian on the English vocabulary. Etymological doublets.

    курс лекций [44,9 K], добавлен 15.02.2013

  • Background of borrowed words in the English language and their translation. The problems of adoptions in the lexical system and the contribution of individual linguistic cultures for its formation. Barbarism, foreignisms, neologisms and archaic words.

    дипломная работа [76,9 K], добавлен 12.03.2012

  • The morphological structure of a word. Morphemes. Types of morphemes. Allomorphs. Structural types of words. Principles of morphemic analysis. Derivational level of analysis. Stems. Types of stems. Derivational types of words.

    реферат [11,3 K], добавлен 11.01.2004

  • Specific features of English, Uzbek and German compounds. The criteria of compounds. Inseparability of compound words. Motivation in compound words. Classification of compound words based on correlation. Distributional formulas of subordinative compounds.

    дипломная работа [59,2 K], добавлен 21.07.2009

  • How important is vocabulary. How are words selected. Conveying the meaning. Presenting vocabulary. How to illustrate meaning. Decision - making tasks. Teaching word formation and word combination. Teaching lexical chunks. Teaching phrasal verbs.

    дипломная работа [2,4 M], добавлен 05.06.2010

Работы в архивах красиво оформлены согласно требованиям ВУЗов и содержат рисунки, диаграммы, формулы и т.д.
PPT, PPTX и PDF-файлы представлены только в архивах.
Рекомендуем скачать работу.