ВУЗ: Не указан
Категория: Не указан
Дисциплина: Не указана
Добавлен: 06.04.2021
Просмотров: 4704
Скачиваний: 79
10.
Derivational affixes form derived stems by repatterning deriva-
tional bases. Semantically derivational affixes present a unity of lexical
meaning and other types of meaning: functional, distributional and differ-
ential unlike non-derivational affixes which lack lexical meaning.
11.
Derivational patterns (DP) are meaningful arrangements of various
types of ICs that can be observed in a set of words based on their mutual
interdependence. DPs can be viewed in terms of collocability of each IC.
There are two types of DPs — structural that specify base classes and in-
dividual affixes, and structural-semantic that specify semantic peculiarities
of bases and the individual meaning of the affix. DPs of different levels of
generalisation signal: 1) the class of source unit that motivates the deriva-
tive and the direction of motivation between different classes of words; 2)
the part of speech of the derivative; 3) the lexical sets and semantic fea-
tures of derivatives.
V. Word-Formation
VARIOUS WAYS OF FORMING WORDS
The available linguistic literature on the sub-
ject cites various types and ways of forming
words. Earlier books, articles and monographs on word-formation and vo-
cabulary growth in general both in the Russian language and in foreign
languages, in the English language in particular, used to mention morpho-
logical, syntactic and lexico-semantic types of word-formation. At present
the classifications of the types of word-formation do not, as a rule, include
lexico-semantic word-building. Of interest is the classification of word-
formation means based on the number of motivating bases which many
scholars follow. A distinction is made between two large classes of word-
building means:
To Class I belong the means of building words having one motivating
base. To give an English example, the noun
catcher
is composed of the
base
catch-
and the suffix -er, through the combination of which it is mor-
phologically and semantically motivated.
1
Class II includes the means of building words containing more than “
one motivating base. Needless to say, they are all based on compounding
(cf. the English compounds
country-club, door-handle, bottle-opener,
etc., all having two bases through which they are motivated).
Most linguists in special chapters and manuals devoted to English
word-formation consider as the chief processes of English word-formation
affixation, conversion and compounding.
Apart from these a number of minor ways of forming words such as
back-formation, sound interchange, distinctive stress, sound imitation,
blending, clipping and acronymy are traditionally referred to Word-
Formation.
Another classification of the types of word-formation worked out by H.
Marchand is also of interest. Proceeding from the distinction between full
linguistic signs and pseudo signs
2
he considers two major groups: 1) words
formed as grammatical syntagmas, i.e. combinations of full linguistic signs
which are characterised by morphological motivation such as
do-er, un-do,
rain-bow;
and 2) words which are not grammatical syntagmas, i.e. which
are not made up of full linguistic signs. To the ‘ first group belong Com-
pounding, Suffixation, Prefixation, Derivation by a Zero Morpheme
3
and
Back-Derivation, to the second — Expressive Symbolism, Blending, Clip-
ping, Rime and Ablaut Gemination,* Word-Manufacturing.
5
It is character-
istic of both groups that a new coining is based on a synchronic relationship
between morphemes.
1
See ‘Semasiology’, §§ 17, 22, pp. 25-30.
2
See also ‘Word-Structure’, § 3, p. 92.
3
Another term for “conversion."
4
These are based on the principle of coming words in phonetically variated rhythmic
twin forms, e. g. bibble-babble, shilly shally, boogie-woogie, claptrap, etc.
5
This is the coining of artificial new words by welding more or less arbitrary parts of
given words into a unit, e. g.
Pluto
(‘pipeline under the ocean’),
Cominch
(‘Commander- in-
chief), etc.
108
§ 1. Various Types and Ways of
Forming Words
In the present book we proceed from the u n-
der st a ndi ng of W or d-F or ma t i on and
the classification of word-formation types as
found in A. I. Smirnitsky’s book on English
Lexicology.
W o r d - F o r m a t i o n is the system of derivative types of words
and the process of creating new words from the material available in the
language after certain structural and semantic formulas and patterns. For
instance, the noun
driver
is formed after the pattern
v+-er,
i.e. a verbal
stem +-the noun-forming suffix -er. The meaning of the derived noun
driver
is related to the meaning of the stem
drive- ‘
to direct the course of
a vehicle’ and the suffix
-er
meaning ‘an active agent’: a
driver
is ‘one
who drives’ (a carriage, motorcar, railway engine, etc.). Likewise com-
pounds resulting from two or more stems joined together to form a new
word are also built on quite definite structural and semantic patterns and
formulas, for instance adjectives of the
snow-white
type are built accord-
ing to the formula
п+а,
etc. It can easily be observed that the meaning of
the whole compound is also related to the meanings of the component
parts. The structural patterns with the semantic relations they signal give
rise to regular new creations of derivatives, e.g.
sleeper, giver, smiler or
soat-blасk, tax-free,
etc.
In conformity with structural types of words described above
1
the fol-
lowing two types of word-formation may be distinguished, word-
derivation and word-composition (or compounding). Words created by
word-derivation have in terms of word-formation analysis only one deri-
vational base and one derivational affix, e.g. cleanness (from
clean), to
overestimate
(from
to estimate), chairmanship
(from
chairman), openhand-
edness
(from
openhanded),
etc. Some derived words have no derivational
affixes, because derivation is achieved through conversion
2
, e.g.
to paper
(from
paper),
a
fall
(from
to fall),
etc. Words created by word-
composition have at least two bases, e.g.
lamp-shade, ice-cold, looking-
glass,” daydream, hotbed, speedometer,
etc.
Within the types, further distinction may be made between the ways of
forming words. The basic ways of forming words i n w o r d -
d e r i v a t i о n , for instance, are a f f i x a t i o n and c o n v e r -
s i o n . It should be noted that the understanding of word-formation as
expounded here excludes semantic word-building as well as shortening,
sound- and stress-interchange which traditionally are referred, as has been
mentioned above, to minor ways of word-formation. By semantic word-
building some linguists understand any change in word-meaning, e.g.
stock
— ‘the lower part of the trunk of a tree’; ’something lifeless or stu-
pid’; ‘the part of an instrument that serves as a base’, etc.;
bench — ‘
a
long seat of wood or stone’; ‘a carpenter’s table’, etc. The majority of lin-
guists, however, understand this process only as a change in the meaning
3
of a word that may result in the appearance of homonyms, as is the
1
See ‘Word-Structure’, § 11, p. 103.
2
See ‘Conversion’, § 16,'p. 127, see also ‘Word-Structure’, § 7, p. 96.
3
See also ‘Semasiology’, § 22, p. 30; §§ 25, 26, 39, pp. 34-47.
109
§ 2. Word-
Formation.
Definition.
Basic Peculiarities
case with
flower
— ‘a blossom’ and
flour
— ‘the fine meal’, ‘powder
made from wheat and used for making bread’; magazine — ‘a publica-
tion’ and
magazine
— ‘the chamber for cartridges in a gun or rifle’, etc.
The application of the term w o r d - f o r m a t i o n to the process of
semantic change and to the appearance of homonyms due to the devel-
opment of polysemy seems to be debatable for the following reasons:
As semantic change does not, as a rule, lead to the introduction of a
new word into the vocabulary, it can scarcely be regarded as a wordbuild-
ing means. Neither can we consider the process a word-building means
even when an actual enlargement of the vocabulary does come about
through the appearance of a pair of homonyms. Actually, the appearance
of homonyms is not a means of creating new words, but it is the final re-
sult of a long and labourious process of sense-development. Furthermore,
there are no patterns after which homonyms can be made in the language.
Finally, diverging sense-development results in a semantic isolation of
two or more meanings of a word, whereas the process of word-formation
proper is characterised by a certain semantic connection between the new
word and the source lexical unit. For these reasons diverging sense-
development leading to the appearance of two or more homonyms should
be regarded as a specific channel through which the vocabulary of a lan-
guage is replenished with new words and should not be treated on a par
with the processes of word-formation, such as affixation, conversion and
composition.
The shortening of words also stands apart from the above two-fold di-
vision of word-formation. It cannot be regarded as part of either word-
derivation or word-composition for the simple reason that neither the
derivational base nor the derivational affix can be singled out from the
shortened word (e. g.
lab, exam, Euratom, V-day,
etc.).
Nor are there any derivational patterns new shortened words could be
farmed on by the speaker. Consequently, the shortening of words should
not be regarded as a way of word-formation on a par with derivation and
compounding.
For the same reasons, such ways of coining words as acronymy, blend-
ing, lexicalisation and some others should not be treated as means of
word-formation. Strictly speaking they are all, together with word-
shortening, specific means of replenishing the vocabulary different in
principle from affixation, conversion and compounding.
What is said above is especially true of sound- and stress-interchange
(also referred to as distinctive stress). Both sound- and stress-interchange
may be regarded as ways of forming words only diachronically, because
in Modern English not a single word can be coined by changing the root-
vowel of a word or by shifting the place of the stress. Sound-interchange
as well as stress-interchange in fact has turned into a means of distin-
guishing primarily between words of different parts of speech and as
such is rather wide-spread in Modern English, e.g.
to sing — song, to
live — life, strong — strength,
etc. It also distinguishes between differ-
ent word-forms, e.g.
man
—
men, wife
—
wives, to know — knew, to
leave — left,
etc.
Sound-interchange falls into two groups: vowel-interchange and con-
sonant-interchange.
110
By means of vowel-interchange we distinguish different parts of
speech, e.g.
full — to fill, food — to feed, blood — to bleed,
etc.
In
some cases vowel-interchange is combined with affixation, e.g.
long —
length, strong — strength, broad — breadth,
etc. Intransitive verbs and
the corresponding transitive ones with a causative meaning also display
vowel-interchange, e. g.
to rise — to raise, to sit — to set, to lie — to
lay, to fall — to fell.
The type of consonant-interchange typical of Modern English is the in-
terchange of a voiceless fricative consonant in a noun and the correspond-
ing voiced consonant in the corresponding verb, e.g.
use
—
to use, mouth
— to mouth, house — to house, advice — to advise,
etc.
There are some particular cases of consonant-interchange: [k] —
[t∫]:
to speak
—
speech, to break — breach;
[s]
—
[d]:
defence — to de-
fend; offence — to offend; [
s]
— [
t]:
evidence — evident, importance —
important,
etc. Consonant-interchange may be combined with vowel-
interchange, e.g.
bath — to bathe, breath — to breathe, life — to live,
etc.
Many English verbs of Latin-French origin are distinguished from the
corresponding nouns by the position of stress. Here are some well-known
examples of such pairs of words: ´export
n
— to ex´port
v; ´
import
n
— to
im´port
v; ‘
conduct
n
— to con'duct
v; ‘
present
n —
to pre’sent
v;
´
contrast
n
— to con´trast
v; ´
increase
n
— to in´crease
v,
etc.
Stress-interchange is not restricted to pairs of words consisting of a
noun and a verb. It may also occur between other parts of speech, for in-
stance, between adjective and verb, e.g. ´
frequent
a
— to fre´quent
v;
´
absent a — to ab´sent
v,
etc.
W o r d - f o r m a t i o n is that branch of
Lexicology which studies the derivative
structure of existing words and the patterns on which a language, ‘in this
case the English language, builds new words. It is self-evident that word-
formation proper can deal only with words which are analysable both
structurally and semantically, i.e. with all types of Complexes.
1
The study
of the simple word as such has no place in it. Simple words however are
very closely connected with word-formation because they serve as the
foundation, the basic source of the parent units motivating all types of de-
rived and compound words. Therefore, words like
writer, displease,
atom-free,
etc. make the subject matter of study in word-formation, but
words like
to write, to please, atom, free
are not irrelevant to it.
Like any other linguistic phenomenon word-formation may be studied
from two angles — synchronically and diachronically. It is necessary to
distinguish between these two approaches, for synchronically the linguist
investigates the existing system of the types of word-formation while dia-
chronically he is concerned with the history of word-building. To illustrate
the difference of approach we shall consider affixation. Diachronically it
is the chronological order of formation of one word from some other word
that is relevant. On the synchronic plane a derived word is regarded as
having a more complex structure than its correlated word
1
See ‘Word-Structure’, § 12, p. 104.
111
§ 3. Word-Formation as
the Subject of Study