ВУЗ: Не указан
Категория: Не указан
Дисциплина: Не указана
Добавлен: 06.04.2021
Просмотров: 4703
Скачиваний: 79
regardless of the fact whether it was derived from a simpler base or
a
more
complex base. There are cases in the history of the English language when
a word structurally more complex served as the original element from
which a simpler word was derived. Those are cases of the process called
back-formation (or back-derivation)
1
, cf.
beggar
—
to beg; editor — to
edit; chauffeur — to chauff
and some others. The fact that historically
the verbs
to beg, to edit,
etc. were derived from the corresponding agent-
nouns is of no synchronous relevance.
While analysing and describing word-formation synchronically it is
not enough to extract the relevant structural elements from a word, de-
scribe its structure in terms of derivational bases, derivational affixes and
the type of derivative patterns, it is absolutely necessary to determine the
position of these patterns and their constituents within the structural-
semantic system of the language as a whole. Productivity of a derivative
type therefore cannot be overlooked in this description.
Some of the ways of forming words in pre-
sent-day English can be resorted to for the
creation of new words whenever the occasion
demands — these are called p r о d u с t i v e ways of formi n g
w o r d s , other ways of forming words cannot now produce new words,
and these are commonly termed n o n - p r o d u c t i v e or unp r o -
d u c t i v e . For instance, affixation has been a productive way of form-
ing words ever since the Old English period; on the other hand, sound-
interchange must have been at one time a word-building means but in
Modern English, as has been mentioned above, its function is actually
only to distinguish between different classes and forms of words.
It follows that productivity of word-building ways, individual deriva-
tional patterns and derivational affixes is understood as their ability of
making new words which all who speak English find no difficulty in un-
derstanding, in particular their ability to create what are called о с-
c a s i o n a l w o r d s or nonce-wоrds.
2
The term suggests that a
speaker coins such words when he needs them; if on another occasion the
same word is needed again, he coins it afresh. Nonce-words are built from
familiar language material after familiar patterns.
3
Needless to say dic-
tionaries do not as a rule record occasional words. The following words
may serve as illustration: (his)
collarless
(appearance), a
lungful
(of
smoke), a
Dickensish
(office),
to unlearn
(the rules), etc.
The delimitation between productive and non-productive ways and
means of word-formation as stated above is not, however, accepted by all
linguists without reserve. Some linguists consider it necessary to define
the term productivity of a word-building means more accurately. They
hold the view that productive ways and means of word-formation are only
those that can be used for the formation of an unlimited number of new
words in the modern language, i.e. such means that “know no bounds"
1
See ‘Introduction’, § 2.
2
Prof. A. I. Smirnitsky calls them «потенциальные слова» (potential words) in us
book on English Lexicology (p. 18).
3
See” also ‘Various Aspects ...’, § 8, p. 184.
112
§ 4. Productivity
of Word-Formation
and easily form occasional words. This divergence of opinion is responsi-
ble for the difference in the lists of derivational affixes considered produc-
tive in various books on English Lexicology.
Recent investigations seem to prove however that productivity of deri-
vational means is relative in many respects. Moreover there are no abso-
lutely productive means; derivational patterns and derivational affixes
possess different degrees of productivity. Therefore it is important that
conditions favouring productivity and the degree of productivity of
a
par-
ticular pattern or affix should be established. All derivational patterns ex-
perience both structural and semantic constraints. The fewer are the con-
straints the higher is the degree of productivity, the greater is the number
of new words built on it. The two general constraints imposed on all deri-
vational patterns are — the part of speech in which the pattern functions
and the meaning attached to it which conveys the regular semantic corre-
lation between the two classes of words. It follows that each part of
speech is characterised by a set of productive derivational patterns pecu-
liar to it. Three degrees of productivity are distinguished for derivational
patterns
and
individual
derivational
affixes:
l )
h i g h l y -
p r o d u c t i v e , 2) p r o d u c t i v e or s e m i - p r o d u c t i v e
and 3) n o n - p r o d u c t i v e .
Productivity of derivational patterns and affixes should not be identi-
fied with frequency of occurrence in speech, although there may be some
interrelation between them. Frequency of occurrence is characterised by
the fact that a great number of words containing a given derivational af-
f i x are often used in speech, in particular in various texts. Productivity is
characterised by the ability of a given suffix to make new words.
In linguistic literature there is another interpretation of derivational
productivity based on a quantitative approach.
1
A derivational pattern or a
derivational affix are qualified as productive provided there are in the
word-stock dozens and hundreds of derived words built on the pattern or
with the help of the suffix in question. Thus interpreted, derivational pro-
ductivity is distinguished from word-formation activity by which is meant
the ability of an affix to produce new words, in particular occasional
words or nonce-words. To give a few illustrations. The agent suffix
-er
is
to be qualified both as a productive and as an active suffix: on the one
hand, the English word-stock possesses hundreds of nouns containing this
suffix (e.g.
driver, reaper, teacher, speaker,
etc.), on the other hand, the
suffix
-er
in the pattern
v+-er -> N
is freely used to coin an unlimited
number of nonce-words denoting active agents (e.g.,
interrupter, re-
specter, laugher, breakfaster,
etc.).
The adjective suffix
-ful
is described as a productive but not as an ac-
tive one, for there are hundreds of adjectives with this suffix (e.g.
beauti-
ful, hopeful, useful,
etc.), but no new words seem to be built with its
help.
For obvious reasons, the noun-suffix
-th
in terms of this approach is to
be regarded both as a non-productive and a non-active one.
1
See
E. С. Кубрякова.
Что такое словообразование. М., 1965, с. 21.
113
1. Word-formation is the process of creating
words from the material available in the lan-
guage after certain structural and semantic formulas and patterns.
2.
As a subject of study English word-formation is that branch of Eng-
lish Lexicology which studies the derivative structure of words and the
patterns on which the English language builds new words. Like any other
linguistic phenomenon, word-formation may be studied synchronically
and diachronically.
3.
There are two types of word-formation in Modern English: word-
derivation and word-composition. Within the types further distinction is
made between the various ways and means of word-formation.
4.
There is every reason to exclude the shortening of words, lexicalisa-
tion, blending, acronymy from the system of word-formation and regard
them and other word-forming processes as specific means of vocabulary
replenishment.
5.
Sound- and stress-interchange in Modern English are a means of
distinguishing between different words, primarily between words of dif-
ferent parts of speech.
6.
The degree of productivity and factors favouring it make an impor-
tant aspect of synchronic description of every derivational pattern within
the two types of word-formation.
Three degrees of productivity are distinguished for derivational pat-
terns
and
individual
derivational
affixes:
l )
h i g h l y -
p r o d u c t i v e ,
2)
p r o d u c t i v e
or
s e m i -
p r o d u c t i v e and 3) n о n - p r o d u с t i v e .
Affixation
A f f i x a t i o n is generally defined as
the formation of words by adding deriva-
tional affixes to different types of bases. De-
rived words formed by affixation may be the result of one or several ap-
plications 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 consecu-
tive 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. Distinc-
tion 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 moti-
vating source unit, cf.
unjust
(un-+
just),
justify,
(just+
114
§ 5. Summary
and Conclusions
§ 6. Definition. Degree
of Derivation. Prefixal
and Suffixal Derivatives
+ -ify
),
arrangement
(arrange
+
-ment), non-smoker (non-
+
smoker).
Words like
reappearance, unreasonable, denationalise,
are often quali-
fied as prefixal-suffixal derivatives. The reader should clearly realise 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 ei-
ther suffixal or prefixal derivatives, e.g.
sub-atomic
=
sub-
+
(atom +
+
-
ic),
unreasonable
=
un- +
(reason
+
-able),
denationalise
=
de-
+ +
(na-
tional
+
-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 suffixa-
tion is mostly characteristic of noun and adjective formation, while pre-
fixation 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.
1
The part-of-speech meaning has a much greater sig-
nificance 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 part of
speech as, e.g.,
over-
in
overkind
a,
to overfeed
v,
overestimation
n;
unlike prefixes, suffixes as a rule function in any o n e part of speech of-
ten 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 that a 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’; and
to re-read
— ‘to read
again.'
P r e f i x a t i o n is the formation of
words with the help of prefixes. The interpre-
tation 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.
2
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 in-
stance, analyses words like
to overdo, to underestimate
as compound
verbs, the first components of which are locative particles, not prefixes. In
a similar way he interprets words like
income, onlooker, outhouse
quali-
fying them as compounds with locative particles as first elements.
There are about 51 prefixes in the system of Modern English word-
formation.
1
See
‘
Word-Structure’, § 9, p. 100.
2
See, for instance,
E. Kruisinga.
A Handbook of Present-Day English, pt. I I , 1939.
115
§ 7. Prefixation. Some
Debatable Problems
According to the available word-counts of prefixal derivatives
l
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 coexist, 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 num-
ber of prefixes: 22 form verbs, 41 prefixes make adjectives and 42 —
nouns.
Proceeding from the three types of morphemes that the structural clas-
sification involves
2
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 s e m i b o u n d mor-
p h e m e s , which implies that they occur in speech in various utterances
both as independent words and as derivational affixes, e.g. ‘
over
one’s
head’, ‘
over
the river’ (cf. to
over
lap,
to
over
pass
); ‘to run
out
’, ‘to take
smb
out
’ (cf. to
out
grow,
to
out
line); ‘
to look
up
’, ‘hands
up
’ (cf.
up-
stairs,
to
up
set); ‘
under
the same roof, ‘to go
under
’ (cf. to
under
esti-
mate
,
under
current),
etc.
It should be mentioned that English prefixes of the second type essen-
tially differ from the functional words they are correlated with:
a)
like any other derivational affixes they have a more generalised
meaning in comparison with the more concrete meanings of the correlated
words (see the examples given above); they are characterised by a unity of
different denotational components of meaning — a generalised component
common to a set of prefixes and individual semantic component distin-
guishing the given prefix within the set.
b)
they are deprived of all grammatical features peculiar to the inde-
pendent 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 Eng-
lish 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 origi-
nal stems. Such prefixes should perhaps be called conversive 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
1
The figures are borrowed from:
К. В. Пиоттух.
Система префиксации в совре-
менном английском языке. Канд. дисс. М., 1971.
2
See ‘Word-Structure’, § 3, р. 92.
116