ВУЗ: Не указан
Категория: Не указан
Дисциплина: Не указана
Добавлен: 06.04.2021
Просмотров: 4706
Скачиваний: 79
is homonymous to the adjective-prefix
-un
2
affixed to adjectival
bases,
cf.
to unbind, to unshoe
and
unfair, untrue,
etc.
On the other hand, there are two homonymous adjective-suffixes
-ish
1
and
-ish
2
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
-
ish,
in
bluish, reddish,
etc. only modifies the lexical meaning of the ad-
jective-base it is affixed to without changing the part of speech. The suf-
fix
-ish
2
in
bookish, girlish, womanish,
etc. is added to a noun-base to
form an adjective. Besides, the suffixes
-ish
1
and
-ish
2
differ considerably
in the denotational meaning so that no semantic connection may be traced
between them: the suffix
-ish
1
means 'somewhat like' corresponding to the
Russian suffix
-оват-
in such adjectives as
голубоватый, красноватый,
etc.; the suffix
-ish
2
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 English
language 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 oc-
cur in nouns denoting the agent, e.g.
teacher, driller; journalist, bota-
nist, 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 sys-
tem, 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 characterised, in particular, by its
derogative force, e.g.
sonneteer
—
стихоплет,
profiteer —
спекулянт,
etc.
There is also a considerable number of synonymous prefixes in the Eng-
lish language. Recent research has revealed certain rules concerning corre-
lation between words w i t h synonymous prefixes of native and
§ 12. Synonymy
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.
unrecognised — irrecognisable; unlimited — illimitable; unformed — in-
formal; 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 prefix
un-,
e.g.
unbearable, unfavourable, unreasonable,
etc. In fact, the pattern
un- +(v
+
-able) ->
A is wide-spread and produc-
tive in Modern English.
Distinction is usually made between d e a d
and l i v i n g a f f i x e s . Dead affixes are
described as those which are no longer felt in Modern English as compo-
nent parts of words; they have so fused with the base of the word as to
lose their independence completely. It is only by special etymological
analysis that they may be singled out, e.g.
-d
in
dead, seed, -le, -1, -el
in
bundle, sail, hovel; -ock
in
hillock; -lock
in
wedlock; -t
in
flight, gift,
height.
It is quite clear that dead suffixes are irrelevant to present-day
English word-formation, they belong in its diachronic study.
Living affixes may be easily singled out from a word, e.g. the noun-
forming suffixes
-ness, -dom, -hood, -age, -ance,
as in
darkness, free-
dom, childhood, marriage, assistance,
etc. or the adjective-forming suf-
fixes
-en, -ous, -ive, -ful, -y
as in
wooden, poisonous, active, hopeful,
Stony,
etc.
However, not all living derivational affixes of Modern English possess
the ability to coin new words. Some of them may be employed to coin
new words on the spur of the moment, others cannot, so that they are dif-
ferent 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.
1
Following the first approach all living affixes should be considered
productive in varying degrees from highly-productive (e.g.
-er, -ish, -less,
re-,
etc.) to non-productive (e.g.
-ard, -cy
,
-ive,
etc.).
Consequently it becomes important to describe the constraints imposed
on and the factors favouring the productivity of affixational patterns and
individual affixes. The degree of productivity of affixational patterns very
much depends on the structural, lexico-grammatical and semantic nature
of bases and the meaning of the affix. For instance, the analysis of the
bases from which the suffix -
ise
(
-ize
) can derive verbs reveals that it is
most productive with noun-stems, adjective-stems also favour its produc-
tivity, whereas verb-stems and adverb-stems do not, e.g.
criticise (cf.
critic), organise (cf. organ), itemise (cf. item), mobilise (cf. mobile),
localise (cf. local),
etc. Comparison of the semantic structure of a verb in
-
ise (-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
1
See ‘Word-Formation’, § 4, p. 112.
123
§ 13. Productivity
meaning
favours
the
productivity of the suffix
-ise (-ize)
to a greater de-
gree than its marginal meanings, cf.
to characterise — character, to
moralise — moral, to dramatise — drama,
etc.
The
treatment of pertain affixes as non-productive naturally also de-
pends on the concept of productivity. The current definition of n o n -
p r o d u c t i v e 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-
produсti
v
e 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 deriva-
tional 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
–ise (-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) con-
tain 40 new verbs built up with the help of the suffix
–ise (-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
–ise (-ize)
is 40: 127=0.315. A similar examination
of the verb-suffixes
-ate, -en
,
-ify
yields the following results characteris-
ing 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
–ise (-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 cor-
roborated 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 be-
cause thai 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),
decasualise
(dock labour),
decentralise
(gov-
ernment or management),
deration
(eggs and butter),
de-reserve
(medi-
cal students),
desegregate
(coloured, children), and so on.
Furthermore, there are cases when a derivational affix being nonpro-
ductive in the non-specialised section of the vocabulary is used to
24
coin scientific or technical terms. This is the case, for instance, with the
suffix
-ance
which has been used to form some terms in Electrical Engi-
neering, e.g.
capacitance, impedance, reactance.
The same is true of the
suffix
-ity
which has been used to form terms in physics and chemistry
such as
alkalinity, luminosity, emissivity
and some others.-
While examining the stock of derivational
affixes in Modern English from the point of
view of their origin distinction should first of all be made between n a -
t i v e and f o r e i g n a f f i x e s , e.g. the suffixes
-ness, -ish, -dom
and the prefixes
be-, mis-, un-
are of native origin, whereas such suffixes
as
-ation, -ment, -able
and prefixes like
dis-, ex-, re-
are of foreign ori-
gin.
Many of the suffices and prefixes of native origin were originally inde-
pendent words. In the course of time they have gradually lost their inde-
pendence and turned into derivational affixes. For instance, such noun-
suffixes as
-dom, -hood, -ship
may be traced back to words:
-dom
repre-
sents the Old English noun
dom
which meant ‘judgement’; ’sentence’.
The suffix
-hood
goes back to the
OE,
noun
had,
which meant ’state’,
‘condition’; the adjective suffix
-ly
(e.g.
manly, friendly)
is also traced
back to the
OE.
noun
līc
— ‘body’, ’shape’. Some suffixes are known to
have originated as a result of secretion. An instance of the case is the suf-
f i x
-ling
occurring in words like
duckling, yearling, hireling,
etc. The
suffix is simply the extended form of the Old English suffix
-ing
and has
sprung from words in which
-ing
was tacked on to a stem ending in [1] as
lỹtling.
Many suffixes, however, have always been known as derivational
affixes within the history of the English language, for instance
-ish, -less-,
-ness,
etc.
The same is true of prefixes: some have developed out of independent
words, e.g.
out-, under-, over-,
ethers have always functioned as deriva-
tional affixes, e.g.
mis-, un-
.
In the course of its historical development the English language has
adopted a great many suffixes and prefixes from foreign languages. This
process does not consist in borrowing derivational affixes as such. It is
words that the language borrows from a foreign language and the bor-
rowed words bring with them their derivatives formed after word-building
patterns of this language. When such pairs of words as
derive
and
deriva-
tion, esteem
and
estimation, laud
and
laudation
found their way into the
English vocabulary, it was natural that the suffix
-ation
should be recog-
nised by English speakers as an allowable means of forming nouns of ac-
tion out of verbs. In this way a great many suffixes and prefixes of foreign
origin have become an integral part of the system of word-formation in
English. Among borrowed derivational affixes we find both suffixes, e.g.
-
able, -ible, -al, -age, -ance, -ist, -ism, -ess,
etc., and prefixes, e.g.
dis-,
en[em]-, inter-, re-, non-
and many others.
It is to be marked that quite a number of borrowed derivational affixes
are of international currency. For instance, the suffix
-ist
of Greek origin is
used in many European languages to form a noun denoting ‘one who ad-
heres to a given doctrine or system, a political party, an ideology’ or ‘one,
who makes a practice of a given action’ (cf.
socialist, communist,
125
§ 14. Origin
of Derivational Af-
Marxist; artist, scenarist, realist
and their Russian equivalents). Of in-
ternational currency is also the suffix
-ism
of Greek origin used to form
abstract nouns denoting ‘philosophical doctrines, political and ’scientific
theories,’ etc. (e.g.
materialism, realism, Darwinism).
Such prefixes as
anti-, pre-, extra-, ultra-
are also used to coin new words in many lan-
guages, especially in political and scientific terminology (e.g.
anti-fascist,
pro-German, extra-territorial, transatlantic, ultra-violet).
The adoption of countless foreign words exercised a great influence
upon the system of English word-formation, one of the result being the
appearance of many hybrid words in the English vocabulary. The term
h y b r i d w o r d s is, needless to say, of diachronic relevance only.
Here distinction should be made between two basic groups:
1)
Cases when a foreign stem is combined with a native affix, as in
colourless, uncertain.
After complete adoption the foreign stem is subject
to the same treatment as native stems and new words are derived from it at
a very early stage. For instance, such suffixes as
-ful, -less, -ness
were
used with French words as early as 1300;
2)
Cases when native stems are combined with foreign affixes, such as
drinkable, joyous, shepherdess.
Here the assimilation of a structural pat-
tern is involved, therefore some time must pass before a foreign affix
comes to be recognised by speakers as a derivational morpheme that can
be tacked on to native words. Therefore such formations are found much
later than those of the first type and are less numerous. The early assimila-
tion of
-able
is an exception. Some foreign affixes, as
-ance,
-al,
-ity,
have
never become productive with native stems.
Reinterpretation of borrowed words gave rise to affixes which may not
have been regarded as such in the source language. For instance,
-scape
occurring in such words as
seascape, cloudscape, mountainscape,
moonscape,
etc. resulted from
landscape
of Dutch origin. The suffix
-
ade
developed from
lemonade
of French origin, giving rise to
fruitade,
orangeade, gingerade, pineappleade, etc.; the
noun
electron
of Greek
origin contributed the suffix
-tron
very widely used in coining scientific
and technical terms, e.g.
cyclotron, magnetron, synchrophasotron, thy-
ratron,
etc.
1.
Affixation (prefixation and suffixation) is
the formation of words by adding deriva-
tional affixes (prefixes and suffixes) to bases.
One distinguishes between derived words of different degrees of deriva-
tion.
2.
There are quite a number of polysemantic, homonymous and syn-
onymous derivational affixes in Modern English.
3.
Classifications of derivational affixes are based on different princi-
ples such as: 1) the part of speech formed, 2) the lexico-grammatical char-
acter of the stem the affix is added to, 3) its meaning, 4) its stylistic refer-
ence, 5) the degree of productivity, 6) the origin of the affix (native or bor-
rowed),
1
etc.
1
Lists of all derivational affixes of Modern English containing detailed information
of the kind necessary for the practical analysis just referred to may be found in various
handbooks and manuals such as
L. Bankevich.
English Word-Buiding. L., 1961;
126
§ 15. Summary
and Conclusions