of this could be obtained from computer tapes of the Social Security

Administration; in 1957 they issued a pamphlet giving the number of Social

Security accounts associated with each of the 1500 most common family

names.

The third and final class of words consists of nonce words, those invented

to fill a specific need, and appearing only once (or perhaps only in the

work of the author favoring the word). Few philologists feel comfortable

about admitting these. Nonce words range from coinages by James Joyce and

Edgar Allan Poe (X-ing a Paragraph) to interjections in comic strips

(Agggh! Yowie!). Ross Eckler and Daria Abrossimova suggest that

misspellings in print should be included here also.

In the book “Beyond Language”, Dmitri Borgmann proposes that the

philologist be prepared to admit words that may never have appeared in

print. For example, Webster's Second lists eudaemony as well as the entry

"Eudaimonia, eudaimonism, eudaimonist, etc." From this he concludes that

EUDAIMONY must exist and should be admitted as a word. Similarly, he can

conceive of sentences containing the word GRACIOUSLY'S ("There are ten

graciously's in Anna Karenina") and SAN DIEGOS ("Consider the luster that

the San Diegos of our nation have brought to the US"). In short, he argues

that these words might plausibly be used in an English-language sentence,

but does not assert any actual usage. His criterion for the acceptance of a

word seems to be its philological uniqueness (EUDAIMONY is a short word

containing all five vowels and Y).

The available linguistic literature on the subject cites various types and

ways of forming words. Earlier books, articles and monographs on word-

formation and vocabulary growth in general used to mention morphological,

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 (e.g. the noun doer is composed of the base do- and the suffix -er),

which Class II includes the means of building words containing more than

one motivating base. They are all based on compounding (e.g. compounds

letter-opener, e-mail, looking-glass).

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, there is a number of minor ways of forming words such as

back-formation, sound interchange, distinctive stress, onomatopoeia,

blending, clipping, acronymy.

Some of the ways of forming words in present-day English can be restored to

for the creation of new words whenever the occasion demands – these are

called productive ways of forming words, other ways of forming words cannot

now produce new words, and these are commonly termed non-productive or

unproductive. R. S. Ginzburg gives the example of affixation having been a

productive way of forming new 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 we have 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 derivational

patterns and derivational affixes is understood as their ability of making

new words which all who speak English find no difficulty in understanding,

in particular their ability to create what are called occasional words or

nonce-words[20] (e.g. lungful (of smoke), Dickensish (office), collarless

(appearance)). 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. Dictionaries, as a rule, do not list occasional words.

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” and easily form occasional

words. This divergence of opinion is responsible for the difference in the

lists of derivational affixes considered productive in various books on

English lexicology.

Nevertheless, recent investigations seem to prove that productivity of

derivational means is relative in many respects. Moreover there are no

absolutely productive means; derivational patterns and derivational affixes

possess different degrees of productivity. Therefore it is important that

conditions favouring productivity and the degree if productivity of a

particular pattern or affix should be established. All derivational

patterns experience both structural and semantic constraints. The fewer are

the constraints, 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 derivational patterns are: the part of speech in which the pattern

functions and the meaning attached to it which conveys the regular semantic

correlation between the two classes of words. It follows that each part of

speech is characterized by a set of productive derivational patterns

peculiar to it. Three degrees of productivity are distinguished for

derivational patterns and individual derivational affixes: (1) highly

productive, (2) productive or semi-productive and (3) non-productive.

R. S. Ginzburg[21] says that productivity of derivational patterns and

affixes should not be identified with the frequency of occurrence in

speech, although there may be some interrelation between then. Frequency of

occurrence is characterized by the fact that a great number of words

containing a given derivational affix are often used in speech, in

particular in various texts. Productivity is characterized 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. 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

productivity 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. For instance, 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. writer, reaper, lover, runner, 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, respecter,

laugher, breakfaster, etc.).

The adjective suffix –ful is described as a productive but not as an active

one, for there are hundreds of adjectives with this suffix (e.g. beautiful,

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.

Now let us consider the basic ways of forming words in the English

language.

Affixation is generally defined as the 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 (e.g. atomical, hastily,

devotional, etc.), and so forth.

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 immediate constituents of the pattern that signals the relationship of

the derived word with its motivating source unit, e.g. unjust (un– + just),

justify (just + –ify), arrangement (arrange + –ment), non-smoker (non– +

smoker). Words like reappearance, unreasonable, denationalize, are often

qualified as prefixal-suffixal derivatives. R. S. Ginzburg[22] insists that

this classification 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, for example, enslave, encage, unbutton, or may function in more that

one part of speech as over– in overkind, overfeed, overestimation. 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 – care; suitable – suit, 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 that a prefix which is as

a general rule more independent semantically, e.g. reading – ‘the act of

one who reads’; ‘ability to read’; and to re-read – ‘to read again’.

Prefixation is the formation of words with the help of prefixes. The

interpretation 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[23], for instance,

analyses words like to overdo, to underestimate as compound verbs, the

first component of which are locative particles, not prefixes. In a similar

way he interprets words like income, onlooker, outhouse qualifying them as

compounds with locative particles as first elements.

R. S. Ginzburg[24] states there are about 51 prefixes in the system of

Modern English word-formation.

Unlike suffixation, which is usually more closely bound up with the

paradigm of a certain 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 and so on; prefixes, however, are treated differently. They are

described either in alphabetical order or sub-divided 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 of words they preferably form. Recent

investigations 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.).

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 interesting that the

most productive prefixal pattern for adjectives is the one made up of

the prefix un– and the base built either on adjectival stems or

present and past participle, e.g. unknown, unsmiling, untold, 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 un–, non–, in–, dis–, a–, im–/in–/ir– (e.g. employment (

unemployment, politician ( non-politician, correct ( incorrect,

advantage ( disadvantage, moral ( amoral, legal ( illegal, etc.); (b)

reversative of privative prefixes, such as un–, de–, dis–, dis– (e.g.

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5