tie ( untie, centralize ( decentralize, connect ( disconnect, etc.);

(c) pejorative prefixes, such as mis–, mal–, pseudo– (e.g. calculate (

miscalculate, function ( malfunction, scientific ( pseudo-scientific,

etc.); (d) prefixes of time and order, such as fore–, pre–, post–, ex–

(e.g. see ( foresee, war ( pre-war, Soviet ( post-Soviet, wife ( ex-

wife, etc.); (e) prefix of repetition re– (e.g. do ( redo, type (

retype, etc.); (f) locative prefixes such as super–, sub–, inter–,

trans– (e.g. market ( supermarket, culture ( subculture, national (

international, Atlantic ( trans-Atlantic, etc.).

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 un–, out–, over–, re–, under–

and some others can be qualified as neutral (e. g. unnatural, unlace,

outgrow, override, redo, underestimate, etc.). On the other hand, one

can hardly fail to perceive the literary-bookish character of such

prefixes as pseudo–, super–, ultra–, uni–, bi– and some others (e. g.

pseudo-classical, superstructure, ultra-violence, 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 prefix over– occurs in all functional styles, the prefix super– 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 of the 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 suffix of this kind usually

transfers a word into a different semantic group, e. g. a concrete noun

becomes an abstract one, as is the case with child—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) –ical–ly = –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 like fascination, translation, adaptation and the like. Adaptation

looks at first sight like a parallel to fascination, translation. The

latter however are first-degree derivatives built with the suffix –ion on

the bases fascinate–, translate–. But there is no base adaptate–, only the

shorter base adapt–. Likewise damnation, condemnation, formation,

information and many others are not matched by shorter bases ending in

–ate, but only by still shorter ones damn–, 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 base

adapt–.

Of interest is also the group-suffix –manship consisting of the suffixes

–man and –ship. It denotes a superior quality, ability of doing something

to perfection, e. g. authormanship, quotemanship, lipmanship, etc.

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 (actor), sculptress

(sculptor), tigress (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 (courage),

stability (stable), investigation (investigate), peculiarity (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 [i] is inserted between [b] and [l], 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 (em'ploy), govern'mental

(govern), 'pictu'resque (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, squirreling, wolfing, 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 –old, –i/form,

–aceous, –tron, etc.

Suffixes with neutral stylistic reference may occur in words of

different lexico-stylistic layers. 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.

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 in dead, seed, –le, –l,

–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,

freedom, childhood, marriage, assistance, etc. or the adjective-forming

suffixes –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

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 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 –ize can derive verbs reveals that it

is most productive with noun-stems, adjective-stems also favour ifs

productivity, whereas verb-stems and adverb-stems do not, e. g. criticize

(critic), organize (organ), itemize (item), mobilize (mobile), localize

(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, e. g. to characterize — 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 hg used in Modern English for

the coining of new words is rather vague and maybe 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 (famous, depth, 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 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 (e. g. 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), de-reserve

(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 to

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

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 as alkalinity, luminosity, emissivity and some others.

Conversion, one of the principal ways of forming words in Modern English

is highly productive in replenishing the English word-stock with new

words. The term conversion, which some linguists find inadequate, refers

to the numerous cases of phonetic identity of word-forms, primarily the

so-called initial forms, of two words belonging to different parts of

speech. This may be illustrated by the following cases: work — to work;

love — to love; paper — to paper; brief — to brief, etc. As a rule we

deal with simple words, although there are a few exceptions, e.g.

wireless — to wireless.

It will be recalled that, although inflectional categories have been

greatly reduced in English in the last eight or nine centuries, there is

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5